Marsh has company

[bigdog]

I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
helped Trump win the election:

"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"

The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
you get as big a chuckle out of it as I did:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

[bpete1969]

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Resist Fascism by engaging in Fascism. The Democrat platform since 1932...

[bigdog]

Post by bpete1969

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Resist Fascism by engaging in Fascism. The Democrat platform since 1932...

I wouldn't go quite that far. There was a time when there were actually
reasonable adults in charge of the Democrat Party. Those days are long
gone.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by bpete1969

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Resist Fascism by engaging in Fascism. The Democrat platform since 1932...

I wouldn't go quite that far. There was a time when there were actually
reasonable adults in charge of the Democrat Party. Those days are long
gone.

Ludicrous. But the Democratic party was once very racist. Remember a guy
who fought them named Abe?

[claviger]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog

Post by bpete1969

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Resist Fascism by engaging in Fascism. The Democrat platform since 1932...

I wouldn't go quite that far. There was a time when there were actually
reasonable adults in charge of the Democrat Party. Those days are long
gone.

Ludicrous. But the Democratic party was once very racist. Remember a guy
who fought them named Abe?

He was racist too. One of the worst ever as a President.

[bigdog]

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog

Post by bpete1969

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Resist Fascism by engaging in Fascism. The Democrat platform since 1932...

I wouldn't go quite that far. There was a time when there were actually
reasonable adults in charge of the Democrat Party. Those days are long
gone.

Ludicrous. But the Democratic party was once very racist. Remember a guy
who fought them named Abe?

He was racist too. One of the worst ever as a President.

I don't think most Americans realize how many of our presidents were at
one time slave owners. Ironically, the last was Ulysses Grant. His wife
inherited a family farm in Missouri and the slaves became community
property. Also it is not widely known that Ben Franklin owned two slaves.
When Pennsylvania outlawed slavery, they grandfathered it so current slave
owners could keep their slaves but all offspring were born free and no new
slaves could be imported.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog

Post by bpete1969

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Resist Fascism by engaging in Fascism. The Democrat platform since 1932...

I wouldn't go quite that far. There was a time when there were actually
reasonable adults in charge of the Democrat Party. Those days are long
gone.

Ludicrous. But the Democratic party was once very racist. Remember a guy
who fought them named Abe?

He was racist too. One of the worst ever as a President.

I don't think most Americans realize how many of our presidents were at
one time slave owners. Ironically, the last was Ulysses Grant. His wife

True. Our founding fathers.
But do you claim that Lincoln had slaves?

Post by bigdog
inherited a family farm in Missouri and the slaves became community
property. Also it is not widely known that Ben Franklin owned two slaves.
When Pennsylvania outlawed slavery, they grandfathered it so current slave
owners could keep their slaves but all offspring were born free and no new
slaves could be imported.

I guess they call that a compromise.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog

Post by bpete1969

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Resist Fascism by engaging in Fascism. The Democrat platform since 1932...

I wouldn't go quite that far. There was a time when there were actually
reasonable adults in charge of the Democrat Party. Those days are long
gone.

Ludicrous. But the Democratic party was once very racist. Remember a guy
who fought them named Abe?

He was racist too. One of the worst ever as a President.

So you say the Emancipation Proclamation and fighting the Confederacy to
end slavery is Racist? Did Lincoln own any slaves?
WTF do you get this crap?

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.

Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.

So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.

Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.

Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong. The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[John McAdams]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.

It's worth noting that for several decades Democrats and liberals
pushed gerrymandering to create majority-minority districts. Districts
sure to be represented by a black (or a few cases, an Hispanic).

They finally figured out that this helps the Republicans, since when
you pile all the minorities in one district, you are likely to make
two, three or four districts Republican.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong. The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.

I'd say we *do* pretty much know there was no collusion. If there
were, there would be evidence, and it would have leaked.

I think holding out for evidence of collusion now is like holding out
for firm evidence of a JFK conspiracy to come out. The odds are
getting *really* long.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by John McAdams
I'd say we *do* pretty much know there was no collusion. If there
were, there would be evidence, and it would have leaked.

Yeah, like the Mueller investigation has been a den of leakers. Pfft! You
have no idea what Mueller has. Nobody does - and I'm sure that's what
scares the hell out of Trump. He's afraid he'll be asked questions where
the answer is already provably well known. I'm sure Trump's attorneys are
petrified of that, as well. Trump doesn't know what Mueller knows. If
nothing else, as Trey Gowdy once astutely pointed out, Trump certainly
ACTS guilty because of his extreme sensitivity to the investigation.
Innocent people don't act that way. "He's just a patsy!" :)

One good indication to me that the Mueller investigators are hardcore
NON-leakers is that when the news on the Paul Manfort story broke,
everybody was talking about how the investigators did a no-knock,
"break-in" of Manafort's residence. As it turned out, that was never true.
They actually DID knock. Yet, with all the outrage in the conservative
media about how outrageous, inappropriate, and over-the-top this was,
likening it to Nazi stormtroopers, Mueller's group never lifted a finger
to correct that narrative even though it was to their detriment that this
narrative lingered. Only until the documents became public in the normal
course of events did the media find out that the FBI did, in fact, knock.
They did not break-in. In fact, Manafort is on record for saying the FBI
was quite courteous.

A further indication of the extent of Mueller's non-leaking is that nearly
EVERYTHING he has done has been a surprise. The indictments seems to come
out of nowhere. The people of interest are usually a surprise.

So, you have no idea what he knows. Neither do I.

Those guilty of collusion (if any) are certainly not going to leak on
themselves. It's probably a very limited, inside group who are fiercely
loyal, people like Jarod Kushner and Don Jr. They're not going to leak.

Personally, I don't think they'll get anything definitive on Trump. I
think Trump would be too detached from such machinations. People do things
FOR him - he doesn't do anything HIMSELF. He'll probably have a plausible,
one-degree of separation. At worst, he probably knew of it and approved of
it, but that will be difficult to prove. If OTHERS are found to have
coordinated with a hostile nation, even if it can't be proved that it was
Trump directly, the investigation will have had value - because that has
to stop.

Even if it can be found that Trump was trying to obstruct the
investigation - not because of his fear of their finding collusion - but,
because of his insecurities that it will made known that Russia DID meddle
and that those involved with his campaign EMBRACED that meddling. That
would be quite Nixonian. After all, it wasn't Nixon who broke into the
Watergate Hotel.

Post by John McAdams
I think holding out for evidence of collusion now is like holding out
for firm evidence of a JFK conspiracy to come out. The odds are
getting *really* long.

But multiple investigations of the Kennedy assassination have already
occurred - and they all came to the same conclusion - that Lee Harvey
Oswald shot President Kennedy. So, yes, the odds are long on coming up
with some conspiracy that overturns all those investigations.

The one and only investigation on the Russian collusion issue hasn't
concluded yet.

Your above comment would be like saying, while the Warren Commission was
still in session, "They haven't proved Oswald guilty yet and they've been
going on for months. The odds are getting long." (and that wasn't even the
first investigation!)

You might say, "But they had indications that Oswald was guilty!"

Well, what has given rise to the Mueller investigation are indications
that the Russians had involvement with several people in the Trump
campaign orbit.

Trump's reticence to state the obvious - that Russia DID attempt to
interfere with the campaign to the detriment of Clinton and the benefit of
Trump - speaks volumes. If he actually didn't collude, he could easily
spin Russia's preference for him to his political benefit. That would be
easy to do. He could acknowledge the obvious (that Russia meddled),
denounce attempts of foreign nations (particularly hostile nations) to
influence U.S. elections, and say that Russia obviously recognized that
improved relations between the two countries would stand a better chance
with Trump instead of Clinton. And stop FAWNING over Putin!

But he can't bring himself to fully embrace the obvious and that is
because he is the biggest "snowflake" of them all - so thin-skinned, with
such a fragile ego, that he cannot even accept the POSSIBILITY that he may
have lost without the help of Russia. He impanels a committee to
investigate voter fraud that was quickly disbanded because there was
nothing to find yet will not direct the intelligence committee to get to
the bottom of foreign influence in our elections.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bigdog]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by John McAdams
I'd say we *do* pretty much know there was no collusion. If there
were, there would be evidence, and it would have leaked.

Yeah, like the Mueller investigation has been a den of leakers. Pfft! You
have no idea what Mueller has. Nobody does - and I'm sure that's what
scares the hell out of Trump. He's afraid he'll be asked questions where
the answer is already provably well known. I'm sure Trump's attorneys are
petrified of that, as well. Trump doesn't know what Mueller knows. If
nothing else, as Trey Gowdy once astutely pointed out, Trump certainly
ACTS guilty because of his extreme sensitivity to the investigation.
Innocent people don't act that way. "He's just a patsy!" :)
One good indication to me that the Mueller investigators are hardcore
NON-leakers is that when the news on the Paul Manfort story broke,
everybody was talking about how the investigators did a no-knock,
"break-in" of Manafort's residence. As it turned out, that was never true.
They actually DID knock. Yet, with all the outrage in the conservative
media about how outrageous, inappropriate, and over-the-top this was,
likening it to Nazi stormtroopers, Mueller's group never lifted a finger
to correct that narrative even though it was to their detriment that this
narrative lingered. Only until the documents became public in the normal
course of events did the media find out that the FBI did, in fact, knock.
They did not break-in. In fact, Manafort is on record for saying the FBI
was quite courteous.
A further indication of the extent of Mueller's non-leaking is that nearly
EVERYTHING he has done has been a surprise. The indictments seems to come
out of nowhere. The people of interest are usually a surprise.
So, you have no idea what he knows. Neither do I.
Those guilty of collusion (if any) are certainly not going to leak on
themselves. It's probably a very limited, inside group who are fiercely
loyal, people like Jarod Kushner and Don Jr. They're not going to leak.
Personally, I don't think they'll get anything definitive on Trump. I
think Trump would be too detached from such machinations. People do things
FOR him - he doesn't do anything HIMSELF. He'll probably have a plausible,
one-degree of separation. At worst, he probably knew of it and approved of
it, but that will be difficult to prove. If OTHERS are found to have
coordinated with a hostile nation, even if it can't be proved that it was
Trump directly, the investigation will have had value - because that has
to stop.
Even if it can be found that Trump was trying to obstruct the
investigation - not because of his fear of their finding collusion - but,
because of his insecurities that it will made known that Russia DID meddle
and that those involved with his campaign EMBRACED that meddling. That
would be quite Nixonian. After all, it wasn't Nixon who broke into the
Watergate Hotel.

Post by John McAdams
I think holding out for evidence of collusion now is like holding out
for firm evidence of a JFK conspiracy to come out. The odds are
getting *really* long.

But multiple investigations of the Kennedy assassination have already
occurred - and they all came to the same conclusion - that Lee Harvey
Oswald shot President Kennedy. So, yes, the odds are long on coming up
with some conspiracy that overturns all those investigations.
The one and only investigation on the Russian collusion issue hasn't
concluded yet.
Your above comment would be like saying, while the Warren Commission was
still in session, "They haven't proved Oswald guilty yet and they've been
going on for months. The odds are getting long." (and that wasn't even the
first investigation!)
You might say, "But they had indications that Oswald was guilty!"
Well, what has given rise to the Mueller investigation are indications
that the Russians had involvement with several people in the Trump
campaign orbit.
Trump's reticence to state the obvious - that Russia DID attempt to
interfere with the campaign to the detriment of Clinton and the benefit of
Trump - speaks volumes. If he actually didn't collude, he could easily
spin Russia's preference for him to his political benefit. That would be
easy to do. He could acknowledge the obvious (that Russia meddled),
denounce attempts of foreign nations (particularly hostile nations) to
influence U.S. elections, and say that Russia obviously recognized that
improved relations between the two countries would stand a better chance
with Trump instead of Clinton. And stop FAWNING over Putin!
But he can't bring himself to fully embrace the obvious and that is
because he is the biggest "snowflake" of them all - so thin-skinned, with
such a fragile ego, that he cannot even accept the POSSIBILITY that he may
have lost without the help of Russia. He impanels a committee to
investigate voter fraud that was quickly disbanded because there was
nothing to find yet will not direct the intelligence committee to get to
the bottom of foreign influence in our elections.

I would be willing to bet that Mueller isn't going to show his cards until
after the midterms. That way he can maintain the impression with the
public that there was collusion with the Russians by the Trump campaign.
It appears to me this is nothing more than a political witch hunt. It's an
investigation in search of a crime. So far the only Americans indicted
have been for crimes which had nothing to do with the 2016 campaign.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by John McAdams
I'd say we *do* pretty much know there was no collusion. If there
were, there would be evidence, and it would have leaked.

Yeah, like the Mueller investigation has been a den of leakers. Pfft! You
have no idea what Mueller has. Nobody does - and I'm sure that's what
scares the hell out of Trump. He's afraid he'll be asked questions where
the answer is already provably well known. I'm sure Trump's attorneys are
petrified of that, as well. Trump doesn't know what Mueller knows. If
nothing else, as Trey Gowdy once astutely pointed out, Trump certainly
ACTS guilty because of his extreme sensitivity to the investigation.
Innocent people don't act that way. "He's just a patsy!" :)
One good indication to me that the Mueller investigators are hardcore
NON-leakers is that when the news on the Paul Manfort story broke,
everybody was talking about how the investigators did a no-knock,
"break-in" of Manafort's residence. As it turned out, that was never true.
They actually DID knock. Yet, with all the outrage in the conservative
media about how outrageous, inappropriate, and over-the-top this was,
likening it to Nazi stormtroopers, Mueller's group never lifted a finger
to correct that narrative even though it was to their detriment that this
narrative lingered. Only until the documents became public in the normal
course of events did the media find out that the FBI did, in fact, knock.
They did not break-in. In fact, Manafort is on record for saying the FBI
was quite courteous.
A further indication of the extent of Mueller's non-leaking is that nearly
EVERYTHING he has done has been a surprise. The indictments seems to come
out of nowhere. The people of interest are usually a surprise.
So, you have no idea what he knows. Neither do I.
Those guilty of collusion (if any) are certainly not going to leak on
themselves. It's probably a very limited, inside group who are fiercely
loyal, people like Jarod Kushner and Don Jr. They're not going to leak.
Personally, I don't think they'll get anything definitive on Trump. I
think Trump would be too detached from such machinations. People do things
FOR him - he doesn't do anything HIMSELF. He'll probably have a plausible,
one-degree of separation. At worst, he probably knew of it and approved of
it, but that will be difficult to prove. If OTHERS are found to have
coordinated with a hostile nation, even if it can't be proved that it was
Trump directly, the investigation will have had value - because that has
to stop.
Even if it can be found that Trump was trying to obstruct the
investigation - not because of his fear of their finding collusion - but,
because of his insecurities that it will made known that Russia DID meddle
and that those involved with his campaign EMBRACED that meddling. That
would be quite Nixonian. After all, it wasn't Nixon who broke into the
Watergate Hotel.

Post by John McAdams
I think holding out for evidence of collusion now is like holding out
for firm evidence of a JFK conspiracy to come out. The odds are
getting *really* long.

But multiple investigations of the Kennedy assassination have already
occurred - and they all came to the same conclusion - that Lee Harvey
Oswald shot President Kennedy. So, yes, the odds are long on coming up
with some conspiracy that overturns all those investigations.
The one and only investigation on the Russian collusion issue hasn't
concluded yet.
Your above comment would be like saying, while the Warren Commission was
still in session, "They haven't proved Oswald guilty yet and they've been
going on for months. The odds are getting long." (and that wasn't even the
first investigation!)
You might say, "But they had indications that Oswald was guilty!"
Well, what has given rise to the Mueller investigation are indications
that the Russians had involvement with several people in the Trump
campaign orbit.
Trump's reticence to state the obvious - that Russia DID attempt to
interfere with the campaign to the detriment of Clinton and the benefit of
Trump - speaks volumes. If he actually didn't collude, he could easily
spin Russia's preference for him to his political benefit. That would be
easy to do. He could acknowledge the obvious (that Russia meddled),
denounce attempts of foreign nations (particularly hostile nations) to
influence U.S. elections, and say that Russia obviously recognized that
improved relations between the two countries would stand a better chance
with Trump instead of Clinton. And stop FAWNING over Putin!
But he can't bring himself to fully embrace the obvious and that is
because he is the biggest "snowflake" of them all - so thin-skinned, with
such a fragile ego, that he cannot even accept the POSSIBILITY that he may
have lost without the help of Russia. He impanels a committee to
investigate voter fraud that was quickly disbanded because there was
nothing to find yet will not direct the intelligence committee to get to
the bottom of foreign influence in our elections.

I would be willing to bet that Mueller isn't going to show his cards until

He's shown some of them already. He started with the small fish and is
working his way up yo the top. It takes time to process the information.
And people are starting to flip when they realize thatthey are facing 100
years in jail and Trump is not going to help them.

Post by bigdog
after the midterms. That way he can maintain the impression with the
public that there was collusion with the Russians by the Trump campaign.

Collusion is the wrong word. That is a Trump evasion. The word is TREASON.

Post by bigdog
It appears to me this is nothing more than a political witch hunt. It's an

So you believe everything that Trump says. How do you explain all the
indictments and guilty pleas? And they haven't even gotten up to Trump yet.
Maybe he'll only get probation.

Post by bigdog
investigation in search of a crime. So far the only Americans indicted
have been for crimes which had nothing to do with the 2016 campaign.

Wrong. The campaign manager and you say he had nothing to do with the
2016 campaign? You are in DENIAL. Just admit that Trump is a crook.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by John McAdams
I'd say we *do* pretty much know there was no collusion. If there
were, there would be evidence, and it would have leaked.

Yeah, like the Mueller investigation has been a den of leakers. Pfft! You
have no idea what Mueller has. Nobody does - and I'm sure that's what
scares the hell out of Trump. He's afraid he'll be asked questions where
the answer is already provably well known. I'm sure Trump's attorneys are
petrified of that, as well. Trump doesn't know what Mueller knows. If
nothing else, as Trey Gowdy once astutely pointed out, Trump certainly
ACTS guilty because of his extreme sensitivity to the investigation.
Innocent people don't act that way. "He's just a patsy!" :)
One good indication to me that the Mueller investigators are hardcore
NON-leakers is that when the news on the Paul Manfort story broke,
everybody was talking about how the investigators did a no-knock,
"break-in" of Manafort's residence. As it turned out, that was never true.
They actually DID knock. Yet, with all the outrage in the conservative
media about how outrageous, inappropriate, and over-the-top this was,
likening it to Nazi stormtroopers, Mueller's group never lifted a finger
to correct that narrative even though it was to their detriment that this
narrative lingered. Only until the documents became public in the normal
course of events did the media find out that the FBI did, in fact, knock.
They did not break-in. In fact, Manafort is on record for saying the FBI
was quite courteous.
A further indication of the extent of Mueller's non-leaking is that nearly
EVERYTHING he has done has been a surprise. The indictments seems to come
out of nowhere. The people of interest are usually a surprise.
So, you have no idea what he knows. Neither do I.
Those guilty of collusion (if any) are certainly not going to leak on
themselves. It's probably a very limited, inside group who are fiercely
loyal, people like Jarod Kushner and Don Jr. They're not going to leak.
Personally, I don't think they'll get anything definitive on Trump. I
think Trump would be too detached from such machinations. People do things
FOR him - he doesn't do anything HIMSELF. He'll probably have a plausible,
one-degree of separation. At worst, he probably knew of it and approved of
it, but that will be difficult to prove. If OTHERS are found to have
coordinated with a hostile nation, even if it can't be proved that it was
Trump directly, the investigation will have had value - because that has
to stop.
Even if it can be found that Trump was trying to obstruct the
investigation - not because of his fear of their finding collusion - but,
because of his insecurities that it will made known that Russia DID meddle
and that those involved with his campaign EMBRACED that meddling. That
would be quite Nixonian. After all, it wasn't Nixon who broke into the
Watergate Hotel.

Post by John McAdams
I think holding out for evidence of collusion now is like holding out
for firm evidence of a JFK conspiracy to come out. The odds are
getting *really* long.

But multiple investigations of the Kennedy assassination have already
occurred - and they all came to the same conclusion - that Lee Harvey
Oswald shot President Kennedy. So, yes, the odds are long on coming up
with some conspiracy that overturns all those investigations.
The one and only investigation on the Russian collusion issue hasn't
concluded yet.
Your above comment would be like saying, while the Warren Commission was
still in session, "They haven't proved Oswald guilty yet and they've been
going on for months. The odds are getting long." (and that wasn't even the
first investigation!)
You might say, "But they had indications that Oswald was guilty!"
Well, what has given rise to the Mueller investigation are indications
that the Russians had involvement with several people in the Trump
campaign orbit.
Trump's reticence to state the obvious - that Russia DID attempt to
interfere with the campaign to the detriment of Clinton and the benefit of
Trump - speaks volumes. If he actually didn't collude, he could easily
spin Russia's preference for him to his political benefit. That would be
easy to do. He could acknowledge the obvious (that Russia meddled),
denounce attempts of foreign nations (particularly hostile nations) to
influence U.S. elections, and say that Russia obviously recognized that
improved relations between the two countries would stand a better chance
with Trump instead of Clinton. And stop FAWNING over Putin!
But he can't bring himself to fully embrace the obvious and that is
because he is the biggest "snowflake" of them all - so thin-skinned, with
such a fragile ego, that he cannot even accept the POSSIBILITY that he may
have lost without the help of Russia. He impanels a committee to
investigate voter fraud that was quickly disbanded because there was
nothing to find yet will not direct the intelligence committee to get to
the bottom of foreign influence in our elections.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Why are you talking about Trump and Mueller? I thought the subject line
said it was supposed to be all about me. And then you didn't even mention
my name. How rude.

And you said I had company so I checked the camera for the entrance to my
building and I didn't see anybody. I don't expect them until tomorrow.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they???ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won???t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that???s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.

It's worth noting that for several decades Democrats and liberals
pushed gerrymandering to create majority-minority districts. Districts
sure to be represented by a black (or a few cases, an Hispanic).

Yes, and people have been stealing cars ever since they were invented.
Therefore it is OK for you to steal a car. That's your logic. As long as
someone else did it, it's OK for you to do it.

Post by John McAdams
They finally figured out that this helps the Republicans, since when
you pile all the minorities in one district, you are likely to make
two, three or four districts Republican.

DUH! Especially when the minorities vote Democrat 90% of the time.

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong. The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.

I'd say we *do* pretty much know there was no collusion. If there
were, there would be evidence, and it would have leaked.

Collusion is the wrong charge. That's a red herring. The charge is
TREASON. Acting as an agent for an enemy power.

Post by John McAdams
I think holding out for evidence of collusion now is like holding out
for firm evidence of a JFK conspiracy to come out. The odds are
getting *really* long.

You HOPE the charge is Collusion, because you KNOW that's the wrong
charge. How about J-walking?

Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[bigdog]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.

We've been trying to convince Marsh of that for months but it hasn't sunk
in. Gerrymandering can't possibly affect the outcome in a winner-take-all
state which all but two states are. It doesn't matter how the
congressional districts are drawn within the state, it isn't going to
affect the statewide total which is all that matters as far as the
electoral college is concerned.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.

Thank you.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.

So far, Mueller has only indicted Russian nationals for illegal campaign
practices and in both rounds of indictments it was stated that the
indictments do not indicate any American knowingly colluded with these
Russians. If he has evidence of Trump campaign officials engaging in
illegal electioneering, why hasn't he produced that?

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong.

We can say that so far, Mueller has produced none.

Post by d***@gmail.com
The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.

The longer it drags out, the more it looks like Mueller is fanning the
flames to influence the midterms. If he waits until after the midterms are
over and THEN announces he could find no evidence that anyone from the
Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, I think it will be pretty clear
what his real agenda was.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.

We've been trying to convince Marsh of that for months but it hasn't sunk
in. Gerrymandering can't possibly affect the outcome in a winner-take-all
state which all but two states are. It doesn't matter how the
congressional districts are drawn within the state, it isn't going to
affect the statewide total which is all that matters as far as the
electoral college is concerned.

Then how do you explain putting all the blacks into one district and all
the others are white?
How do you explain how Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million people
and lost in the elctoral college? And you don't even care if the
electoral college is corrupt. As long as your guy wins. If Obama wins
you say the electoral college is rigged. You don't care about the Truth,
only which side wins.
You aren't even aware of the court cases.
Or Maybe that's why you wanted ONLY Trump to pick the next Supreme Court
Justice.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.

Thank you.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.

So far, Mueller has only indicted Russian nationals for illegal campaign

So far, because he KNOWS he can't get them into court. But he can and
will get Americans into court. And they will flip on Trump. Bye Bye.
He thought The Don meant the Mafia Don.

Post by bigdog
practices and in both rounds of indictments it was stated that the
indictments do not indicate any American knowingly colluded with these
Russians. If he has evidence of Trump campaign officials engaging in
illegal electioneering, why hasn't he produced that?

AGain, no collusion, no collusion. Wrong charge. They committed Treason.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO

Those who claim that the charge is collusion are wrong.
The charge is TREASON.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
proof of collusion are also wrong.

Proof of Life for you is also wrong.

Post by bigdog
We can say that so far, Mueller has produced none.

Except indictments and guilty pleas. But none of them were for collusion.
What is the code number for collusion?

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.

The longer it drags out, the more it looks like Mueller is fanning the
flames to influence the midterms. If he waits until after the midterms are
over and THEN announces he could find no evidence that anyone from the
Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, I think it will be pretty clear
what his real agenda was.

You mean the way Comey fanned the flames to help Trump get elected?

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.

We've been trying to convince Marsh of that for months but it hasn't sunk
in. Gerrymandering can't possibly affect the outcome in a winner-take-all
state which all but two states are. It doesn't matter how the
congressional districts are drawn within the state, it isn't going to
affect the statewide total which is all that matters as far as the
electoral college is concerned.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.

Thank you.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.

So far, Mueller has only indicted Russian nationals for illegal campaign
practices and in both rounds of indictments it was stated that the
indictments do not indicate any American knowingly colluded with these
Russians. If he has evidence of Trump campaign officials engaging in
illegal electioneering, why hasn't he produced that?

What baloney! Such disinformation! Among the indicted are these
Americans: Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos.
Odd you would leave out all 4 of them. And as to the 'collusion', that
sort of thing where the president and his family may be involved, is held
until the end and then reported out altogether. And I'm sure there will
be plenty of charges to deal with.

If you need 'collusion' to keep you going, then consider that Trump
Jr. and Manafort and others sat with Russians who wanted to give over
'dirt' on Clinton. They went happily thinking they were going to get an
earful. And it doesn't matter if they did or did not get the 'dirt',
because the attempt was enough to make them guilty of collusion with
Russians to alter the election.

And that's only the public knowledge of FEC crimes. There are also
crimes against the constitution and they have all been made known by suits
against Trump. Naturally he doesn't talk about them. There are known
crimes involving the emoluments clause, the hiring of relatives to work
directly under the president, and others.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong.

We can say that so far, Mueller has produced none.

There is proof mentioned above, and they usually hold much of the
crimes until the end of the special counsel.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.

The longer it drags out, the more it looks like Mueller is fanning the
flames to influence the midterms. If he waits until after the midterms are
over and THEN announces he could find no evidence that anyone from the
Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, I think it will be pretty clear
what his real agenda was.

His real agenda was laid out when he got his orders, and he's pursuing
those orders.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.

We've been trying to convince Marsh of that for months but it hasn't sunk
in. Gerrymandering can't possibly affect the outcome in a winner-take-all
state which all but two states are. It doesn't matter how the
congressional districts are drawn within the state, it isn't going to
affect the statewide total which is all that matters as far as the
electoral college is concerned.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.

Thank you.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.

So far, Mueller has only indicted Russian nationals for illegal campaign
practices and in both rounds of indictments it was stated that the
indictments do not indicate any American knowingly colluded with these
Russians. If he has evidence of Trump campaign officials engaging in
illegal electioneering, why hasn't he produced that?

What baloney! Such disinformation! Among the indicted are these
Americans: Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos.
Odd you would leave out all 4 of them.

You're getting to be as bad as Marsh making knee jerk responses without
ever comprehending what was actually written. I'll type it slower this
time so hopefully you can follow along. The four people you named WERE NOT
INDICTED FOR COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIANS. THEY WERE INDICTED FOR ALLEGED
CRIMES COMMITTED EITHER PRIOR TO TRUMP BECOMING A CANDIDATE OR AFTER HE
WAS ELECTED. Mueller hasn't indicted anyone for election tampering except
for 25 Russians who will never see the inside of an American courtroom
which also means Mueller will never have to actually show his hand.

Post by mainframetech
And as to the 'collusion', that
sort of thing where the president and his family may be involved, is held
until the end and then reported out altogether. And I'm sure there will
be plenty of charges to deal with.

Your sure of a lot of the things you just assume.

Post by mainframetech
If you need 'collusion' to keep you going, then consider that Trump
Jr. and Manafort and others sat with Russians who wanted to give over
'dirt' on Clinton. They went happily thinking they were going to get an
earful. And it doesn't matter if they did or did not get the 'dirt',
because the attempt was enough to make them guilty of collusion with
Russians to alter the election.

Why hasn't Mueller indicted Trump Jr. if he has evidence of collusion?

Post by mainframetech
And that's only the public knowledge of FEC crimes. There are also
crimes against the constitution and they have all been made known by suits
against Trump.

You can sue anyone for anything so the fact that suits have been filed
against Trump is no indication any of the suits have any merit.

Post by mainframetech
Naturally he doesn't talk about them. There are known
crimes involving the emoluments clause, the hiring of relatives to work
directly under the president, and others.

Presidents can employ relatives so long as they don't draw a salary.
That's why Bill Clinton was allowed to use Hillary to lobby Congress for
his healthcare bill that went nowhere and was largely responsible for the
Democrats losing Congress in 1994. A 1967 law was passed that would have
made it illegal to appoint an immediate relative to a cabinet post as JFK
did with RFK.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/14/the-ethics-rules-that-apply-and-dont-apply-to-trumps-children/?utm_term=.c3adba48ef7c

http://ktar.com/story/1419885/historian-donald-trump-not-first-president-appoint-family-member/

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong.

We can say that so far, Mueller has produced none.

There is proof mentioned above, and they usually hold much of the
crimes until the end of the special counsel.

So until then you can just do what you do best, make baseless assumptions.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.

The longer it drags out, the more it looks like Mueller is fanning the
flames to influence the midterms. If he waits until after the midterms are
over and THEN announces he could find no evidence that anyone from the
Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, I think it will be pretty clear
what his real agenda was.

His real agenda was laid out when he got his orders, and he's pursuing
those orders.

The purpose of his appointment was to determine if there was evidence of
collusion with Russians interfering in the 2016 election. He has gone far
beyond that mission by investigating alleged crimes which had nothing to
do with the election.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they???ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won???t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that???s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.

We've been trying to convince Marsh of that for months but it hasn't sunk
in. Gerrymandering can't possibly affect the outcome in a winner-take-all
state which all but two states are. It doesn't matter how the
congressional districts are drawn within the state, it isn't going to
affect the statewide total which is all that matters as far as the
electoral college is concerned.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.

Thank you.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.

So far, Mueller has only indicted Russian nationals for illegal campaign
practices and in both rounds of indictments it was stated that the
indictments do not indicate any American knowingly colluded with these
Russians. If he has evidence of Trump campaign officials engaging in
illegal electioneering, why hasn't he produced that?

What baloney! Such disinformation! Among the indicted are these
Americans: Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos.
Odd you would leave out all 4 of them.

You're getting to be as bad as Marsh making knee jerk responses without
ever comprehending what was actually written. I'll type it slower this
time so hopefully you can follow along. The four people you named WERE NOT
INDICTED FOR COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIANS. THEY WERE INDICTED FOR ALLEGED
CRIMES COMMITTED EITHER PRIOR TO TRUMP BECOMING A CANDIDATE OR AFTER HE
WAS ELECTED. Mueller hasn't indicted anyone for election tampering except
for 25 Russians who will never see the inside of an American courtroom
which also means Mueller will never have to actually show his hand.

The Collusion would be BEFORE he was President. To help him get elected.
Putin admitted it. Game over.
Da.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
And as to the 'collusion', that
sort of thing where the president and his family may be involved, is held
until the end and then reported out altogether. And I'm sure there will
be plenty of charges to deal with.

Your sure of a lot of the things you just assume.

Post by mainframetech
If you need 'collusion' to keep you going, then consider that Trump
Jr. and Manafort and others sat with Russians who wanted to give over
'dirt' on Clinton. They went happily thinking they were going to get an
earful. And it doesn't matter if they did or did not get the 'dirt',
because the attempt was enough to make them guilty of collusion with
Russians to alter the election.

Why hasn't Mueller indicted Trump Jr. if he has evidence of collusion?

Not time yet. You need to work your way up slowly. They got Cohen to flip.
But could they get Junior to flip against his own father? I doubt it. Can
he inherit his father's fortune while he's in jail? Not sure. Neither is
he.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
And that's only the public knowledge of FEC crimes. There are also
crimes against the constitution and they have all been made known by suits
against Trump.

You can sue anyone for anything so the fact that suits have been filed
against Trump is no indication any of the suits have any merit.

Post by mainframetech
Naturally he doesn't talk about them. There are known
crimes involving the emoluments clause, the hiring of relatives to work
directly under the president, and others.

Presidents can employ relatives so long as they don't draw a salary.
That's why Bill Clinton was allowed to use Hillary to lobby Congress for

Was she a paid lobbyist? No. People can use their own money, such as
celebrities.

Post by bigdog
his healthcare bill that went nowhere and was largely responsible for the

Ever hear of Obamacare?

Post by bigdog
Democrats losing Congress in 1994. A 1967 law was passed that would have
made it illegal to appoint an immediate relative to a cabinet post as JFK
did with RFK.

Is that why you opposed it?

Post by bigdog
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/14/the-ethics-rules-that-apply-and-dont-apply-to-trumps-children/?utm_term=.c3adba48ef7c
http://ktar.com/story/1419885/historian-donald-trump-not-first-president-appoint-family-member/

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong.

We can say that so far, Mueller has produced none.

There is proof mentioned above, and they usually hold much of the
crimes until the end of the special counsel.

So until then you can just do what you do best, make baseless assumptions.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.

The longer it drags out, the more it looks like Mueller is fanning the
flames to influence the midterms. If he waits until after the midterms are
over and THEN announces he could find no evidence that anyone from the
Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, I think it will be pretty clear
what his real agenda was.

His real agenda was laid out when he got his orders, and he's pursuing
those orders.

The purpose of his appointment was to determine if there was evidence of
collusion with Russians interfering in the 2016 election. He has gone far

Not just collusion. Whatever crimes they uncovered.
LIke Treason.

Post by bigdog
beyond that mission by investigating alleged crimes which had nothing to
do with the election.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.

We've been trying to convince Marsh of that for months but it hasn't sunk
in. Gerrymandering can't possibly affect the outcome in a winner-take-all
state which all but two states are. It doesn't matter how the
congressional districts are drawn within the state, it isn't going to
affect the statewide total which is all that matters as far as the
electoral college is concerned.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.

Thank you.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.

So far, Mueller has only indicted Russian nationals for illegal campaign
practices and in both rounds of indictments it was stated that the
indictments do not indicate any American knowingly colluded with these
Russians. If he has evidence of Trump campaign officials engaging in
illegal electioneering, why hasn't he produced that?

What baloney! Such disinformation! Among the indicted are these
Americans: Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos.
Odd you would leave out all 4 of them.

You're getting to be as bad as Marsh making knee jerk responses without
ever comprehending what was actually written. I'll type it slower this
time so hopefully you can follow along. The four people you named WERE NOT
INDICTED FOR COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIANS. THEY WERE INDICTED FOR ALLEGED
CRIMES COMMITTED EITHER PRIOR TO TRUMP BECOMING A CANDIDATE OR AFTER HE
WAS ELECTED. Mueller hasn't indicted anyone for election tampering except
for 25 Russians who will never see the inside of an American courtroom
which also means Mueller will never have to actually show his hand.

Post by mainframetech
And as to the 'collusion', that
sort of thing where the president and his family may be involved, is held
until the end and then reported out altogether. And I'm sure there will
be plenty of charges to deal with.

Your sure of a lot of the things you just assume.

The evidence is already there in the public domain. I've listed it
out for you a few times already. Funny how you forget these things.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
If you need 'collusion' to keep you going, then consider that Trump
Jr. and Manafort and others sat with Russians who wanted to give over
'dirt' on Clinton. They went happily thinking they were going to get an
earful. And it doesn't matter if they did or did not get the 'dirt',
because the attempt was enough to make them guilty of collusion with
Russians to alter the election.

Why hasn't Mueller indicted Trump Jr. if he has evidence of collusion?

He will bring it altogether when it's time. Other investigations of
the president and administrations have taken longer. The nervousness of
Trump and his lawyers are what is pushing you and others to pretend there
are no crimes evident. Anything to get the Mueller probe cancelled.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
And that's only the public knowledge of FEC crimes. There are also
crimes against the constitution and they have all been made known by suits
against Trump.

You can sue anyone for anything so the fact that suits have been filed
against Trump is no indication any of the suits have any merit.

Sorry, wrong again. There was suit against Trump for violating the
emoluments clause from the constitution, and it had to go before a judge
to be approved to go forth t a regular trial. It has now been approved
and Trump is going to trial for that violation. We'll see if the nepotism
lawsuits succeed.

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Naturally he doesn't talk about them. There are known
crimes involving the emoluments clause, the hiring of relatives to work
directly under the president, and others.

Presidents can employ relatives so long as they don't draw a salary.
That's why Bill Clinton was allowed to use Hillary to lobby Congress for
his healthcare bill that went nowhere and was largely responsible for the
Democrats losing Congress in 1994. A 1967 law was passed that would have
made it illegal to appoint an immediate relative to a cabinet post as JFK
did with RFK.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/14/the-ethics-rules-that-apply-and-dont-apply-to-trumps-children/?utm_term=.c3adba48ef7c
http://ktar.com/story/1419885/historian-donald-trump-not-first-president-appoint-family-member/

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong.

We can say that so far, Mueller has produced none.

There is proof mentioned above, and they usually hold much of the
crimes until the end of the special counsel.

So until then you can just do what you do best, make baseless assumptions.

Well, in this situation assumptions aren't baseless. After all, we're
dealing with a large scale scam artist. Remember the Trump University?

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.

The longer it drags out, the more it looks like Mueller is fanning the
flames to influence the midterms. If he waits until after the midterms are
over and THEN announces he could find no evidence that anyone from the
Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, I think it will be pretty clear
what his real agenda was.

His real agenda was laid out when he got his orders, and he's pursuing
those orders.

The purpose of his appointment was to determine if there was evidence of
collusion with Russians interfering in the 2016 election. He has gone far
beyond that mission by investigating alleged crimes which had nothing to
do with the election.

Part of his orders were to follow up on any and all crimes encountered
during the probe. That's what has happened. Soon Manafort will be found
guilty and we'll be off and running.

Chris

[bigdog]

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.

We've been trying to convince Marsh of that for months but it hasn't sunk
in. Gerrymandering can't possibly affect the outcome in a winner-take-all
state which all but two states are. It doesn't matter how the
congressional districts are drawn within the state, it isn't going to
affect the statewide total which is all that matters as far as the
electoral college is concerned.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.

Thank you.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.

So far, Mueller has only indicted Russian nationals for illegal campaign
practices and in both rounds of indictments it was stated that the
indictments do not indicate any American knowingly colluded with these
Russians. If he has evidence of Trump campaign officials engaging in
illegal electioneering, why hasn't he produced that?

What baloney! Such disinformation! Among the indicted are these
Americans: Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos.
Odd you would leave out all 4 of them.

You're getting to be as bad as Marsh making knee jerk responses without
ever comprehending what was actually written. I'll type it slower this
time so hopefully you can follow along. The four people you named WERE NOT
INDICTED FOR COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIANS. THEY WERE INDICTED FOR ALLEGED
CRIMES COMMITTED EITHER PRIOR TO TRUMP BECOMING A CANDIDATE OR AFTER HE
WAS ELECTED. Mueller hasn't indicted anyone for election tampering except
for 25 Russians who will never see the inside of an American courtroom
which also means Mueller will never have to actually show his hand.

Post by mainframetech
And as to the 'collusion', that
sort of thing where the president and his family may be involved, is held
until the end and then reported out altogether. And I'm sure there will
be plenty of charges to deal with.

Your sure of a lot of the things you just assume.

The evidence is already there in the public domain. I've listed it
out for you a few times already. Funny how you forget these things.

That's strange. After telling us the evidence for collusion was being held
until the end, you are now telling us it is in the public domain. Did that
happen in between these two posts by you?

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
If you need 'collusion' to keep you going, then consider that Trump
Jr. and Manafort and others sat with Russians who wanted to give over
'dirt' on Clinton. They went happily thinking they were going to get an
earful. And it doesn't matter if they did or did not get the 'dirt',
because the attempt was enough to make them guilty of collusion with
Russians to alter the election.

Why hasn't Mueller indicted Trump Jr. if he has evidence of collusion?

He will bring it altogether when it's time. Other investigations of
the president and administrations have taken longer. The nervousness of
Trump and his lawyers are what is pushing you and others to pretend there
are no crimes evident. Anything to get the Mueller probe cancelled.

I think the position of most of us regarding collusion with the Russians
is pretty much the same as the position we take regarding a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK. We have seen no compelling evidence of either. So far
Mueller has indicted a whole bunch or Russians for tampering with our
election which does not indicate collusion with the Trump campaign and
some associates of Trump for crimes that had nothing to do with the
campaign. They are alleged to have occurred either well before Trump
became a candidate or after the election was over. Neither are evidence of
collusion during the campaign.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
And that's only the public knowledge of FEC crimes. There are also
crimes against the constitution and they have all been made known by suits
against Trump.

You can sue anyone for anything so the fact that suits have been filed
against Trump is no indication any of the suits have any merit.

Sorry, wrong again. There was suit against Trump for violating the
emoluments clause from the constitution, and it had to go before a judge
to be approved to go forth t a regular trial. It has now been approved
and Trump is going to trial for that violation. We'll see if the nepotism
lawsuits succeed.

You seem to not know the difference between an allegation and evidence.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Naturally he doesn't talk about them. There are known
crimes involving the emoluments clause, the hiring of relatives to work
directly under the president, and others.

Presidents can employ relatives so long as they don't draw a salary.
That's why Bill Clinton was allowed to use Hillary to lobby Congress for
his healthcare bill that went nowhere and was largely responsible for the
Democrats losing Congress in 1994. A 1967 law was passed that would have
made it illegal to appoint an immediate relative to a cabinet post as JFK
did with RFK.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/14/the-ethics-rules-that-apply-and-dont-apply-to-trumps-children/?utm_term=.c3adba48ef7c
http://ktar.com/story/1419885/historian-donald-trump-not-first-president-appoint-family-member/

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong.

We can say that so far, Mueller has produced none.

There is proof mentioned above, and they usually hold much of the
crimes until the end of the special counsel.

So until then you can just do what you do best, make baseless assumptions.

Well, in this situation assumptions aren't baseless.

If they weren't baseless, they wouldn't be assumptions.

Post by mainframetech
After all, we're
dealing with a large scale scam artist. Remember the Trump University?

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.

The longer it drags out, the more it looks like Mueller is fanning the
flames to influence the midterms. If he waits until after the midterms are
over and THEN announces he could find no evidence that anyone from the
Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, I think it will be pretty clear
what his real agenda was.

His real agenda was laid out when he got his orders, and he's pursuing
those orders.

The purpose of his appointment was to determine if there was evidence of
collusion with Russians interfering in the 2016 election. He has gone far
beyond that mission by investigating alleged crimes which had nothing to
do with the election.

Part of his orders were to follow up on any and all crimes encountered
during the probe. That's what has happened. Soon Manafort will be found
guilty and we'll be off and running.

So he was authorized to conduct a witch hunt.

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by bigdog
I think the position of most of us regarding collusion with the Russians
is pretty much the same as the position we take regarding a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK. We have seen no compelling evidence of either.

Taking a firm position, one way or the other on the Mueller investigation
would be like taking a firm position regarding the Kennedy assassination
WHILE the Warren Commission was still in session and had yet delivered its
final summary.

Yet, there were some very good reasons for one to believe that Oswald DID
shoot the president prior to the Warren Commission submitting its final
conclusion. It was worth investigating his possible complicity. Not too
many Americans thought that the Warren Commission was barking up the wrong
tree with its laser focus on Oswald. What remained to be seen was whether
he was part of a conspiracy. The notion that Oswald was completely
innocent and never fired a shot was something that was fringe thinking
back then as much as it is today. Even among those who believe there was a
conspiracy, this is a fringe belief - although, in this particular forum,
that isn't very obvious. But this forum is not representative of the
general conspiracy-believing population. Most people are far more casual
conspiracy-believers, not really understanding any of the details and,
therefore, adopt the pop culture believe that there WAS a conspiracy in
the Kennedy assassination.

There is plenty of reason to investigate possible involvement with those
in the Trump orbit and the Russians. The analogy would be this: While the
Warren Commission was in session, it seemed rather obvious that Oswald was
involved, but the question of a greater conspiracy remained to be
answered. In the Mueller investigation; it seems rather obvious that the
Russians tried to divide and sway American sentiment to the benefit of
Trump, but the question of coordination with individuals involved with the
Trump campaign remains to be answered.

Call it whatever you want ... collusion ... coordinating ... cooperating
... conspiring ... encouraging ... facilitating; it doesn't matter. The
mere notion that a HOSTILE foreign entity may have been embraced by a
presidential campaign apparatus is very disturbing and calls into question
as to whether Trump should be president, especially since he is so
defensive on this issue. And, if it turns out that he LIED about his
knowledge/involvement in this coordination - that would speak volumes. If
nothing else, he ACTS guilty; even Trey Gowdy (a former federal
prosecutor, a current Republican congressman and Trump supporter) said in
frustration, "If you are innocent - act like it," Gowdy told the
president's attorney (at the time), John Dowd, "If you’ve done
nothing wrong, you should want the investigation to be as fulsome and
thorough as possible ... If you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act
like it."

Trump acts guilty and there are good reasons to believe that he's likely
guilty - but I'll reserve my final judgement for when the final report is
out ... just like Oswald acted guilty and there were good reasons to
believe that he WAS guilty, but the most responsible thing to do was wait
until the Warren Commission investigation was complete.

All previous Special Counsels have taken far longer (e.g. Watergate,
Iran-Contra, Whitewater, etc.) So, Rudy Giuliani's demand for Mueller to
"Put up or shut up!" is disingenuous on so many levels. Mueller needs to
"shut up"? Seriously? Yeah, Mueller is quite the chatty one, isn't he?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[John McAdams]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I think the position of most of us regarding collusion with the Russians
is pretty much the same as the position we take regarding a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK. We have seen no compelling evidence of either.

Taking a firm position, one way or the other on the Mueller investigation
would be like taking a firm position regarding the Kennedy assassination
WHILE the Warren Commission was still in session and had yet delivered its
final summary.

But the WC finished up far sooner than Mueller.

And if Congressional committees (which leak like a sieve) had also
been investigating, an conclusion would have been justified.

Post by d***@gmail.com
There is plenty of reason to investigate possible involvement with those
in the Trump orbit and the Russians. The analogy would be this: While the
Warren Commission was in session, it seemed rather obvious that Oswald was
involved, but the question of a greater conspiracy remained to be
answered. In the Mueller investigation; it seems rather obvious that the
Russians tried to divide and sway American sentiment to the benefit of
Trump, but the question of coordination with individuals involved with the
Trump campaign remains to be answered.

Actually, it has been, with the absence at this remove of any evidence
of such.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Call it whatever you want ... collusion ... coordinating ... cooperating
... conspiring ... encouraging ... facilitating; it doesn't matter. The
mere notion that a HOSTILE foreign entity may have been embraced by a
presidential campaign apparatus is very disturbing and calls into question
as to whether Trump should be president, especially since he is so
defensive on this issue.

Was Clay Shaw defensive when accused by Garrison?

Were people accused by Joe McCarthy "defensive?"

Post by d***@gmail.com
And, if it turns out that he LIED about his
knowledge/involvement in this coordination - that would speak volumes. If
nothing else, he ACTS guilty;

Do you suppose targets of the Inquisition "looked guilty" to the
inquisitors?

Post by d***@gmail.com
even Trey Gowdy (a former federal
prosecutor, a current Republican congressman and Trump supporter) said in
frustration, "If you are innocent - act like it," Gowdy told the
president's attorney (at the time), John Dowd, "If you’ve done
nothing wrong, you should want the investigation to be as fulsome and
thorough as possible ... If you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act
like it."

Gowdy is wrong. The purpose of the "investigation" at this point is
merely to harass Trump, and to try to delegitimize his investigation.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump acts guilty and there are good reasons to believe that he's likely
guilty -

That is simply our anti-Trump bias speaking.

Post by d***@gmail.com
but I'll reserve my final judgement for when the final report is
out ... just like Oswald acted guilty and there were good reasons to
believe that he WAS guilty, but the most responsible thing to do was wait
until the Warren Commission investigation was complete.
All previous Special Counsels have taken far longer (e.g. Watergate,
Iran-Contra, Whitewater, etc.) So, Rudy Giuliani's demand for Mueller to
"Put up or shut up!" is disingenuous on so many levels. Mueller needs to
"shut up"? Seriously? Yeah, Mueller is quite the chatty one, isn't he?

I think, deep down, you know there was no collusion.

But you like to talk about it, because you hate Trump.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I think the position of most of us regarding collusion with the Russians
is pretty much the same as the position we take regarding a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK. We have seen no compelling evidence of either.

Taking a firm position, one way or the other on the Mueller investigation
would be like taking a firm position regarding the Kennedy assassination
WHILE the Warren Commission was still in session and had yet delivered its
final summary.

But the WC finished up far sooner than Mueller.

But the difference is that the WC was dsigned as a cover-up and did not
look for all the evidence. Mueller has found billions of bits of
evidence and many conspirators.

Post by John McAdams
And if Congressional committees (which leak like a sieve) had also
been investigating, an conclusion would have been justified.

Like which commiitee? No committee is going to investigate Trump.
They're still investigating Hillary.
And PIzzagate. Have you met Q yet? Cute haircut.

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com
There is plenty of reason to investigate possible involvement with those
in the Trump orbit and the Russians. The analogy would be this: While the
Warren Commission was in session, it seemed rather obvious that Oswald was
involved, but the question of a greater conspiracy remained to be
answered. In the Mueller investigation; it seems rather obvious that the
Russians tried to divide and sway American sentiment to the benefit of
Trump, but the question of coordination with individuals involved with the
Trump campaign remains to be answered.

Actually, it has been, with the absence at this remove of any evidence
of such.

What is the logic of that? The absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com
Call it whatever you want ... collusion ... coordinating ... cooperating
... conspiring ... encouraging ... facilitating; it doesn't matter. The
mere notion that a HOSTILE foreign entity may have been embraced by a
presidential campaign apparatus is very disturbing and calls into question
as to whether Trump should be president, especially since he is so
defensive on this issue.

Those words are too long and fancy. Just say Treason.

Post by John McAdams
Was Clay Shaw defensive when accused by Garrison?

He was a little bit peeved.

Post by John McAdams
Were people accused by Joe McCarthy "defensive?"

How could they be when they were not given a chance to defend themselves?

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com
And, if it turns out that he LIED about his
knowledge/involvement in this coordination - that would speak volumes. If
nothing else, he ACTS guilty;

Do you suppose targets of the Inquisition "looked guilty" to the
inquisitors?

So you think that the FBI is the Inquisition. Not when they are going
after your enemies, only when they are going after your friends.
Situational ethice. Is that what you taught?

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com
even Trey Gowdy (a former federal
prosecutor, a current Republican congressman and Trump supporter) said in
frustration, "If you are innocent - act like it," Gowdy told the
president's attorney (at the time), John Dowd, "If you???ve done
nothing wrong, you should want the investigation to be as fulsome and
thorough as possible ... If you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act
like it."

Gowdy is wrong. The purpose of the "investigation" at this point is
merely to harass Trump, and to try to delegitimize his investigation.

No, silly. First you go after the little fish and then they turn against
the big fish. Exactly as I predicted.

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump acts guilty and there are good reasons to believe that he's likely
guilty -

That is simply our anti-Trump bias speaking.

A lot of legal acholars. It is a principle of law.
Consciousness of guilt.

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com
but I'll reserve my final judgement for when the final report is
out ... just like Oswald acted guilty and there were good reasons to
believe that he WAS guilty, but the most responsible thing to do was wait
until the Warren Commission investigation was complete.
All previous Special Counsels have taken far longer (e.g. Watergate,
Iran-Contra, Whitewater, etc.) So, Rudy Giuliani's demand for Mueller to
"Put up or shut up!" is disingenuous on so many levels. Mueller needs to
"shut up"? Seriously? Yeah, Mueller is quite the chatty one, isn't he?

I think, deep down, you know there was no collusion.

Say what? Are you so poor now that you don't even have a TV? Trump
admitted the collusion, but says it's not a crime.

Post by John McAdams
But you like to talk about it, because you hate Trump.

Most people do. How could he lose the popular vote to Hillary otherwise?

Post by John McAdams
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I think the position of most of us regarding collusion with the Russians
is pretty much the same as the position we take regarding a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK. We have seen no compelling evidence of either.

Taking a firm position, one way or the other on the Mueller investigation
would be like taking a firm position regarding the Kennedy assassination
WHILE the Warren Commission was still in session and had yet delivered its
final summary.

Just as I said before, you guys are always for a cover-up, any cover-up.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Yet, there were some very good reasons for one to believe that Oswald DID
shoot the president prior to the Warren Commission submitting its final
conclusion. It was worth investigating his possible complicity. Not too

Well, DUH. he was arrested and charged. But Hoover prevented them from
mentioning the conspiracy charge.

Post by d***@gmail.com
many Americans thought that the Warren Commission was barking up the wrong
tree with its laser focus on Oswald. What remained to be seen was whether

The vast majority always thought it was a conspiracy.

Post by d***@gmail.com
he was part of a conspiracy. The notion that Oswald was completely
innocent and never fired a shot was something that was fringe thinking

You don't seem to understand conspiracy. You can have a conspiracy even
if Oswald is the only shooter.
You don't need no damn stinkin 20 shooters in all the trees.

Post by d***@gmail.com
back then as much as it is today. Even among those who believe there was a
conspiracy, this is a fringe belief - although, in this particular forum,
that isn't very obvious. But this forum is not representative of the
general conspiracy-believing population. Most people are far more casual
conspiracy-believers, not really understanding any of the details and,
therefore, adopt the pop culture believe that there WAS a conspiracy in
the Kennedy assassination.

Because you've scared away all the other conspiracy believers.

Post by d***@gmail.com
There is plenty of reason to investigate possible involvement with those
in the Trump orbit and the Russians. The analogy would be this: While the

How did we jump to Trump? That doesn't have to be a conspiracy. He could
have committed all those crimes all by himself.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Warren Commission was in session, it seemed rather obvious that Oswald was
involved, but the question of a greater conspiracy remained to be
answered. In the Mueller investigation; it seems rather obvious that the
Russians tried to divide and sway American sentiment to the benefit of
Trump, but the question of coordination with individuals involved with the
Trump campaign remains to be answered.
Call it whatever you want ... collusion ... coordinating ... cooperating
... conspiring ... encouraging ... facilitating; it doesn't matter. The

I don't use all those long fancy words. Treason is much shorter.

Post by d***@gmail.com
mere notion that a HOSTILE foreign entity may have been embraced by a
presidential campaign apparatus is very disturbing and calls into question
as to whether Trump should be president, especially since he is so

You aren't trying hard enough. Didn't you get the memo?
You are supposed to say all those things about Hillary.
Or Obama, or Abraham Lincoln, or George Washington. Anybody but your
hero Trump.

Post by d***@gmail.com
defensive on this issue. And, if it turns out that he LIED about his
knowledge/involvement in this coordination - that would speak volumes. If
nothing else, he ACTS guilty; even Trey Gowdy (a former federal

Everytime Trump says anything he incriminates himself.
Lying about everything shows what they call in legal terms a
consciousness of guilt. Why lie if you are innocent?
But Presidents lie all the time and sometimes it is for our own good.
JFK did not hold a public press conference and admit that he was taking
out the nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey in a deal for the Soviets
to take their missiles out of Cuba. But his secret negotiations found a
peaceful solution to avoid WWIII. Why can't you Trump supports try the
same trick and claim that Trump was only secretly negotiating with Putin
to prevent WWIII? Make him the hero instead of the criminal,
Do I have to do ALL the work for you lazy bums?

Post by d***@gmail.com
prosecutor, a current Republican congressman and Trump supporter) said in
frustration, "If you are innocent - act like it," Gowdy told the
president's attorney (at the time), John Dowd, "If you’ve done
nothing wrong, you should want the investigation to be as fulsome and
thorough as possible ... If you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act
like it."
Trump acts guilty and there are good reasons to believe that he's likely
guilty - but I'll reserve my final judgement for when the final report is
out ... just like Oswald acted guilty and there were good reasons to
believe that he WAS guilty, but the most responsible thing to do was wait
until the Warren Commission investigation was complete.
All previous Special Counsels have taken far longer (e.g. Watergate,
Iran-Contra, Whitewater, etc.) So, Rudy Giuliani's demand for Mueller to
"Put up or shut up!" is disingenuous on so many levels. Mueller needs to
"shut up"? Seriously? Yeah, Mueller is quite the chatty one, isn't he?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bigdog]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I think the position of most of us regarding collusion with the Russians
is pretty much the same as the position we take regarding a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK. We have seen no compelling evidence of either.

Taking a firm position, one way or the other on the Mueller investigation
would be like taking a firm position regarding the Kennedy assassination
WHILE the Warren Commission was still in session and had yet delivered its
final summary.
Yet, there were some very good reasons for one to believe that Oswald DID
shoot the president prior to the Warren Commission submitting its final
conclusion. It was worth investigating his possible complicity. Not too
many Americans thought that the Warren Commission was barking up the wrong
tree with its laser focus on Oswald. What remained to be seen was whether
he was part of a conspiracy. The notion that Oswald was completely
innocent and never fired a shot was something that was fringe thinking
back then as much as it is today. Even among those who believe there was a
conspiracy, this is a fringe belief - although, in this particular forum,
that isn't very obvious. But this forum is not representative of the
general conspiracy-believing population. Most people are far more casual
conspiracy-believers, not really understanding any of the details and,
therefore, adopt the pop culture believe that there WAS a conspiracy in
the Kennedy assassination.
There is plenty of reason to investigate possible involvement with those
in the Trump orbit and the Russians. The analogy would be this: While the
Warren Commission was in session, it seemed rather obvious that Oswald was
involved, but the question of a greater conspiracy remained to be
answered. In the Mueller investigation; it seems rather obvious that the
Russians tried to divide and sway American sentiment to the benefit of
Trump, but the question of coordination with individuals involved with the
Trump campaign remains to be answered.
Call it whatever you want ... collusion ... coordinating ... cooperating
... conspiring ... encouraging ... facilitating; it doesn't matter. The
mere notion that a HOSTILE foreign entity may have been embraced by a
presidential campaign apparatus is very disturbing and calls into question
as to whether Trump should be president, especially since he is so
defensive on this issue. And, if it turns out that he LIED about his
knowledge/involvement in this coordination - that would speak volumes. If
nothing else, he ACTS guilty; even Trey Gowdy (a former federal
prosecutor, a current Republican congressman and Trump supporter) said in
frustration, "If you are innocent - act like it," Gowdy told the
president's attorney (at the time), John Dowd, "If you’ve done
nothing wrong, you should want the investigation to be as fulsome and
thorough as possible ... If you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act
like it."

So far, both rounds of indictments of Russian nationals has stated that
there is no evidence that any American knowingly colluded with them. The
first round of indictments indicated that there were some Americans who
were duped not realizing the people they were working with were Russian
operatives.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump acts guilty and there are good reasons to believe that he's likely
guilty

Saddam Hussein acted like he had weapons of mass destruction when he
refused to let UN inspectors go where they wanted yet we found out later
he didn't.

Post by d***@gmail.com
- but I'll reserve my final judgement for when the final report is
out ... just like Oswald acted guilty and there were good reasons to
believe that he WAS guilty, but the most responsible thing to do was wait
until the Warren Commission investigation was complete.
All previous Special Counsels have taken far longer (e.g. Watergate,
Iran-Contra, Whitewater, etc.) So, Rudy Giuliani's demand for Mueller to
"Put up or shut up!" is disingenuous on so many levels. Mueller needs to
"shut up"? Seriously? Yeah, Mueller is quite the chatty one, isn't he?

I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not going to assume anyone is guilty of
anything without seeing evidence. I have seen no evidence that anybody in
the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to commit criminal acts to
influence our elections. The few Trump operatives who have been indicted
have been crimes which had absolutely nothing to do with the 2016
campaign.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I think the position of most of us regarding collusion with the Russians
is pretty much the same as the position we take regarding a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK. We have seen no compelling evidence of either.

Taking a firm position, one way or the other on the Mueller investigation
would be like taking a firm position regarding the Kennedy assassination
WHILE the Warren Commission was still in session and had yet delivered its
final summary.
Yet, there were some very good reasons for one to believe that Oswald DID
shoot the president prior to the Warren Commission submitting its final
conclusion. It was worth investigating his possible complicity. Not too
many Americans thought that the Warren Commission was barking up the wrong
tree with its laser focus on Oswald. What remained to be seen was whether
he was part of a conspiracy. The notion that Oswald was completely
innocent and never fired a shot was something that was fringe thinking
back then as much as it is today. Even among those who believe there was a
conspiracy, this is a fringe belief - although, in this particular forum,
that isn't very obvious. But this forum is not representative of the
general conspiracy-believing population. Most people are far more casual
conspiracy-believers, not really understanding any of the details and,
therefore, adopt the pop culture believe that there WAS a conspiracy in
the Kennedy assassination.
There is plenty of reason to investigate possible involvement with those
in the Trump orbit and the Russians. The analogy would be this: While the
Warren Commission was in session, it seemed rather obvious that Oswald was
involved, but the question of a greater conspiracy remained to be
answered. In the Mueller investigation; it seems rather obvious that the
Russians tried to divide and sway American sentiment to the benefit of
Trump, but the question of coordination with individuals involved with the
Trump campaign remains to be answered.
Call it whatever you want ... collusion ... coordinating ... cooperating
... conspiring ... encouraging ... facilitating; it doesn't matter. The
mere notion that a HOSTILE foreign entity may have been embraced by a
presidential campaign apparatus is very disturbing and calls into question
as to whether Trump should be president, especially since he is so
defensive on this issue. And, if it turns out that he LIED about his
knowledge/involvement in this coordination - that would speak volumes. If
nothing else, he ACTS guilty; even Trey Gowdy (a former federal
prosecutor, a current Republican congressman and Trump supporter) said in
frustration, "If you are innocent - act like it," Gowdy told the
president's attorney (at the time), John Dowd, "If you???ve done
nothing wrong, you should want the investigation to be as fulsome and
thorough as possible ... If you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act
like it."

So far, both rounds of indictments of Russian nationals has stated that
there is no evidence that any American knowingly colluded with them. The
first round of indictments indicated that there were some Americans who
were duped not realizing the people they were working with were Russian
operatives.

So you are going to take the word of our enemies over our own
intelligence agencies. Hallmark of a Trumpie.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump acts guilty and there are good reasons to believe that he's likely
guilty

Saddam Hussein acted like he had weapons of mass destruction when he
refused to let UN inspectors go where they wanted yet we found out later
he didn't.

Post by d***@gmail.com
- but I'll reserve my final judgement for when the final report is
out ... just like Oswald acted guilty and there were good reasons to
believe that he WAS guilty, but the most responsible thing to do was wait
until the Warren Commission investigation was complete.
All previous Special Counsels have taken far longer (e.g. Watergate,
Iran-Contra, Whitewater, etc.) So, Rudy Giuliani's demand for Mueller to
"Put up or shut up!" is disingenuous on so many levels. Mueller needs to
"shut up"? Seriously? Yeah, Mueller is quite the chatty one, isn't he?

I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not going to assume anyone is guilty of

No, you never will. You are ALWAYS in denial, about everything.

Post by bigdog
anything without seeing evidence. I have seen no evidence that anybody in
the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to commit criminal acts to
influence our elections. The few Trump operatives who have been indicted
have been crimes which had absolutely nothing to do with the 2016
campaign.

People are pleading guilty left and right. Wake up!

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.

We've been trying to convince Marsh of that for months but it hasn't sunk
in. Gerrymandering can't possibly affect the outcome in a winner-take-all
state which all but two states are. It doesn't matter how the
congressional districts are drawn within the state, it isn't going to
affect the statewide total which is all that matters as far as the
electoral college is concerned.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.

Thank you.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.

So far, Mueller has only indicted Russian nationals for illegal campaign
practices and in both rounds of indictments it was stated that the
indictments do not indicate any American knowingly colluded with these
Russians. If he has evidence of Trump campaign officials engaging in
illegal electioneering, why hasn't he produced that?

What baloney! Such disinformation! Among the indicted are these
Americans: Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos.
Odd you would leave out all 4 of them.

You're getting to be as bad as Marsh making knee jerk responses without
ever comprehending what was actually written. I'll type it slower this
time so hopefully you can follow along. The four people you named WERE NOT
INDICTED FOR COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIANS. THEY WERE INDICTED FOR ALLEGED
CRIMES COMMITTED EITHER PRIOR TO TRUMP BECOMING A CANDIDATE OR AFTER HE
WAS ELECTED. Mueller hasn't indicted anyone for election tampering except
for 25 Russians who will never see the inside of an American courtroom
which also means Mueller will never have to actually show his hand.

Post by mainframetech
And as to the 'collusion', that
sort of thing where the president and his family may be involved, is held
until the end and then reported out altogether. And I'm sure there will
be plenty of charges to deal with.

Your sure of a lot of the things you just assume.

The evidence is already there in the public domain. I've listed it
out for you a few times already. Funny how you forget these things.

That's strange. After telling us the evidence for collusion was being held
until the end, you are now telling us it is in the public domain. Did that
happen in between these two posts by you?

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
If you need 'collusion' to keep you going, then consider that Trump
Jr. and Manafort and others sat with Russians who wanted to give over
'dirt' on Clinton. They went happily thinking they were going to get an
earful. And it doesn't matter if they did or did not get the 'dirt',
because the attempt was enough to make them guilty of collusion with
Russians to alter the election.

Why hasn't Mueller indicted Trump Jr. if he has evidence of collusion?

He will bring it altogether when it's time. Other investigations of
the president and administrations have taken longer. The nervousness of
Trump and his lawyers are what is pushing you and others to pretend there
are no crimes evident. Anything to get the Mueller probe cancelled.

I think the position of most of us regarding collusion with the Russians
is pretty much the same as the position we take regarding a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK. We have seen no compelling evidence of either. So far
Mueller has indicted a whole bunch or Russians for tampering with our
election which does not indicate collusion with the Trump campaign and
some associates of Trump for crimes that had nothing to do with the
campaign. They are alleged to have occurred either well before Trump
became a candidate or after the election was over. Neither are evidence of
collusion during the campaign.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
And that's only the public knowledge of FEC crimes. There are also
crimes against the constitution and they have all been made known by suits
against Trump.

You can sue anyone for anything so the fact that suits have been filed
against Trump is no indication any of the suits have any merit.

Sorry, wrong again. There was suit against Trump for violating the
emoluments clause from the constitution, and it had to go before a judge
to be approved to go forth t a regular trial. It has now been approved
and Trump is going to trial for that violation. We'll see if the nepotism
lawsuits succeed.

You seem to not know the difference between an allegation and evidence.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech
Naturally he doesn't talk about them. There are known
crimes involving the emoluments clause, the hiring of relatives to work
directly under the president, and others.

Presidents can employ relatives so long as they don't draw a salary.
That's why Bill Clinton was allowed to use Hillary to lobby Congress for
his healthcare bill that went nowhere and was largely responsible for the
Democrats losing Congress in 1994. A 1967 law was passed that would have
made it illegal to appoint an immediate relative to a cabinet post as JFK
did with RFK.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/14/the-ethics-rules-that-apply-and-dont-apply-to-trumps-children/?utm_term=.c3adba48ef7c
http://ktar.com/story/1419885/historian-donald-trump-not-first-president-appoint-family-member/

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong.

We can say that so far, Mueller has produced none.

There is proof mentioned above, and they usually hold much of the
crimes until the end of the special counsel.

So until then you can just do what you do best, make baseless assumptions.

Well, in this situation assumptions aren't baseless.

If they weren't baseless, they wouldn't be assumptions.

Post by mainframetech
After all, we're
dealing with a large scale scam artist. Remember the Trump University?

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.

The longer it drags out, the more it looks like Mueller is fanning the
flames to influence the midterms. If he waits until after the midterms are
over and THEN announces he could find no evidence that anyone from the
Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, I think it will be pretty clear
what his real agenda was.

His real agenda was laid out when he got his orders, and he's pursuing
those orders.

The purpose of his appointment was to determine if there was evidence of
collusion with Russians interfering in the 2016 election. He has gone far
beyond that mission by investigating alleged crimes which had nothing to
do with the election.

Part of his orders were to follow up on any and all crimes encountered
during the probe. That's what has happened. Soon Manafort will be found
guilty and we'll be off and running.

So he was authorized to conduct a witch hunt.

Give it up. Trump has already admitted the collusion, but he says
collusion isn't a crime. So did his Fox Lawyer Rudi:

Trump repeatedly denied collusion. Now his lawyer Rudy Giuliani says:
'Collusion is not a crime'

President Donald Trump's attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, asserted
Monday that "collusion is not a crime."
"I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to
find collusion as a crime," Giuliani said in an interview on "Fox &
Friends." "Collusion is not a crime."
The president has repeatedly asserted that there was "no collusion"
between his campaign and Russia during the 2016 U.S. presidential
election. As recently as Sunday, the president took to Twitter to repeat
the claim.

Tucker Higgins | @tuckerhiggins
Published 9:40 AM ET Mon, 30 July 2018 Updated 2:36 PM ET Mon, 30 July 2018

s

The Washington Post
Democracy Dies in Darkness

Accessibility for screenreader

PostEverything Perspective
Trump says collusion isn’t a crime. He’s right. It’s actually many crimes.

President Trump smiles during a campaign rally Tuesday in Tampa. (AP
Photo/Evan Vucci)
by Barry Berke, Norman Eisen and Dani James August 1 Follow @NormEisen
About the authors

President Trump’s defender-in-chief, Rudolph W. Giuliani, departed from
his client’s usual mantra of “no collusion” on Monday by arguing that
even if the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, that is not a crime. On
Tuesday, Trump repeated on Twitter that “collusion is not a crime.”
While he and Giuliani are technically correct, that’s only because
collusion is a rubric that in fact encompasses many crimes. As criminal
law experts with a collective century of experience prosecuting and
defending criminal charges, we believe the sudden pivot to this baseless
legal defense signals concern among Trump and his attorneys about
emerging evidence that will show collusion.

That term has come to be shorthand for the possibility that the Trump
campaign, its advisers or the president himself coordinated with Russia,
a hostile foreign power, to help Trump win the election. The argument
that such coordination would be lawful is striking, including the fact
that it follows 191 charges against 35 individuals and companies brought
by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, which have yielded five guilty
pleas. Taken together, that work spells out the many crimes Russia
committed to attempt to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.

That conduct was deeply illegal, and it logically follows that if the
president or his campaign team actually worked with the Russians in
connection with their efforts, they, too, could be liable. That is not
only common sense: It is also the law, with a raft of specific
“collusion” crimes implicated.

Many fall under the rubric of conspiracy: an agreement to further
illegal action. The core federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371,
would be triggered here if there were any agreement by Trump or those
around him with Russian agents to do something that the law forbids. For
example, if in or around the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, the
Russians and a Trump representative tacitly or explicitly agreed about
the release or use of illegally obtained information, that could
plausibly support a conspiracy charge. Indeed, there is already some
evidence of just that, including Donald Trump Jr.’s infamous email that
“if it’s what you say I love it.”

[To lawyers like us, Michael Cohen looks like he’s ready to flip on Trump]

To take another example of a “collusion” crime, the special counsel’s
February and July 2018 indictments against alleged Russian hackers
charged them with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Their
cyber-misconduct defrauded the government by interfering with federal
elections. If Trump campaign operatives were a part of that — say, by
coordinating the release of hacked DNC emails with Russian operatives or
planning speeches or other campaign events around those releases — then
the campaign, too, could plausibly be a part of the conspiracy to
defraud the United States.

Again, there is already enough evidence to warrant searching review,
such as the fact that within hours of the Russian offer of dirt, Trump
announced a major speech promising revelations about his opponent (a
speech that he would promise again the following week but never actually
deliver). Such campaign encouragement of, or involvement in, illegal
Russian activity would not just implicate conspiracy law. The Russian
conduct appears to have violated federal anti-hacking statutes, such as
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Wiretap Act. The Wiretap Act is
especially relevant because we know that the Russians infected the DNC
servers with malware that transmitted emails to the Russians’ main
server in real time. They were literally intercepting communications,
one of the precise activities the act criminalizes.

Even if members of the campaign didn’t encourage or direct that hack,
they could still be subject to prosecution for aiding and abetting — in
lay terms, helping — a violation of those statutes. Aiding and abetting
liability could become a factor if, for example, campaign operatives
took a step to make sure the Russians used the hacked materials in the
best possible way. (Indeed, campaign aides could even have directly
violated the Wiretap Act if they themselves used the contents of any
illegally intercepted communication, if they knew or had reason to know
the communication was intercepted illegally.)

Nor do the varieties of possible criminal “collusion” with Russia end
there. If the president knowingly accepted something of value from the
Russians, such as harmful information about his opponent, that could be
an illegal contribution by foreign nationals. That is an election law
crime. If he accepted that information in exchange for the promise of
some action (like taking a more accommodating posture toward the Russian
invasion of Ukraine) that he or his administration would take if his
campaign proved successful, that could constitute an illegal quid pro
quo — that is, bribery.

What if the Russians only informed the campaign about their plans to
disseminate stolen emails and the campaign did something that interfered
with the crime being uncovered? That could constitute the crime of
misprision of a felony — essentially of hiding crimes. And if any money
transfers were involved to further the collusion — like if the Russians
wired money to the National Rifle Association to avoid FEC scrutiny —
that could violate the money laundering statute. Both would be forms of
illegally working with the Russians. In a word: “collusion.”

[Trump’s lawyers say he’s above the law. They clearly don’t understand it.]

This list merely scratches the surface of the criminal collusion that
may be under investigation. In addition, there is of course the coverup
of the collusion, which implicates an entirely different set of crimes.
Michael T. Flynn and George Papadopoulos have pleaded guilty to the
crime of making false statements in connection with their dealings with
Russia. If recent reports that the president knew about the Trump Tower
meeting are true, then Trump Jr. could face similar charges based on his
congressional testimony to the contrary.

Those reports are of course based upon Michael Cohen’s alleged
willingness to testify about what Trump knew of the meeting with the
Russians and when he knew it. It could well be that there is other
corroborating evidence that Cohen has or the special counsel has gotten
from other sources. There is also the corroboration offered by common
sense: Given everything we know about the paterfamilias, it seems
unlikely that no one would have told him about a meeting that was
important enough to draw the entire senior leadership of the campaign.

As seasoned criminal law practitioners, we recognize when the tactic of
arguing that facts do not constitute a crime is used. That typically
happens only after it becomes clear that the prosecution will be able to
prove the conduct at issue occurred. That makes it particularly
interesting that the president and his lawyer are now reaching for the
“collusion is not a crime” defense, after the reports that Cohen will
say Trump knew of the Trump Tower meeting.

At any rate, there can be no question of the legitimate law enforcement
interest in investigating the many “collusion” crimes that may have been
committed. The American people have a fundamental right to know if the
president of the United States worked with Russia to win the election
and undermine American democracy. The president and his lawyers’ embrace
of the extraordinary defense that such collusion would be entirely
lawful raises an obvious question: Why are they so busy defending
collusion if there was none?




And remember, "When the President does it, that makes it legal."
- Richard Milhouse Nixon

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.

Yes, YOU are simple. You look for the simplest answer, not the correct
answer. Why don't you did deeprer and find out why the electoral college
does not match the popular vote? Too scary for you?

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.

Always stay in Denial. It's a lot safer there and the fishing is better.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO

What is that when you change the charge to make it seem less important?
OK, Trump did not steal the WH cutlery. Are you happy now?
The charge is Treason.

Post by d***@gmail.com
proof of collusion are also wrong. The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Jason Burke]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks
gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.

Yes, YOU are simple. You look for the simplest answer, not the correct
answer. Why don't you did deeprer and find out why the electoral college
does not match the popular vote? Too scary for you?

Is there *anyone* here who can make sense of that last comment?
Including the writer...

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, you can get down to the more granular explanations as to WHY did he
win certain states that have typically gone Democratic in the past - like
Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that were won by a fairly slim margin.
Yet, even if Clinton had won BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin - and we change
nothing else - Trump STILL gets an electoral win.
So, the Democrats have little to complain about with regards to the
election process.
Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.

Always stay in Denial. It's a lot safer there and the fishing is better.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO

What is that when you change the charge to make it seem less important?
OK, Trump did not steal the WH cutlery. Are you happy now?
The charge is Treason.

Post by d***@gmail.com
proof of collusion are also wrong. The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bigdog]

Post by Jason Burke

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks
gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.

Yes, YOU are simple. You look for the simplest answer, not the correct
answer. Why don't you did deeprer and find out why the electoral college
does not match the popular vote? Too scary for you?

Is there *anyone* here who can make sense of that last comment?
Including the writer...

I'll take a stab at it. He probably things the electoral college is
supposed yield the same result as the popular vote. If that were true
there would be no point in having an electoral college. The framers of the
Constitution chose not to have presidents elected by direct popular vote.
They wanted the states to elect the president, not the people. The
electoral college favors a candidate with the broadest appeal. In the most
recent election, Hillary's strength was entirely on the two coasts where
she racked up huge pluralities. There are two narrow corridors between
I-95 and the east coast and I-5 and the west coast where Hillary won by
over 6 million votes. Trump won all the territory in between those two
freeways by about 3.5 million votes. The formula for allocating electors
favors the smaller states because a state gets the same number of electors
as its total of congressman and senators. Since each state has two
senators, it's number of electors is not proportional to its population.
For example California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has just 1.
That means California has roughly 53 times the population of Wyoming but
only about 18 times the number of electors. In the electoral college, it
is far better to win a lot of small states rather than one big one.
However that skewing of the electoral college allocation did not make the
difference in the electoral college in 2016 although it did in 2000. Trump
won 30 races to 21 for Hillary. Had the electoral college been allocated
proportionally to the population, Trump still would have won because he
carried a number of large states by small margins while Hillary was
winning New York and California by much larger margins. Winning a state by
one vote is as good as winning it by a millions votes.

[Jason Burke]

Post by bigdog

Post by Jason Burke

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks
gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.

Yes, YOU are simple. You look for the simplest answer, not the correct
answer. Why don't you did deeprer and find out why the electoral college
does not match the popular vote? Too scary for you?

Is there *anyone* here who can make sense of that last comment?
Including the writer...

I'll take a stab at it. He probably things the electoral college is
supposed yield the same result as the popular vote. If that were true
there would be no point in having an electoral college. The framers of the
Constitution chose not to have presidents elected by direct popular vote.
They wanted the states to elect the president, not the people. The
electoral college favors a candidate with the broadest appeal. In the most
recent election, Hillary's strength was entirely on the two coasts where
she racked up huge pluralities. There are two narrow corridors between
I-95 and the east coast and I-5 and the west coast where Hillary won by
over 6 million votes. Trump won all the territory in between those two
freeways by about 3.5 million votes. The formula for allocating electors
favors the smaller states because a state gets the same number of electors
as its total of congressman and senators. Since each state has two
senators, it's number of electors is not proportional to its population.
For example California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has just 1.
That means California has roughly 53 times the population of Wyoming but
only about 18 times the number of electors. In the electoral college, it
is far better to win a lot of small states rather than one big one.
However that skewing of the electoral college allocation did not make the
difference in the electoral college in 2016 although it did in 2000. Trump
won 30 races to 21 for Hillary. Had the electoral college been allocated
proportionally to the population, Trump still would have won because he
carried a number of large states by small margins while Hillary was
winning New York and California by much larger margins. Winning a state by
one vote is as good as winning it by a millions votes.

Dead on b*lls accurate...
But I'm sure Anthony Anthony will have some nonsensical reply.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by Jason Burke

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks
gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they’ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won’t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that’s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Gerrymandering is something that BOTH parties have done whenever the
opportunity has presented itself. I wouldn't say Trump won because of
gerrymandering. I'd say he won because he won the electoral college.
Simply that.

Yes, YOU are simple. You look for the simplest answer, not the correct
answer. Why don't you did deeprer and find out why the electoral college
does not match the popular vote? Too scary for you?

Is there *anyone* here who can make sense of that last comment?
Including the writer...

I'll take a stab at it. He probably things the electoral college is
supposed yield the same result as the popular vote. If that were true

Never, but the Republicans are violating the law to set an unlevel
playing field to favor themselves.

Post by bigdog
there would be no point in having an electoral college. The framers of the

The Electoral College was compromise. But it can and has been abused.

Post by bigdog
Constitution chose not to have presidents elected by direct popular vote.

For good reason.

Post by bigdog
They wanted the states to elect the president, not the people. The

To gain the trust of the smaller states who did not want to overwhelmed
by the larger states.

Post by bigdog
electoral college favors a candidate with the broadest appeal. In the most

Not exactly. Hillary had the broader appeal.

Post by bigdog
recent election, Hillary's strength was entirely on the two coasts where
she racked up huge pluralities. There are two narrow corridors between

Yeah, duh! It's been that way for a long time.

Post by bigdog
I-95 and the east coast and I-5 and the west coast where Hillary won by
over 6 million votes. Trump won all the territory in between those two
freeways by about 3.5 million votes. The formula for allocating electors
favors the smaller states because a state gets the same number of electors
as its total of congressman and senators. Since each state has two
senators, it's number of electors is not proportional to its population.
For example California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has just 1.
That means California has roughly 53 times the population of Wyoming but
only about 18 times the number of electors. In the electoral college, it
is far better to win a lot of small states rather than one big one.
However that skewing of the electoral college allocation did not make the
difference in the electoral college in 2016 although it did in 2000. Trump
won 30 races to 21 for Hillary. Had the electoral college been allocated
proportionally to the population, Trump still would have won because he
carried a number of large states by small margins while Hillary was
winning New York and California by much larger margins. Winning a state by
one vote is as good as winning it by a millions votes.

Silly.

[claviger]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
I'll take a stab at it. He probably things the electoral college is
supposed yield the same result as the popular vote. If that were true

Never, but the Republicans are violating the law to set an unlevel
playing field to favor themselves.

Are you saying Democrats have NEVER done anything like that?

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
there would be no point in having an electoral college. The framers of the

The Electoral College was compromise. But it can and has been abused.

Yes a compromise from Day One. Still the same system that has
elected every President in US History.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
Constitution chose not to have presidents elected by direct popular vote.

For good reason.

Yes the Founders did not want to create a situation of unmitigated chaos
doomed to failure like the bloody French Revolution. Their concept was a
coalition of independent self sustaining States who did not want to create
a monster of one huge chaotic Democracy of the many disenfranchising the
few. The intelligent experienced members of the Continental Congress
would not approve of a raw democracy that would be nothing more than Mob
Rule. The States would never consent to that type of dog-eat-dog Law of
the Jungle. In which case they would be much better off separate and
apart.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
They wanted the states to elect the president, not the people. The

To gain the trust of the smaller states who did not want to overwhelmed
by the larger states.

Yes, they just separated from that concept and did not wish to
be another one-sided situation ever again.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
electoral college favors a candidate with the broadest appeal. In the most

Not exactly. Hillary had the broader appeal.

In the Big States. If that was the system she would be an Empress
and no need for elections anymore.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
recent election, Hillary's strength was entirely on the two coasts where
she racked up huge pluralities. There are two narrow corridors between

Yeah, duh! It's been that way for a long time.

Then what are you complaining about?

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
I-95 and the east coast and I-5 and the west coast where Hillary won by
over 6 million votes. Trump won all the territory in between those two
freeways by about 3.5 million votes. The formula for allocating electors
favors the smaller states because a state gets the same number of electors
as its total of congressman and senators. Since each state has two
senators, it's number of electors is not proportional to its population.
For example California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has just 1.
That means California has roughly 53 times the population of Wyoming but
only about 18 times the number of electors. In the electoral college, it
is far better to win a lot of small states rather than one big one.
However that skewing of the electoral college allocation did not make the
difference in the electoral college in 2016 although it did in 2000. Trump
won 30 races to 21 for Hillary. Had the electoral college been allocated
proportionally to the population, Trump still would have won because he
carried a number of large states by small margins while Hillary was
winning New York and California by much larger margins. Winning a state by
one vote is as good as winning it by a millions votes.

Silly.

So move to Cuba. You would love it. The Leftists did away with Democracy
a long time ago.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
I'll take a stab at it. He probably things the electoral college is
supposed yield the same result as the popular vote. If that were true

Never, but the Republicans are violating the law to set an unlevel
playing field to favor themselves.

Are you saying Democrats have NEVER done anything like that?

Silly, I said Elbridge Gerry invented it and I went to the Gerry school.
He was a Democrat-Republican.

Just stop your false equivalency.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
there would be no point in having an electoral college. The framers of the

The Electoral College was compromise. But it can and has been abused.

Yes a compromise from Day One. Still the same system that has
elected every President in US History.

Some more corrupt than others.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
Constitution chose not to have presidents elected by direct popular vote.

For good reason.

Yes the Founders did not want to create a situation of unmitigated chaos
doomed to failure like the bloody French Revolution. Their concept was a

Ah ha! Bkame it on the French. Pure Democracy is too dangerous.

Post by claviger
coalition of independent self sustaining States who did not want to create
a monster of one huge chaotic Democracy of the many disenfranchising the
few. The intelligent experienced members of the Continental Congress

I sympathize with their fears.

Post by claviger
would not approve of a raw democracy that would be nothing more than Mob
Rule. The States would never consent to that type of dog-eat-dog Law of

That is the danger of pure democracy. That is why we have a constitution.

Post by claviger
the Jungle. In which case they would be much better off separate and
apart.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
They wanted the states to elect the president, not the people. The

To gain the trust of the smaller states who did not want to overwhelmed
by the larger states.

Yes, they just separated from that concept and did not wish to
be another one-sided situation ever again.

What concept? Where the people elected their king?

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
electoral college favors a candidate with the broadest appeal. In the most

Not exactly. Hillary had the broader appeal.

In the Big States. If that was the system she would be an Empress
and no need for elections anymore.

In the full population. She won the most votes. Don't be a sore loser.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
recent election, Hillary's strength was entirely on the two coasts where

Wher the electoral votes do not reflect tht number of voters.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
she racked up huge pluralities. There are two narrow corridors between

Yeah, duh! It's been that way for a long time.

Then what are you complaining about?

Voter suppression. Russian meddling, Gerrymandering.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
I-95 and the east coast and I-5 and the west coast where Hillary won by
over 6 million votes. Trump won all the territory in between those two
freeways by about 3.5 million votes. The formula for allocating electors
favors the smaller states because a state gets the same number of electors
as its total of congressman and senators. Since each state has two
senators, it's number of electors is not proportional to its population.
For example California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has just 1.
That means California has roughly 53 times the population of Wyoming but
only about 18 times the number of electors. In the electoral college, it
is far better to win a lot of small states rather than one big one.
However that skewing of the electoral college allocation did not make the
difference in the electoral college in 2016 although it did in 2000. Trump
won 30 races to 21 for Hillary. Had the electoral college been allocated
proportionally to the population, Trump still would have won because he
carried a number of large states by small margins while Hillary was
winning New York and California by much larger margins. Winning a state by
one vote is as good as winning it by a millions votes.

Silly.

So move to Cuba. You would love it. The Leftists did away with Democracy
a long time ago.

Man, that is so old. If you don't like Democracy, move to Russia. You'd
fit right in.

[claviger]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
I'll take a stab at it. He probably things the electoral college is
supposed yield the same result as the popular vote. If that were true

Never, but the Republicans are violating the law to set an unlevel
playing field to favor themselves.

Are you saying Democrats have NEVER done anything like that?

Silly, I said Elbridge Gerry invented it and I went to the Gerry school.
He was a Democrat-Republican.

Bipolar? Split personality?

Post by Anthony Marsh
Just stop your false equivalency.

What false equivalency? Democrats are Left, Republicans are Right.
Liberals rely on Emotion while Republicans rely on Reason.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
there would be no point in having an electoral college. The framers of the

The Electoral College was compromise. But it can and has been abused.

Yes a compromise from Day One. Still the same system that has
elected every President in US History.

Some more corrupt than others.

The previous president being a glaring example.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
Constitution chose not to have presidents elected by direct popular vote.

For good reason.

Yes the Founders did not want to create a situation of unmitigated chaos
doomed to failure like the bloody French Revolution. Their concept wa

Ah ha! Bkame it on the French. Pure Democracy is too dangerous.

The French had an opportunity to develop a working model of Democracy.
Instead they chose a chaotic mob rule over a civilized version of
governing. It took a strong Emperor to straighten things out. The problem
is he became a militant Eurobully who invaded and confiscated the wealth
of his neighbors. He became a Liberal.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger
coalition of independent self sustaining States who did not want to create
a monster of one huge chaotic Democracy of the many disenfranchising
the few. The intelligent experienced members of the Continental Congress

I sympathize with their fears.

Post by claviger
would not approve of a raw democracy that would be nothing more than
Mob Rule. The States would never consent to that type of dog-eat-dog

That is the danger of pure democracy. That is why we have a constitution.

Post by claviger
the Jungle. In which case they would be much better off separate and
apart.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
They wanted the states to elect the president, not the people. The

To gain the trust of the smaller states who did not want to be overwhelmed
by the larger states.

Yes, they just separated from that concept and did not wish to
be another one-sided situation ever again.

What concept?

No representation in Parliament.

Post by Anthony Marsh
Where the people elected their king?

That is what modern Liberals want, a Liberal monarch like
the previous imperial president. Conservatives prefer to
elect a citizen President with two-term limits.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
electoral college favors a candidate with the broadest appeal. In the most

Not exactly. Hillary had the broader appeal.

In the Big States. If that was the system she would be an Empress
and no need for elections anymore.

In the full population. She won the most votes. Don't be a sore loser.

Are you talking to the man in the mirror again?

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
recent election, Hillary's strength was entirely on the two coasts where

Wher the electoral votes do not reflect tht number of voters.

The electoral college is what makes the whole system work. It was a
brilliant compromise without which there would be no Constitution or
United States.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
she racked up huge pluralities. There are two narrow corridors between

Yeah, duh! It's been that way for a long time.

Then what are you complaining about?

Voter suppression. Russian meddling, Gerrymandering.

None of which you can prove. You are just a run of the mill
ordinary sore loser crybaby Liberal.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
I-95 and the east coast and I-5 and the west coast where Hillary won by
over 6 million votes. Trump won all the territory in between those two
freeways by about 3.5 million votes. The formula for allocating electors
favors the smaller states because a state gets the same number of electors
as its total of congressman and senators. Since each state has two
senators, it's number of electors is not proportional to its population.
For example California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has just 1.
That means California has roughly 53 times the population of Wyoming but
only about 18 times the number of electors. In the electoral college, it
is far better to win a lot of small states rather than one big one.
However that skewing of the electoral college allocation did not make the
difference in the electoral college in 2016 although it did in 2000. Trump
won 30 races to 21 for Hillary. Had the electoral college been allocated
proportionally to the population, Trump still would have won because he
carried a number of large states by small margins while Hillary was
winning New York and California by much larger margins. Winning a state by
one vote is as good as winning it by a millions votes.

Silly.

So move to Cuba. You would love it. The Leftists did away with Democracy
a long time ago.

Man, that is so old. If you don't like Democracy, move to Russia. You'd
fit right in.

I didn't say Russia and you wouldn't fit in over there anyway because they
dumped the original bankrupt model Marxist Socialism that never worked
from the beginning. The Castro junta still clings to the old decrepit
model of no growth/no progress Socialism that would make you feel nice and
cozy with a very low cholesterol diet.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
I'll take a stab at it. He probably things the electoral college is
supposed yield the same result as the popular vote. If that were true

Never, but the Republicans are violating the law to set an unlevel
playing field to favor themselves.

Are you saying Democrats have NEVER done anything like that?

Silly, I said Elbridge Gerry invented it and I went to the Gerry school.
He was a Democrat-Republican.

Bipolar? Split personality?

Post by Anthony Marsh
Just stop your false equivalency.

What false equivalency? Democrats are Left, Republicans are Right.
Liberals rely on Emotion while Republicans rely on Reason.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
there would be no point in having an electoral college. The framers of the

The Electoral College was compromise. But it can and has been abused.

Yes a compromise from Day One. Still the same system that has
elected every President in US History.

Some more corrupt than others.

The previous president being a glaring example.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
Constitution chose not to have presidents elected by direct popular vote.

For good reason.

Yes the Founders did not want to create a situation of unmitigated chaos
doomed to failure like the bloody French Revolution. Their concept wa

Ah ha! Bkame it on the French. Pure Democracy is too dangerous.

The French had an opportunity to develop a working model of Democracy.

You mean The Terror?

Post by claviger
Instead they chose a chaotic mob rule over a civilized version of
governing. It took a strong Emperor to straighten things out. The problem
is he became a militant Eurobully who invaded and confiscated the wealth
of his neighbors. He became a Liberal.

Ah, maybe they had no other mechanism. How often can people just elect a
King or a Dictator out of power?

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger
coalition of independent self sustaining States who did not want to create
a monster of one huge chaotic Democracy of the many disenfranchising
the few. The intelligent experienced members of the Continental Congress

I sympathize with their fears.

Yes, Democracy is chaoatic. A dictatorship is so much neater.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger
would not approve of a raw democracy that would be nothing more than
Mob Rule. The States would never consent to that type of dog-eat-dog

That is the danger of pure democracy. That is why we have a constitution.

Post by claviger
the Jungle. In which case they would be much better off separate and
apart.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
They wanted the states to elect the president, not the people. The

To gain the trust of the smaller states who did not want to be overwhelmed
by the larger states.

Yes, they just separated from that concept and did not wish to
be another one-sided situation ever again.

What concept?

No representation in Parliament.

Post by Anthony Marsh
Where the people elected their king?

That is what modern Liberals want, a Liberal monarch like

Silly. Modern Liberals do not want a king.
Talk about an Imperial President and Nixon and Trump come to mind.

Post by claviger
the previous imperial president. Conservatives prefer to
elect a citizen President with two-term limits.

Nothing wrong with two-term limits.
Trump is not a CITIZEN President. He's an oligarch.
Conservatives hate Trump and they leave the Republican Party.
He thinks average people have to show their driver's licenses to buy
groceries. Al Gore didn't even know the price of bread.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
electoral college favors a candidate with the broadest appeal. In the most

Not exactly. Hillary had the broader appeal.

In the Big States. If that was the system she would be an Empress
and no need for elections anymore.

In the full population. She won the most votes. Don't be a sore loser.

Are you talking to the man in the mirror again?

No, I am talking to all Trump supporters. You can't even face facts.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
recent election, Hillary's strength was entirely on the two coasts where

Wher the electoral votes do not reflect tht number of voters.

The electoral college is what makes the whole system work. It was a
brilliant compromise without which there would be no Constitution or
United States.

Compromise yes. Necessary yes. Brilliant no.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
she racked up huge pluralities. There are two narrow corridors between

Yeah, duh! It's been that way for a long time.

Then what are you complaining about?

Voter suppression. Russian meddling, Gerrymandering.

None of which you can prove. You are just a run of the mill
ordinary sore loser crybaby Liberal.

Watch the court cases.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
I-95 and the east coast and I-5 and the west coast where Hillary won by
over 6 million votes. Trump won all the territory in between those two
freeways by about 3.5 million votes. The formula for allocating electors
favors the smaller states because a state gets the same number of electors
as its total of congressman and senators. Since each state has two
senators, it's number of electors is not proportional to its population.
For example California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has just 1.
That means California has roughly 53 times the population of Wyoming but
only about 18 times the number of electors. In the electoral college, it
is far better to win a lot of small states rather than one big one.
However that skewing of the electoral college allocation did not make the
difference in the electoral college in 2016 although it did in 2000. Trump
won 30 races to 21 for Hillary. Had the electoral college been allocated
proportionally to the population, Trump still would have won because he
carried a number of large states by small margins while Hillary was
winning New York and California by much larger margins. Winning a state by
one vote is as good as winning it by a millions votes.

Silly.

So move to Cuba. You would love it. The Leftists did away with Democracy
a long time ago.

Man, that is so old. If you don't like Democracy, move to Russia. You'd
fit right in.

I didn't say Russia and you wouldn't fit in over there anyway because they

I didn't say that *I* would move to Russia. I said YOU should move to
Russia. You would fit in perfectly.

Post by claviger
dumped the original bankrupt model Marxist Socialism that never worked
from the beginning. The Castro junta still clings to the old decrepit
model of no growth/no progress Socialism that would make you feel nice and
cozy with a very low cholesterol diet.

Socialism is dead.

[Mark]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
I'll take a stab at it. He probably things the electoral college is
supposed yield the same result as the popular vote. If that were true

Never, but the Republicans are violating the law to set an unlevel
playing field to favor themselves.

Are you saying Democrats have NEVER done anything like that?

Silly, I said Elbridge Gerry invented it and I went to the Gerry school.
He was a Democrat-Republican.

Bipolar? Split personality?

Post by Anthony Marsh
Just stop your false equivalency.

What false equivalency? Democrats are Left, Republicans are Right.
Liberals rely on Emotion while Republicans rely on Reason.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
there would be no point in having an electoral college. The framers of the

The Electoral College was compromise. But it can and has been abused.

Yes a compromise from Day One. Still the same system that has
elected every President in US History.

Some more corrupt than others.

The previous president being a glaring example.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
Constitution chose not to have presidents elected by direct popular vote.

For good reason.

Yes the Founders did not want to create a situation of unmitigated chaos
doomed to failure like the bloody French Revolution. Their concept wa

Ah ha! Bkame it on the French. Pure Democracy is too dangerous.

The French had an opportunity to develop a working model of Democracy.

You mean The Terror?

Post by claviger
Instead they chose a chaotic mob rule over a civilized version of
governing. It took a strong Emperor to straighten things out. The problem
is he became a militant Eurobully who invaded and confiscated the wealth
of his neighbors. He became a Liberal.

Ah, maybe they had no other mechanism. How often can people just elect a
King or a Dictator out of power?

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger
coalition of independent self sustaining States who did not want to create
a monster of one huge chaotic Democracy of the many disenfranchising
the few. The intelligent experienced members of the Continental Congress

I sympathize with their fears.

Yes, Democracy is chaoatic. A dictatorship is so much neater.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger
would not approve of a raw democracy that would be nothing more than
Mob Rule. The States would never consent to that type of dog-eat-dog

That is the danger of pure democracy. That is why we have a constitution.

Post by claviger
the Jungle. In which case they would be much better off separate and
apart.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
They wanted the states to elect the president, not the people. The

To gain the trust of the smaller states who did not want to be overwhelmed
by the larger states.

Yes, they just separated from that concept and did not wish to
be another one-sided situation ever again.

What concept?

No representation in Parliament.

Post by Anthony Marsh
Where the people elected their king?

That is what modern Liberals want, a Liberal monarch like

Silly. Modern Liberals do not want a king.
Talk about an Imperial President and Nixon and Trump come to mind.

Post by claviger
the previous imperial president. Conservatives prefer to
elect a citizen President with two-term limits.

Nothing wrong with two-term limits.
Trump is not a CITIZEN President. He's an oligarch.
Conservatives hate Trump and they leave the Republican Party.
He thinks average people have to show their driver's licenses to buy
groceries. Al Gore didn't even know the price of bread.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
electoral college favors a candidate with the broadest appeal. In the most

Not exactly. Hillary had the broader appeal.

In the Big States. If that was the system she would be an Empress
and no need for elections anymore.

In the full population. She won the most votes. Don't be a sore loser.

Are you talking to the man in the mirror again?

No, I am talking to all Trump supporters. You can't even face facts.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
recent election, Hillary's strength was entirely on the two coasts where

Wher the electoral votes do not reflect tht number of voters.

The electoral college is what makes the whole system work. It was a
brilliant compromise without which there would be no Constitution or
United States.

Compromise yes. Necessary yes. Brilliant no.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
she racked up huge pluralities. There are two narrow corridors between

Yeah, duh! It's been that way for a long time.

Then what are you complaining about?

Voter suppression. Russian meddling, Gerrymandering.

None of which you can prove. You are just a run of the mill
ordinary sore loser crybaby Liberal.

Watch the court cases.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
I-95 and the east coast and I-5 and the west coast where Hillary won by
over 6 million votes. Trump won all the territory in between those two
freeways by about 3.5 million votes. The formula for allocating electors
favors the smaller states because a state gets the same number of electors
as its total of congressman and senators. Since each state has two
senators, it's number of electors is not proportional to its population.
For example California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has just 1.
That means California has roughly 53 times the population of Wyoming but
only about 18 times the number of electors. In the electoral college, it
is far better to win a lot of small states rather than one big one.
However that skewing of the electoral college allocation did not make the
difference in the electoral college in 2016 although it did in 2000. Trump
won 30 races to 21 for Hillary. Had the electoral college been allocated
proportionally to the population, Trump still would have won because he
carried a number of large states by small margins while Hillary was
winning New York and California by much larger margins. Winning a state by
one vote is as good as winning it by a millions votes.

Silly.

So move to Cuba. You would love it. The Leftists did away with Democracy
a long time ago.

Man, that is so old. If you don't like Democracy, move to Russia. You'd
fit right in.

I didn't say Russia and you wouldn't fit in over there anyway because they

I didn't say that *I* would move to Russia. I said YOU should move to
Russia. You would fit in perfectly.

Post by claviger
dumped the original bankrupt model Marxist Socialism that never worked
from the beginning. The Castro junta still clings to the old decrepit
model of no growth/no progress Socialism that would make you feel nice and
cozy with a very low cholesterol diet.

Socialism is dead.

You say what, Tony? Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Mark

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
I'll take a stab at it. He probably things the electoral college is
supposed yield the same result as the popular vote. If that were true

Never, but the Republicans are violating the law to set an unlevel
playing field to favor themselves.

Are you saying Democrats have NEVER done anything like that?

Silly, I said Elbridge Gerry invented it and I went to the Gerry school.
He was a Democrat-Republican.

Bipolar? Split personality?

Post by Anthony Marsh
Just stop your false equivalency.

What false equivalency? Democrats are Left, Republicans are Right.
Liberals rely on Emotion while Republicans rely on Reason.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
there would be no point in having an electoral college. The framers of the

The Electoral College was compromise. But it can and has been abused.

Yes a compromise from Day One. Still the same system that has
elected every President in US History.

Some more corrupt than others.

The previous president being a glaring example.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
Constitution chose not to have presidents elected by direct popular vote.

For good reason.

Yes the Founders did not want to create a situation of unmitigated chaos
doomed to failure like the bloody French Revolution. Their concept wa

Ah ha! Bkame it on the French. Pure Democracy is too dangerous.

The French had an opportunity to develop a working model of Democracy.

You mean The Terror?

Post by claviger
Instead they chose a chaotic mob rule over a civilized version of
governing. It took a strong Emperor to straighten things out. The problem
is he became a militant Eurobully who invaded and confiscated the wealth
of his neighbors. He became a Liberal.

Ah, maybe they had no other mechanism. How often can people just elect a
King or a Dictator out of power?

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger
coalition of independent self sustaining States who did not want to create
a monster of one huge chaotic Democracy of the many disenfranchising
the few. The intelligent experienced members of the Continental Congress

I sympathize with their fears.

Yes, Democracy is chaoatic. A dictatorship is so much neater.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger
would not approve of a raw democracy that would be nothing more than
Mob Rule. The States would never consent to that type of dog-eat-dog

That is the danger of pure democracy. That is why we have a constitution.

Post by claviger
the Jungle. In which case they would be much better off separate and
apart.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
They wanted the states to elect the president, not the people. The

To gain the trust of the smaller states who did not want to be overwhelmed
by the larger states.

Yes, they just separated from that concept and did not wish to
be another one-sided situation ever again.

What concept?

No representation in Parliament.

Post by Anthony Marsh
Where the people elected their king?

That is what modern Liberals want, a Liberal monarch like

Silly. Modern Liberals do not want a king.
Talk about an Imperial President and Nixon and Trump come to mind.

Post by claviger
the previous imperial president. Conservatives prefer to
elect a citizen President with two-term limits.

Nothing wrong with two-term limits.
Trump is not a CITIZEN President. He's an oligarch.
Conservatives hate Trump and they leave the Republican Party.
He thinks average people have to show their driver's licenses to buy
groceries. Al Gore didn't even know the price of bread.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
electoral college favors a candidate with the broadest appeal. In the most

Not exactly. Hillary had the broader appeal.

In the Big States. If that was the system she would be an Empress
and no need for elections anymore.

In the full population. She won the most votes. Don't be a sore loser.

Are you talking to the man in the mirror again?

No, I am talking to all Trump supporters. You can't even face facts.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
recent election, Hillary's strength was entirely on the two coasts where

Wher the electoral votes do not reflect tht number of voters.

The electoral college is what makes the whole system work. It was a
brilliant compromise without which there would be no Constitution or
United States.

Compromise yes. Necessary yes. Brilliant no.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
she racked up huge pluralities. There are two narrow corridors between

Yeah, duh! It's been that way for a long time.

Then what are you complaining about?

Voter suppression. Russian meddling, Gerrymandering.

None of which you can prove. You are just a run of the mill
ordinary sore loser crybaby Liberal.

Watch the court cases.

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
I-95 and the east coast and I-5 and the west coast where Hillary won by
over 6 million votes. Trump won all the territory in between those two
freeways by about 3.5 million votes. The formula for allocating electors
favors the smaller states because a state gets the same number of electors
as its total of congressman and senators. Since each state has two
senators, it's number of electors is not proportional to its population.
For example California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has just 1.
That means California has roughly 53 times the population of Wyoming but
only about 18 times the number of electors. In the electoral college, it
is far better to win a lot of small states rather than one big one.
However that skewing of the electoral college allocation did not make the
difference in the electoral college in 2016 although it did in 2000. Trump
won 30 races to 21 for Hillary. Had the electoral college been allocated
proportionally to the population, Trump still would have won because he
carried a number of large states by small margins while Hillary was
winning New York and California by much larger margins. Winning a state by
one vote is as good as winning it by a millions votes.

Silly.

So move to Cuba. You would love it. The Leftists did away with Democracy
a long time ago.

Man, that is so old. If you don't like Democracy, move to Russia. You'd
fit right in.

I didn't say Russia and you wouldn't fit in over there anyway because they

I didn't say that *I* would move to Russia. I said YOU should move to
Russia. You would fit in perfectly.

Post by claviger
dumped the original bankrupt model Marxist Socialism that never worked
from the beginning. The Castro junta still clings to the old decrepit
model of no growth/no progress Socialism that would make you feel nice and
cozy with a very low cholesterol diet.

Socialism is dead.

You say what, Tony? Mark

D-E-A-D dead.

[John McAdams]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering

Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.

But you have no evidence of that. Mueller has indicted all sorts of
people, but none for collusion between Trump and Russia.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong. The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.

It's not "responsible" to want an "investigation" continued merely for
the purpose of harassing Trump and trying to undermine his presidency.

That is an abuse of the process.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering

Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.

But you have no evidence of that. Mueller has indicted all sorts of
people, but none for collusion between Trump and Russia.

Silly. He can't indict anyone for collusion. That is not a crime. That
is not what Trump is accused of. That's what he admitted to because he
says it is not a crime. The crime is TREASON.

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong. The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.

It's not "responsible" to want an "investigation" continued merely for
the purpose of harassing Trump and trying to undermine his presidency.

So you say that it was not responsible to investigate Watergate because
Nixon was involved. Nice logic there.
Trump has already confessed.
At least Nixon was decent enough to resign.
Trump wants to take down the whole country with him.

Post by John McAdams
That is an abuse of the process.
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[bigdog]

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering

Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.

But you have no evidence of that. Mueller has indicted all sorts of
people, but none for collusion between Trump and Russia.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong. The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.

It's not "responsible" to want an "investigation" continued merely for
the purpose of harassing Trump and trying to undermine his presidency.
That is an abuse of the process.

It's also an abuse of power to use the investigation to try to influence
the midterms which is what I suspect this is all about. As long as they
don't show their cards, they create the illusion they have evidence of
collusion by the Trump campaign. You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering

Still, what remains to be known is whether the Trump campaign - and,
perhaps, with Trump's knowledge and approval - coordinated with a hostile
nation to increase its chances. It's irrelevant as to whether this
coordination swung the election. The mere fact that it happened is cause
enough to de-legitimize a president - especially if he has LIED about it.

But you have no evidence of that. Mueller has indicted all sorts of
people, but none for collusion between Trump and Russia.

Because Collusion is not a crime. Trump said so himself.

Post by bigdog

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, we don't know if any of that is true. Those who claim that there is
PROOF of collusion are wrong. Those who claim that there is absolutely NO
proof of collusion are also wrong. The investigation is ongoing. There is
certainly enough "smoke" to justify an investigation as to whether there
was ever a "fire", especially in light of the U.S. intelligence findings.
So, the most responsible position on collusion is - we'll have to wait and
see.

It's not "responsible" to want an "investigation" continued merely for
the purpose of harassing Trump and trying to undermine his presidency.
That is an abuse of the process.

It's also an abuse of power to use the investigation to try to influence
the midterms which is what I suspect this is all about. As long as they
don't show their cards, they create the illusion they have evidence of
collusion by the Trump campaign. You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

Especially when you Gerrymander and the electoral college vote is very
close.

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by bigdog
You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

You don't say? How many people do think would've voted for Hillary Clinton
in some of these states where Trump eked out an electoral victory had
there not been a social media campaign (by Russia's Internet Research
Agency) to disparage her an micro-target certain demographic groups who
would be receptive (and share) these memes?

In a previous message you said that nobody has been indicted for anything
associated with the 2016 election. Wrong! The last group of Russians to be
indicted, many of them in the military, were indicted because of their
association with the IRA which DEEPLY involved itself with the 2016
election.

You seem to be banking on the legal technicality that nobody in the Trump
orbit REALIZED they were cooperating with the Russians. In other words,
they were duped! Is that your tacit admission that they WERE working with
the Russians? Because, it sounds like it. What remains to be seen is if
they were actually duped. Apparently, it was made perfectly clear to Don
Jr. that these were Russians who represented the government's effort to
help Donald Trump.

The indictments, themselves, do not explicitly say that no Americans are
involved. You're confusing that with the fact that the indictments do not
mention any specific American. But that doesn't mean none existed. Roger
Stone is convinced that HE is the one alluded to very cryptically in those
indictments. My guess is that Mueller isn't showing his cards yet on this
matter because he has yet to interview the president. He doesn't want them
to know what HE knows, thus making easier for them to craft their answers
accordingly. That is a typical prosecutory technique.

I think you're going to be disappointed when this is over. I'm surprised
you haven't developed a SENSE of where this is going. I think it's quite
obvious. Mueller will never indict the president. That's not his job. It's
not even clear whether the DOJ can indict a sitting president. Ultimately,
it will be a political thing. Do we want a president who embraced the help
of foreign nation in a presidential campaign. And not just ANY nation - a
HOSTILE nation.

Personally, I could care less whether Trump is impeached or not because I
Mike Pence is a kook in a different way. He's religious fanatic.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bigdog]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

You don't say? How many people do think would've voted for Hillary Clinton
in some of these states where Trump eked out an electoral victory had
there not been a social media campaign (by Russia's Internet Research
Agency) to disparage her an micro-target certain demographic groups who
would be receptive (and share) these memes?

Impossible to quantify but I doubt enough to tip the election. I'll use
round numbers to illustrate the point. Trump won Wisconsin by 22,000
votes, Michigan by 10,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000. Assuming that
every Hillary vote the Russians flipped went to Trump and not one of the
other two candidates, a big if, that means they would have had to flip
11,001 votes, in Wisconsin, 5001 votes in Michigan, and 22,001 votes in
Pennsylvania and that's just to create the ridiculously unlikely scenario
of Hillary winning each of those three states by a 1 vote margin. Keep in
mind, Hillary needed to win all three. Trump would have had an electoral
college majority winning any one of them.

It really doesn't bother me that people's votes could have been influenced
by Russian social media any more than people's votes being influenced by
what they see and hear in negative campaign ads. We have always had lots
of low information voters and their votes count just as much as the well
informed voters. Each voter is allowed to cast their vote based on
whatever criteria they choose, even if they allow themselves to be
influenced by crap. I'm no more disturbed by foreign crap than I am by
domestic crap.

Post by d***@gmail.com
In a previous message you said that nobody has been indicted for anything
associated with the 2016 election. Wrong! The last group of Russians to be
indicted, many of them in the military, were indicted because of their
association with the IRA which DEEPLY involved itself with the 2016
election.

I've made many posts on the subject and I don't remember what post you are
referring to but I believe I either said no Americans had been indicted
for anything related to the 2016 campaign or nobody from the Trump
campaign had been indicted for anything related to the 2016 campaign. Both
of those statements are true. The only Americans indicated have been for
crimes unrelated to the 2016 campaign. It's rather laughable for Mueller
to be indicting Russian nationals who aren't residing in this country
because we know they are never going to see the inside of an American
courtroom which means Mueller will never have to show how weak his hand
is.

Post by d***@gmail.com
You seem to be banking on the legal technicality that nobody in the Trump
orbit REALIZED they were cooperating with the Russians.

That's not a legal technicality. That is the law. A person cannot be held
criminally liable if they are duped by foreign nationals. If people in the
Trump campaign thought they were actually dealing with Americans, there is
no crime.

Post by d***@gmail.com
In other words,
they were duped! Is that your tacit admission that they WERE working with
the Russians? Because, it sounds like it. What remains to be seen is if
they were actually duped. Apparently, it was made perfectly clear to Don
Jr. that these were Russians who represented the government's effort to
help Donald Trump.

I have no idea if anybody in the Trump campaign was duped and have seen no
evidence that any of them knowingly or unknowingly worked with Russian
operatives. The latter would not be a crime.

Post by d***@gmail.com
The indictments, themselves, do not explicitly say that no Americans are
involved.

In announcing the indictments, Rothstein stated that there was no evidence
any American had knowingly worked with the Russians that were indicted.

Post by d***@gmail.com
You're confusing that with the fact that the indictments do not
mention any specific American. But that doesn't mean none existed. Roger
Stone is convinced that HE is the one alluded to very cryptically in those
indictments. My guess is that Mueller isn't showing his cards yet on this
matter because he has yet to interview the president. He doesn't want them
to know what HE knows, thus making easier for them to craft their answers
accordingly. That is a typical prosecutory technique.

As long as we're guessing, my guess is that Mueller won't show his cards
until after the midterms because as long as he can create the illusion
that people in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, that will
work in favor of the Democrats. If he were to complete his investigation
before the midterms and nobody from the Trump campaign were to be indicted
for any election activities, that would kill the best issue the Democrats
have working for them. If Mueller holds off until after the election,
perception becomes reality.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I think you're going to be disappointed when this is over. I'm surprised
you haven't developed a SENSE of where this is going. I think it's quite
obvious. Mueller will never indict the president. That's not his job. It's
not even clear whether the DOJ can indict a sitting president. Ultimately,
it will be a political thing. Do we want a president who embraced the help
of foreign nation in a presidential campaign. And not just ANY nation - a
HOSTILE nation.

Until I see evidence of criminal wrongdoing, I'm not going to assume there
was any. Even the Manafort trial is not going well for the prosecutors and
those alleged crimes have nothing to do with the Trump campaign. If the
best Mueller can come up with is Stormy Daniels, he is wasting the
taxpayers money.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Personally, I could care less whether Trump is impeached or not because I
Mike Pence is a kook in a different way. He's religious fanatic.

As long as Kavanaugh is confirmed and either Trump or Pence fills the next
vacancy on the Supreme Court, hopefully to replace Breyer or Ginsburg, I
will be happy. I might even write that thank you note to Putin if that
happens.

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

You don't say? How many people do think would've voted for Hillary Clinton
in some of these states where Trump eked out an electoral victory had
there not been a social media campaign (by Russia's Internet Research
Agency) to disparage her an micro-target certain demographic groups who
would be receptive (and share) these memes?

Impossible to quantify but I doubt enough to tip the election. I'll use
round numbers to illustrate the point. Trump won Wisconsin by 22,000
votes, Michigan by 10,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000. Assuming that
every Hillary vote the Russians flipped went to Trump and not one of the
other two candidates, a big if, that means they would have had to flip
11,001 votes, in Wisconsin, 5001 votes in Michigan, and 22,001 votes in
Pennsylvania and that's just to create the ridiculously unlikely scenario
of Hillary winning each of those three states by a 1 vote margin. Keep in
mind, Hillary needed to win all three. Trump would have had an electoral
college majority winning any one of them.

It's not just about flipping would-be Clinton voters into Trump voters,
it's also about angry Sanders supporters (who the Russian social media
campaign was ALSO supporting) defected to either Trump, Jill Stein, Gary
Johnson, STILL voted for Bernie Sanders as a write-in, or sat out the
election altogether.

Listen, I have no problem with how we elect presidents. Everybody knows
it's not a popular vote system. This has happened before and it will
happen again. That's the way the system was designed. My point is simply
that there was manipulation of the sentiment of the electorate to a HUGE
degree. I don't know if Trump would've won without their help or not.
Nobody knows. And there's no way to figure that out. Even the intelligence
agencies, who categorically insist that the Russian's waged an
unprecedented campaign to foment divides in hot button political issues
(Black Lives Matter, 2nd amendment, abortion, immigration, elitism, etc)
never ventured an opinion on that matter. In fact, the Russian's goal was
to weaken an anticipated Clinton presidency by dividing the country -
making it difficult for her to govern. They certainly were successful in
dividing the country. C'mon - you have to admit, this past presidential
election was as divisive as it's ever been in our lifetime. I've never
seen anything like it. In my neighborhood, there was not a single
Clinton/Kaine or Trump/Pence sign in the yard because they feared that
they would lose friends or that it would adversely affect their
businesses.

Well, the Russians DID manage to divide us into tribes. But Clinton didn't
win. Trump won. So, Trump inherited exactly what Clinton would've
inherited - a deeply divided nation. That's all the Russians really wanted
- a weakened United States - no matter WHO got elected. Sure, they
preferred Trump (because, clearly, he would be the more divisive of the
two), but they were actually anticipating a Clinton presidency.

I'm not claiming that Trump stole the election. I'm not even necessarily
saying that Trump would not have won without the help of the Russians. I
don't know the answers to those questions. I do know that I find it
abhorrent if it becomes known that the Trump campaign coordinated with the
Russians in their efforts to assist him and damage Hillary Clinton. The
Russians are a hostile nation, for crissakes! It's not as if Australia or
Canada was helping him. Big difference!

Post by bigdog
It really doesn't bother me that people's votes could have been influenced
by Russian social media any more than people's votes being influenced by
what they see and hear in negative campaign ads. We have always had lots
of low information voters and their votes count just as much as the well
informed voters. Each voter is allowed to cast their vote based on
whatever criteria they choose, even if they allow themselves to be
influenced by crap. I'm no more disturbed by foreign crap than I am by
domestic crap.

Fighting among ourselves is fine. Politicians pick fights all the time and
put up negative campaign ads. They do so at their own risk. Sometimes it
works (and it usually does) and sometimes it backfires. Those are choices
the candidates make.

But outside influence - especially from a hostile nation - is a completely
different matter. And that's what we're talking about here.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
In a previous message you said that nobody has been indicted for anything
associated with the 2016 election. Wrong! The last group of Russians to be
indicted, many of them in the military, were indicted because of their
association with the IRA which DEEPLY involved itself with the 2016
election.

I've made many posts on the subject and I don't remember what post you are
referring to but I believe I either said no Americans had been indicted
for anything related to the 2016 campaign or nobody from the Trump
campaign had been indicted for anything related to the 2016 campaign. Both
of those statements are true. The only Americans indicated have been for
crimes unrelated to the 2016 campaign. It's rather laughable for Mueller
to be indicting Russian nationals who aren't residing in this country
because we know they are never going to see the inside of an American
courtroom which means Mueller will never have to show how weak his hand
is.

It's not a laughing matter. I'm sure Mueller is perfectly aware that Putin
is not going to extradite his own citizens and subject them to prosecution
in the United States. If nothing else, none of those who were indicted can
ever safely return to the United States without being arrested the moment
they step off the airplane. But the indictments DO send a strong signal to
those with whom they may have worked with in the United States, "We know
what you did last summer." That often causes those who are hiding
something to take rash action as they start feeling the pinch. And you can
see that happening to some degree. Have you read those indictments? The
detail of discovery must be quite disturbing to anybody who may have
worked with them.

So, it remains to be seen WHO, if anybody, those Russians may have worked
with. One thing is for sure, those in the Trump orbit had an odd
fascination with Russians, seemed eager to conceal any contact they had
with Russians, and clearly have misrepresented their involvement with them
(i.e. Don Jr.). Adoptions? Pfft? Puhleaze ... especially after he was
specifically told that those with GOVERNMENT CONNECTIONS and who SUPPORTED
TRUMP had dirt on Hillary Clinton. "... and if it's what you say I love it
especially later in the summer."

Post by bigdog
I have seen no
evidence that any of them knowingly or unknowingly worked with Russian
operatives. The latter would not be a crime.

That's because the investigation is not concluded. We don't know what
Mueller has. You'd have to know that, as he builds the case, the LAST
reveal would be the American citizens who may have been complicit. You
don't lead with that.

Conspiring with a foreign nation to affect a U.S. election IS a crime, by
the way. In any case, even if it were not a TECHNICAL crime, it would be a
political liability (well, at least it SHOULD be a political liability) so
toxic that it should be reason enough to remove Trump from office.

Are you OK with our presidential candidates getting help from hostile
foreign nations on the premise that ... technically, it's not a crime? I
can't wait until we get a presidential candidate who gets help from China,
North Korea or Iran - and hear you say the same thing.

Oddly, the Republican party has come a long way from viewing the Russians
as the "evil empire" (Reagan) to their current love fest with the
Russians. I mean, after all, Putin's not so bad. Sure, he may kill people
... but are we so innocent? Pfft! It's all relative, right?

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
The indictments, themselves, do not explicitly say that no Americans are
involved.

In announcing the indictments, Rothstein stated that there was no evidence
any American had knowingly worked with the Russians that were indicted.

Post by d***@gmail.com
You're confusing that with the fact that the indictments do not
mention any specific American. But that doesn't mean none existed. Roger
Stone is convinced that HE is the one alluded to very cryptically in those
indictments. My guess is that Mueller isn't showing his cards yet on this
matter because he has yet to interview the president. He doesn't want them
to know what HE knows, thus making easier for them to craft their answers
accordingly. That is a typical prosecutory technique.

As long as we're guessing, my guess is that Mueller won't show his cards
until after the midterms because as long as he can create the illusion
that people in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, that will
work in favor of the Democrats. If he were to complete his investigation
before the midterms and nobody from the Trump campaign were to be indicted
for any election activities, that would kill the best issue the Democrats
have working for them. If Mueller holds off until after the election,
perception becomes reality.

I'll bet Mueller is far more interested in maintaining the accuracy and
integrity of the investigation with which he's been tasked and is far less
concerned with who wins in the 4th district of Nevada. I'm sure he
realizes that he will ultimately be judged by the integrity of the
investigation - not how many seats he can flip in the House or Senate. It
doesn't sound like you know Bob Mueller very well. Those who know him well
would laugh at your assertion that that would be a motivating force in
this investigation - and those goes for many Republican legislators, as
well.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
I think you're going to be disappointed when this is over. I'm surprised
you haven't developed a SENSE of where this is going. I think it's quite
obvious. Mueller will never indict the president. That's not his job. It's
not even clear whether the DOJ can indict a sitting president. Ultimately,
it will be a political thing. Do we want a president who embraced the help
of foreign nation in a presidential campaign. And not just ANY nation - a
HOSTILE nation.

Until I see evidence of criminal wrongdoing, I'm not going to assume there
was any.

That's fair enough. But you CAN see that it's worth looking into - right?
I mean, there IS "smoke". It's worth seeing whether there was ever a
"fire". If nothing else, Trump seems suspiciously defensive on this
matter. It's exactly how a guilty person acts.

Post by bigdog
Even the Manafort trial is not going well for the prosecutors and
those alleged crimes have nothing to do with the Trump campaign. If the
best Mueller can come up with is Stormy Daniels, he is wasting the
taxpayers money.

Well, the Whitewater investigation boiled down to the president lying
about getting a blow job from an intern. And I'll bet you thought he
needed to be impeached for THAT! At least Monica Lewinski wasn't working
for the Russians.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Personally, I could care less whether Trump is impeached or not because I
Mike Pence is a kook in a different way. He's religious fanatic.

As long as Kavanaugh is confirmed and either Trump or Pence fills the next
vacancy on the Supreme Court, hopefully to replace Breyer or Ginsburg, I
will be happy. I might even write that thank you note to Putin if that
happens.

Wow. A classic "the means justifies the end" argument. As Trump would say
... "Sad".

Kavanaugh's most attractive appeal to Trump was that he (Kavanaugh) once
gave an opinion that Nixon may have been wrongfully pursued by the
Department of Justice and that, perhaps, NO PRESIDENT should be subject to
any special investigation during his tenure as President of the United
States because it would too much of a distraction. He opined that "the
Supreme Court may have got it wrong" (Although it voted 8-0 that Nixon DID
have to turn over the tapes) It will interesting when Kavanaugh is asked
about this during his confirmation hearings about how this unanimous
Supreme Court decision was "wrongfully decided".

I'm sure Kavanaugh is a good guy and has the credentials to serve on the
Supreme Court. But, let's not kid ourselves, he was been picked in
anticipation of issues going before the Supreme Court regarding Trump's
current mess.

PREDICTION: If Roe v Wade ever comes to a Supreme Court ruling (again!),
that some of these conservative judges are going to surprise people. Their
PERSONAL beliefs will not necessarily translate into the law-of-the-land.
That has happened many times before. Once they get to the bench, they
sometimes morph since they are no longer beholden to anybody - which is a
good thing and WHY they serve for life.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bigdog]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

You don't say? How many people do think would've voted for Hillary Clinton
in some of these states where Trump eked out an electoral victory had
there not been a social media campaign (by Russia's Internet Research
Agency) to disparage her an micro-target certain demographic groups who
would be receptive (and share) these memes?

Impossible to quantify but I doubt enough to tip the election. I'll use
round numbers to illustrate the point. Trump won Wisconsin by 22,000
votes, Michigan by 10,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000. Assuming that
every Hillary vote the Russians flipped went to Trump and not one of the
other two candidates, a big if, that means they would have had to flip
11,001 votes, in Wisconsin, 5001 votes in Michigan, and 22,001 votes in
Pennsylvania and that's just to create the ridiculously unlikely scenario
of Hillary winning each of those three states by a 1 vote margin. Keep in
mind, Hillary needed to win all three. Trump would have had an electoral
college majority winning any one of them.

It's not just about flipping would-be Clinton voters into Trump voters,
it's also about angry Sanders supporters (who the Russian social media
campaign was ALSO supporting) defected to either Trump, Jill Stein, Gary
Johnson, STILL voted for Bernie Sanders as a write-in, or sat out the
election altogether.
Listen, I have no problem with how we elect presidents. Everybody knows
it's not a popular vote system. This has happened before and it will
happen again. That's the way the system was designed. My point is simply
that there was manipulation of the sentiment of the electorate to a HUGE
degree. I don't know if Trump would've won without their help or not.
Nobody knows. And there's no way to figure that out. Even the intelligence
agencies, who categorically insist that the Russian's waged an
unprecedented campaign to foment divides in hot button political issues
(Black Lives Matter, 2nd amendment, abortion, immigration, elitism, etc)
never ventured an opinion on that matter. In fact, the Russian's goal was
to weaken an anticipated Clinton presidency by dividing the country -
making it difficult for her to govern. They certainly were successful in
dividing the country. C'mon - you have to admit, this past presidential
election was as divisive as it's ever been in our lifetime. I've never
seen anything like it. In my neighborhood, there was not a single
Clinton/Kaine or Trump/Pence sign in the yard because they feared that
they would lose friends or that it would adversely affect their
businesses.

I totally agree that the Russians like most everyone else expected Clinton
to win and they did want to weaken her presidency. My objection is when
people use their meddling as an excuse for Hillary's failure as a
candidate and to delegitimize Trump's victory. There is no doubt that this
past election was more divisive than any in my lifetime and probably more
divisive than any since Lincoln's election. Much of that has been the
result of the left's refusal to accept Trump's victory and the media
fanning those flames. We used to have a tradition of supporting a newly
elected president even if he wasn't our choice but that has gone by the
wayside. It was called a honeymoon period but that doesn't happen anymore.
The media turned on Trump the minute it became apparent he was going to be
the winner. Before Trump had even reached the 270 threshold, NBC's Richard
Engle was already talking about impeachment and ABC's Martha Raddatz was
fighting back tears. Am I supposed to trust these people to fairly report
on the Trump presidency. The media's reaction to the Trump election was
absolutely repulsive which is why I know longer pay any attention to
anything they have to say about him.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Well, the Russians DID manage to divide us into tribes. But Clinton didn't
win. Trump won. So, Trump inherited exactly what Clinton would've
inherited - a deeply divided nation. That's all the Russians really wanted
- a weakened United States - no matter WHO got elected. Sure, they
preferred Trump (because, clearly, he would be the more divisive of the
two), but they were actually anticipating a Clinton presidency.

I think at least some of Putin's motivation was retaliation for Hillary's
meddling in Russia's election. What goes around comes around.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm not claiming that Trump stole the election. I'm not even necessarily
saying that Trump would not have won without the help of the Russians. I
don't know the answers to those questions. I do know that I find it
abhorrent if it becomes known that the Trump campaign coordinated with the
Russians in their efforts to assist him and damage Hillary Clinton. The
Russians are a hostile nation, for crissakes! It's not as if Australia or
Canada was helping him. Big difference!

So it's OK for our friends to meddle in our election? It's OK for us to
meddle in Israel's election? For us to be outraged by Russian meddling is
the height of hypocrisy.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It really doesn't bother me that people's votes could have been influenced
by Russian social media any more than people's votes being influenced by
what they see and hear in negative campaign ads. We have always had lots
of low information voters and their votes count just as much as the well
informed voters. Each voter is allowed to cast their vote based on
whatever criteria they choose, even if they allow themselves to be
influenced by crap. I'm no more disturbed by foreign crap than I am by
domestic crap.

Fighting among ourselves is fine. Politicians pick fights all the time and
put up negative campaign ads. They do so at their own risk. Sometimes it
works (and it usually does) and sometimes it backfires. Those are choices
the candidates make.
But outside influence - especially from a hostile nation - is a completely
different matter. And that's what we're talking about here.

As long as we do it in other countries' elections we have no business
complaining when somebody does it in ours.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
In a previous message you said that nobody has been indicted for anything
associated with the 2016 election. Wrong! The last group of Russians to be
indicted, many of them in the military, were indicted because of their
association with the IRA which DEEPLY involved itself with the 2016
election.

I've made many posts on the subject and I don't remember what post you are
referring to but I believe I either said no Americans had been indicted
for anything related to the 2016 campaign or nobody from the Trump
campaign had been indicted for anything related to the 2016 campaign. Both
of those statements are true. The only Americans indicated have been for
crimes unrelated to the 2016 campaign. It's rather laughable for Mueller
to be indicting Russian nationals who aren't residing in this country
because we know they are never going to see the inside of an American
courtroom which means Mueller will never have to show how weak his hand
is.

It's not a laughing matter. I'm sure Mueller is perfectly aware that Putin
is not going to extradite his own citizens and subject them to prosecution
in the United States. If nothing else, none of those who were indicted can
ever safely return to the United States without being arrested the moment
they step off the airplane. But the indictments DO send a strong signal to
those with whom they may have worked with in the United States, "We know
what you did last summer." That often causes those who are hiding
something to take rash action as they start feeling the pinch. And you can
see that happening to some degree. Have you read those indictments? The
detail of discovery must be quite disturbing to anybody who may have
worked with them.

I still have seen no evidence that anyone in Trump's campaign illegally
colluded with Russians. Until I do, I'm not going to assume they did.

Post by d***@gmail.com
So, it remains to be seen WHO, if anybody, those Russians may have worked
with. One thing is for sure, those in the Trump orbit had an odd
fascination with Russians, seemed eager to conceal any contact they had
with Russians, and clearly have misrepresented their involvement with them
(i.e. Don Jr.). Adoptions? Pfft? Puhleaze ... especially after he was
specifically told that those with GOVERNMENT CONNECTIONS and who SUPPORTED
TRUMP had dirt on Hillary Clinton. "... and if it's what you say I love it
especially later in the summer."

Hillary would have cut a deal with the devil if she thought it would have
gotten her elected. Had the Russians been on her side, she would have been
more than happy to accept their help. She had no problem with foreign
nation's contributing to the Clinton Foundation.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I have seen no
evidence that any of them knowingly or unknowingly worked with Russian
operatives. The latter would not be a crime.

That's because the investigation is not concluded. We don't know what
Mueller has. You'd have to know that, as he builds the case, the LAST
reveal would be the American citizens who may have been complicit. You
don't lead with that.

I've heard prosecutor's hired as media consultant's say that you lead with
your best punch. You indict the most high profile people first to make as
big media splash as you can.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Conspiring with a foreign nation to affect a U.S. election IS a crime, by
the way. In any case, even if it were not a TECHNICAL crime, it would be a
political liability (well, at least it SHOULD be a political liability) so
toxic that it should be reason enough to remove Trump from office.

It's only a crime if you know the person you are working with is a foreign
national. The early round of indictments against the Russians indicated
they duped a lot of people by pretending to be Americans.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Are you OK with our presidential candidates getting help from hostile
foreign nations on the premise that ... technically, it's not a crime? I
can't wait until we get a presidential candidate who gets help from China,
North Korea or Iran - and hear you say the same thing.

I guess I don't have a Pollyanna view of the world. I know we meddle in
other countries' elections when we think it is in our interest to do so
and I expect that other countries would do the same to us. I'm not
outraged by any of it.

It's no different than conducting espionage. We do it to others so we
should expect others to do it to us.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Oddly, the Republican party has come a long way from viewing the Russians
as the "evil empire" (Reagan) to their current love fest with the
Russians. I mean, after all, Putin's not so bad. Sure, he may kill people
... but are we so innocent? Pfft! It's all relative, right?

The Republicans aren't the only ones who have flipped. The Democrats used
to be chummy with the Soviets and were outraged by Reagan's casting them
as the evil empire. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
The indictments, themselves, do not explicitly say that no Americans are
involved.

In announcing the indictments, Rothstein stated that there was no evidence
any American had knowingly worked with the Russians that were indicted.

Post by d***@gmail.com
You're confusing that with the fact that the indictments do not
mention any specific American. But that doesn't mean none existed. Roger
Stone is convinced that HE is the one alluded to very cryptically in those
indictments. My guess is that Mueller isn't showing his cards yet on this
matter because he has yet to interview the president. He doesn't want them
to know what HE knows, thus making easier for them to craft their answers
accordingly. That is a typical prosecutory technique.

As long as we're guessing, my guess is that Mueller won't show his cards
until after the midterms because as long as he can create the illusion
that people in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, that will
work in favor of the Democrats. If he were to complete his investigation
before the midterms and nobody from the Trump campaign were to be indicted
for any election activities, that would kill the best issue the Democrats
have working for them. If Mueller holds off until after the election,
perception becomes reality.

I'll bet Mueller is far more interested in maintaining the accuracy and
integrity of the investigation with which he's been tasked and is far less
concerned with who wins in the 4th district of Nevada. I'm sure he
realizes that he will ultimately be judged by the integrity of the
investigation - not how many seats he can flip in the House or Senate. It
doesn't sound like you know Bob Mueller very well. Those who know him well
would laugh at your assertion that that would be a motivating force in
this investigation - and those goes for many Republican legislators, as
well.

You have far more faith in Mueller's integrity than I do. This is a guy
who is highly partisan and has been using equally partisan assets within
the FBI to do much of the "investigating". Seven of the 15 lawyers on his
staff donated to Hillary's campaign while none donated to Trump.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
I think you're going to be disappointed when this is over. I'm surprised
you haven't developed a SENSE of where this is going. I think it's quite
obvious. Mueller will never indict the president. That's not his job. It's
not even clear whether the DOJ can indict a sitting president. Ultimately,
it will be a political thing. Do we want a president who embraced the help
of foreign nation in a presidential campaign. And not just ANY nation - a
HOSTILE nation.

Until I see evidence of criminal wrongdoing, I'm not going to assume there
was any.

That's fair enough. But you CAN see that it's worth looking into - right?
I mean, there IS "smoke".

There's a lot of hot air. I don't see the smoke.

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's worth seeing whether there was ever a
"fire". If nothing else, Trump seems suspiciously defensive on this
matter. It's exactly how a guilty person acts.

Post by bigdog
Even the Manafort trial is not going well for the prosecutors and
those alleged crimes have nothing to do with the Trump campaign. If the
best Mueller can come up with is Stormy Daniels, he is wasting the
taxpayers money.

Well, the Whitewater investigation boiled down to the president lying
about getting a blow job from an intern. And I'll bet you thought he
needed to be impeached for THAT! At least Monica Lewinski wasn't working
for the Russians.

Had somebody asked me before Clinton even became president if I thought
perjury was an impeachable offense I would have said yes. Lying isn't a
high crime or misdemeanor but lying under oath is. The defense for Clinton
was that it wasn't related to his duties as President so it shouldn't be
an impeachable defense. I don't know that there was any precedent that
established that.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Personally, I could care less whether Trump is impeached or not because I
Mike Pence is a kook in a different way. He's religious fanatic.

As long as Kavanaugh is confirmed and either Trump or Pence fills the next
vacancy on the Supreme Court, hopefully to replace Breyer or Ginsburg, I
will be happy. I might even write that thank you note to Putin if that
happens.

Wow. A classic "the means justifies the end" argument. As Trump would say
... "Sad".

No that's politics. Like Mitch McConnell refusing to allow Merrick Garland
to be confirmed. He did it because he could. The Democrats cried foul
ignoring the fact that what McConnell did is exactly what Joe Biden and
Chuck Schumer both announced they would do if a Supreme Court vacancy came
up in the last year of the Bush 41 and Bush 43 presidencies. Both were
chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee and both said they would block
any nominee until after the next presidential election.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Kavanaugh's most attractive appeal to Trump was that he (Kavanaugh) once
gave an opinion that Nixon may have been wrongfully pursued by the
Department of Justice and that, perhaps, NO PRESIDENT should be subject to
any special investigation during his tenure as President of the United
States because it would too much of a distraction. He opined that "the
Supreme Court may have got it wrong" (Although it voted 8-0 that Nixon DID
have to turn over the tapes) It will interesting when Kavanaugh is asked
about this during his confirmation hearings about how this unanimous
Supreme Court decision was "wrongfully decided".
I'm sure Kavanaugh is a good guy and has the credentials to serve on the
Supreme Court. But, let's not kid ourselves, he was been picked in
anticipation of issues going before the Supreme Court regarding Trump's
current mess.
PREDICTION: If Roe v Wade ever comes to a Supreme Court ruling (again!),
that some of these conservative judges are going to surprise people. Their
PERSONAL beliefs will not necessarily translate into the law-of-the-land.
That has happened many times before. Once they get to the bench, they
sometimes morph since they are no longer beholden to anybody - which is a
good thing and WHY they serve for life.

Roe v. Wade isn't even a concern of mine. I want to see a conservative
majority cemented onto the court for the next generation. That's why I'm
hoping Breyer and/or Ginsburg will leave during the Trump administration,
hopefully while there is still a Republican majority in the Senate. It
wouldn't hurt to see Thomas replaced by a younger justice as well.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

You don't say? How many people do think would've voted for Hillary Clinton
in some of these states where Trump eked out an electoral victory had
there not been a social media campaign (by Russia's Internet Research
Agency) to disparage her an micro-target certain demographic groups who
would be receptive (and share) these memes?

Impossible to quantify but I doubt enough to tip the election. I'll use
round numbers to illustrate the point. Trump won Wisconsin by 22,000
votes, Michigan by 10,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000. Assuming that
every Hillary vote the Russians flipped went to Trump and not one of the
other two candidates, a big if, that means they would have had to flip
11,001 votes, in Wisconsin, 5001 votes in Michigan, and 22,001 votes in
Pennsylvania and that's just to create the ridiculously unlikely scenario
of Hillary winning each of those three states by a 1 vote margin. Keep in
mind, Hillary needed to win all three. Trump would have had an electoral
college majority winning any one of them.

It's not just about flipping would-be Clinton voters into Trump voters,
it's also about angry Sanders supporters (who the Russian social media
campaign was ALSO supporting) defected to either Trump, Jill Stein, Gary
Johnson, STILL voted for Bernie Sanders as a write-in, or sat out the
election altogether.
Listen, I have no problem with how we elect presidents. Everybody knows
it's not a popular vote system. This has happened before and it will
happen again. That's the way the system was designed. My point is simply
that there was manipulation of the sentiment of the electorate to a HUGE
degree. I don't know if Trump would've won without their help or not.
Nobody knows. And there's no way to figure that out. Even the intelligence
agencies, who categorically insist that the Russian's waged an
unprecedented campaign to foment divides in hot button political issues
(Black Lives Matter, 2nd amendment, abortion, immigration, elitism, etc)
never ventured an opinion on that matter. In fact, the Russian's goal was
to weaken an anticipated Clinton presidency by dividing the country -
making it difficult for her to govern. They certainly were successful in
dividing the country. C'mon - you have to admit, this past presidential
election was as divisive as it's ever been in our lifetime. I've never
seen anything like it. In my neighborhood, there was not a single
Clinton/Kaine or Trump/Pence sign in the yard because they feared that
they would lose friends or that it would adversely affect their
businesses.

I totally agree that the Russians like most everyone else expected Clinton
to win and they did want to weaken her presidency. My objection is when
people use their meddling as an excuse for Hillary's failure as a
candidate and to delegitimize Trump's victory. There is no doubt that this
past election was more divisive than any in my lifetime and probably more
divisive than any since Lincoln's election. Much of that has been the
result of the left's refusal to accept Trump's victory and the media
fanning those flames. We used to have a tradition of supporting a newly
elected president even if he wasn't our choice but that has gone by the
wayside. It was called a honeymoon period but that doesn't happen anymore.
The media turned on Trump the minute it became apparent he was going to be
the winner. Before Trump had even reached the 270 threshold, NBC's Richard
Engle was already talking about impeachment and ABC's Martha Raddatz was
fighting back tears. Am I supposed to trust these people to fairly report
on the Trump presidency. The media's reaction to the Trump election was
absolutely repulsive which is why I know longer pay any attention to
anything they have to say about him.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Well, the Russians DID manage to divide us into tribes. But Clinton didn't
win. Trump won. So, Trump inherited exactly what Clinton would've
inherited - a deeply divided nation. That's all the Russians really wanted
- a weakened United States - no matter WHO got elected. Sure, they
preferred Trump (because, clearly, he would be the more divisive of the
two), but they were actually anticipating a Clinton presidency.

I think at least some of Putin's motivation was retaliation for Hillary's
meddling in Russia's election. What goes around comes around.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm not claiming that Trump stole the election. I'm not even necessarily
saying that Trump would not have won without the help of the Russians. I
don't know the answers to those questions. I do know that I find it
abhorrent if it becomes known that the Trump campaign coordinated with the
Russians in their efforts to assist him and damage Hillary Clinton. The
Russians are a hostile nation, for crissakes! It's not as if Australia or
Canada was helping him. Big difference!

So it's OK for our friends to meddle in our election? It's OK for us to
meddle in Israel's election? For us to be outraged by Russian meddling is
the height of hypocrisy.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It really doesn't bother me that people's votes could have been influenced
by Russian social media any more than people's votes being influenced by
what they see and hear in negative campaign ads. We have always had lots
of low information voters and their votes count just as much as the well
informed voters. Each voter is allowed to cast their vote based on
whatever criteria they choose, even if they allow themselves to be
influenced by crap. I'm no more disturbed by foreign crap than I am by
domestic crap.

Fighting among ourselves is fine. Politicians pick fights all the time and
put up negative campaign ads. They do so at their own risk. Sometimes it
works (and it usually does) and sometimes it backfires. Those are choices
the candidates make.
But outside influence - especially from a hostile nation - is a completely
different matter. And that's what we're talking about here.

As long as we do it in other countries' elections we have no business
complaining when somebody does it in ours.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
In a previous message you said that nobody has been indicted for anything
associated with the 2016 election. Wrong! The last group of Russians to be
indicted, many of them in the military, were indicted because of their
association with the IRA which DEEPLY involved itself with the 2016
election.

I've made many posts on the subject and I don't remember what post you are
referring to but I believe I either said no Americans had been indicted
for anything related to the 2016 campaign or nobody from the Trump
campaign had been indicted for anything related to the 2016 campaign. Both
of those statements are true. The only Americans indicated have been for
crimes unrelated to the 2016 campaign. It's rather laughable for Mueller
to be indicting Russian nationals who aren't residing in this country
because we know they are never going to see the inside of an American
courtroom which means Mueller will never have to show how weak his hand
is.

It's not a laughing matter. I'm sure Mueller is perfectly aware that Putin
is not going to extradite his own citizens and subject them to prosecution
in the United States. If nothing else, none of those who were indicted can
ever safely return to the United States without being arrested the moment
they step off the airplane. But the indictments DO send a strong signal to
those with whom they may have worked with in the United States, "We know
what you did last summer." That often causes those who are hiding
something to take rash action as they start feeling the pinch. And you can
see that happening to some degree. Have you read those indictments? The
detail of discovery must be quite disturbing to anybody who may have
worked with them.

I still have seen no evidence that anyone in Trump's campaign illegally
colluded with Russians. Until I do, I'm not going to assume they did.

That's not the charge. Treason.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
So, it remains to be seen WHO, if anybody, those Russians may have worked
with. One thing is for sure, those in the Trump orbit had an odd
fascination with Russians, seemed eager to conceal any contact they had
with Russians, and clearly have misrepresented their involvement with them
(i.e. Don Jr.). Adoptions? Pfft? Puhleaze ... especially after he was
specifically told that those with GOVERNMENT CONNECTIONS and who SUPPORTED
TRUMP had dirt on Hillary Clinton. "... and if it's what you say I love it
especially later in the summer."

Hillary would have cut a deal with the devil if she thought it would have
gotten her elected. Had the Russians been on her side, she would have been
more than happy to accept their help. She had no problem with foreign
nation's contributing to the Clinton Foundation.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I have seen no
evidence that any of them knowingly or unknowingly worked with Russian
operatives. The latter would not be a crime.

That's because the investigation is not concluded. We don't know what
Mueller has. You'd have to know that, as he builds the case, the LAST
reveal would be the American citizens who may have been complicit. You
don't lead with that.

I've heard prosecutor's hired as media consultant's say that you lead with
your best punch. You indict the most high profile people first to make as
big media splash as you can.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Conspiring with a foreign nation to affect a U.S. election IS a crime, by
the way. In any case, even if it were not a TECHNICAL crime, it would be a
political liability (well, at least it SHOULD be a political liability) so
toxic that it should be reason enough to remove Trump from office.

It's only a crime if you know the person you are working with is a foreign
national. The early round of indictments against the Russians indicated
they duped a lot of people by pretending to be Americans.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Are you OK with our presidential candidates getting help from hostile
foreign nations on the premise that ... technically, it's not a crime? I
can't wait until we get a presidential candidate who gets help from China,
North Korea or Iran - and hear you say the same thing.

I guess I don't have a Pollyanna view of the world. I know we meddle in
other countries' elections when we think it is in our interest to do so
and I expect that other countries would do the same to us. I'm not
outraged by any of it.
It's no different than conducting espionage. We do it to others so we
should expect others to do it to us.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Oddly, the Republican party has come a long way from viewing the Russians
as the "evil empire" (Reagan) to their current love fest with the
Russians. I mean, after all, Putin's not so bad. Sure, he may kill people
... but are we so innocent? Pfft! It's all relative, right?

The Republicans aren't the only ones who have flipped. The Democrats used
to be chummy with the Soviets and were outraged by Reagan's casting them
as the evil empire. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
The indictments, themselves, do not explicitly say that no Americans are
involved.

In announcing the indictments, Rothstein stated that there was no evidence
any American had knowingly worked with the Russians that were indicted.

Post by d***@gmail.com
You're confusing that with the fact that the indictments do not
mention any specific American. But that doesn't mean none existed. Roger
Stone is convinced that HE is the one alluded to very cryptically in those
indictments. My guess is that Mueller isn't showing his cards yet on this
matter because he has yet to interview the president. He doesn't want them
to know what HE knows, thus making easier for them to craft their answers
accordingly. That is a typical prosecutory technique.

As long as we're guessing, my guess is that Mueller won't show his cards
until after the midterms because as long as he can create the illusion
that people in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, that will
work in favor of the Democrats. If he were to complete his investigation
before the midterms and nobody from the Trump campaign were to be indicted
for any election activities, that would kill the best issue the Democrats
have working for them. If Mueller holds off until after the election,
perception becomes reality.

I'll bet Mueller is far more interested in maintaining the accuracy and
integrity of the investigation with which he's been tasked and is far less
concerned with who wins in the 4th district of Nevada. I'm sure he
realizes that he will ultimately be judged by the integrity of the
investigation - not how many seats he can flip in the House or Senate. It
doesn't sound like you know Bob Mueller very well. Those who know him well
would laugh at your assertion that that would be a motivating force in
this investigation - and those goes for many Republican legislators, as
well.

You have far more faith in Mueller's integrity than I do. This is a guy
who is highly partisan and has been using equally partisan assets within
the FBI to do much of the "investigating". Seven of the 15 lawyers on his
staff donated to Hillary's campaign while none donated to Trump.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
I think you're going to be disappointed when this is over. I'm surprised
you haven't developed a SENSE of where this is going. I think it's quite
obvious. Mueller will never indict the president. That's not his job. It's
not even clear whether the DOJ can indict a sitting president. Ultimately,
it will be a political thing. Do we want a president who embraced the help
of foreign nation in a presidential campaign. And not just ANY nation - a
HOSTILE nation.

Until I see evidence of criminal wrongdoing, I'm not going to assume there
was any.

That's fair enough. But you CAN see that it's worth looking into - right?
I mean, there IS "smoke".

There's a lot of hot air. I don't see the smoke.

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's worth seeing whether there was ever a
"fire". If nothing else, Trump seems suspiciously defensive on this
matter. It's exactly how a guilty person acts.

Post by bigdog
Even the Manafort trial is not going well for the prosecutors and
those alleged crimes have nothing to do with the Trump campaign. If the
best Mueller can come up with is Stormy Daniels, he is wasting the
taxpayers money.

Well, the Whitewater investigation boiled down to the president lying
about getting a blow job from an intern. And I'll bet you thought he
needed to be impeached for THAT! At least Monica Lewinski wasn't working
for the Russians.

Had somebody asked me before Clinton even became president if I thought
perjury was an impeachable offense I would have said yes. Lying isn't a
high crime or misdemeanor but lying under oath is. The defense for Clinton
was that it wasn't related to his duties as President so it shouldn't be
an impeachable defense. I don't know that there was any precedent that
established that.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Personally, I could care less whether Trump is impeached or not because I
Mike Pence is a kook in a different way. He's religious fanatic.

As long as Kavanaugh is confirmed and either Trump or Pence fills the next
vacancy on the Supreme Court, hopefully to replace Breyer or Ginsburg, I
will be happy. I might even write that thank you note to Putin if that
happens.

Wow. A classic "the means justifies the end" argument. As Trump would say
... "Sad".

No that's politics. Like Mitch McConnell refusing to allow Merrick Garland
to be confirmed. He did it because he could. The Democrats cried foul
ignoring the fact that what McConnell did is exactly what Joe Biden and
Chuck Schumer both announced they would do if a Supreme Court vacancy came
up in the last year of the Bush 41 and Bush 43 presidencies. Both were
chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee and both said they would block
any nominee until after the next presidential election.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Kavanaugh's most attractive appeal to Trump was that he (Kavanaugh) once
gave an opinion that Nixon may have been wrongfully pursued by the
Department of Justice and that, perhaps, NO PRESIDENT should be subject to
any special investigation during his tenure as President of the United
States because it would too much of a distraction. He opined that "the
Supreme Court may have got it wrong" (Although it voted 8-0 that Nixon DID
have to turn over the tapes) It will interesting when Kavanaugh is asked
about this during his confirmation hearings about how this unanimous
Supreme Court decision was "wrongfully decided".
I'm sure Kavanaugh is a good guy and has the credentials to serve on the
Supreme Court. But, let's not kid ourselves, he was been picked in
anticipation of issues going before the Supreme Court regarding Trump's
current mess.
PREDICTION: If Roe v Wade ever comes to a Supreme Court ruling (again!),
that some of these conservative judges are going to surprise people. Their
PERSONAL beliefs will not necessarily translate into the law-of-the-land.
That has happened many times before. Once they get to the bench, they
sometimes morph since they are no longer beholden to anybody - which is a
good thing and WHY they serve for life.

Roe v. Wade isn't even a concern of mine. I want to see a conservative
majority cemented onto the court for the next generation. That's why I'm
hoping Breyer and/or Ginsburg will leave during the Trump administration,
hopefully while there is still a Republican majority in the Senate. It
wouldn't hurt to see Thomas replaced by a younger justice as well.

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

You don't say? How many people do think would've voted for Hillary Clinton
in some of these states where Trump eked out an electoral victory had
there not been a social media campaign (by Russia's Internet Research
Agency) to disparage her an micro-target certain demographic groups who
would be receptive (and share) these memes?

Impossible to quantify but I doubt enough to tip the election. I'll use
round numbers to illustrate the point. Trump won Wisconsin by 22,000
votes, Michigan by 10,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000. Assuming that
every Hillary vote the Russians flipped went to Trump and not one of the
other two candidates, a big if, that means they would have had to flip
11,001 votes, in Wisconsin, 5001 votes in Michigan, and 22,001 votes in
Pennsylvania and that's just to create the ridiculously unlikely scenario
of Hillary winning each of those three states by a 1 vote margin. Keep in
mind, Hillary needed to win all three. Trump would have had an electoral
college majority winning any one of them.

It's not just about flipping would-be Clinton voters into Trump voters,
it's also about angry Sanders supporters (who the Russian social media
campaign was ALSO supporting) defected to either Trump, Jill Stein, Gary
Johnson, STILL voted for Bernie Sanders as a write-in, or sat out the
election altogether.
Listen, I have no problem with how we elect presidents. Everybody knows
it's not a popular vote system. This has happened before and it will
happen again. That's the way the system was designed. My point is simply
that there was manipulation of the sentiment of the electorate to a HUGE
degree. I don't know if Trump would've won without their help or not.
Nobody knows. And there's no way to figure that out. Even the intelligence
agencies, who categorically insist that the Russian's waged an
unprecedented campaign to foment divides in hot button political issues
(Black Lives Matter, 2nd amendment, abortion, immigration, elitism, etc)
never ventured an opinion on that matter. In fact, the Russian's goal was
to weaken an anticipated Clinton presidency by dividing the country -
making it difficult for her to govern. They certainly were successful in
dividing the country. C'mon - you have to admit, this past presidential
election was as divisive as it's ever been in our lifetime. I've never
seen anything like it. In my neighborhood, there was not a single
Clinton/Kaine or Trump/Pence sign in the yard because they feared that
they would lose friends or that it would adversely affect their
businesses.

I totally agree that the Russians like most everyone else expected Clinton
to win and they did want to weaken her presidency. My objection is when
people use their meddling as an excuse for Hillary's failure as a
candidate and to delegitimize Trump's victory.

I think most fair-minded liberals have long accepted that Clinton lost.
They are smart enough to know that ousting Trump doesn't give Clinton the
presidency. Pence will become president - and Pence has been a big
supporter of ALL of Trump's policies.

It's not just about the Russians meddling. It's about whether the Trump
campaign knew about it and embraced it.

Post by bigdog
There is no doubt that this
past election was more divisive than any in my lifetime and probably more
divisive than any since Lincoln's election. Much of that has been the
result of the left's refusal to accept Trump's victory and the media
fanning those flames. We used to have a tradition of supporting a newly
elected president even if he wasn't our choice but that has gone by the
wayside. It was called a honeymoon period but that doesn't happen anymore.

We also had a tradition for the winning candidate to bring the nation
together and realize that there were those who didn't vote for him and
that he understands he is THEIR president, too. Trump keeps pandering to
his base. Trump is in candidate-mode as a sitting president. I think he
would prefer to go to a rally than sit down and have a detailed discussion
on important domestic or foreign issues.

Post by bigdog
The media turned on Trump the minute it became apparent he was going to be
the winner. Before Trump had even reached the 270 threshold, NBC's Richard
Engle was already talking about impeachment and ABC's Martha Raddatz was
fighting back tears. Am I supposed to trust these people to fairly report
on the Trump presidency. The media's reaction to the Trump election was
absolutely repulsive which is why I know longer pay any attention to
anything they have to say about him.

Some people never got over the Hollywood access tape - and how Trump
rudely compared the beauty of Melanie to Ted Cruz's not-as-beautiful wife
- and how Trump suggest Carly Fiorina could never be be president because
.. "Look at that face!" ... and the stories about him walking into the
dressing rooms of young pageant contestants. And this was before we knew
about his cheating on his wife with a Playboy bunny and a porn star. I
think you can understand why so many people found Trump repugnant. He gave
people a reason to believe that. Fortunately for Trump, there were people
who found it entertaining and may also have hate Hillary Clinton enough to
vote for a rock before voting for her. Then, you just add in the
disenfranchised and angry Sanders supports and you have the perfect storm.

Yes, people were upset with Trump's victory. That's what happens when you
have a campaign that is that divisive. I'm sure if Hillary Clinton had
won, the Trump rallies would continue and be more frequent. Trump would
have basked in his popularity as a martyr for his cause. I think that's
what he was expecting as he prepared for his loss by characterizing the
elect as "rigged" ... right up until the point that he won. Then it wasn't
"rigged" any more ... now we had 3-4 million fraudulent votes. Pfft!

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Well, the Russians DID manage to divide us into tribes. But Clinton didn't
win. Trump won. So, Trump inherited exactly what Clinton would've
inherited - a deeply divided nation. That's all the Russians really wanted
- a weakened United States - no matter WHO got elected. Sure, they
preferred Trump (because, clearly, he would be the more divisive of the
two), but they were actually anticipating a Clinton presidency.

I think at least some of Putin's motivation was retaliation for Hillary's
meddling in Russia's election. What goes around comes around.

The United States never did anything remotely similar to what the Russians
did. Sure, we all f*ck with each other on various matters. Our
intelligence agencies are well aware of this. But, the unclassified
intelligence report made it quite clear that this was on a whole new
level. Far more intense - far more sophisticated - far more deceptive -
far more insidious. Nothing like it before. The Russians weaponized the
internet and social media on a level never before seen.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm not claiming that Trump stole the election. I'm not even necessarily
saying that Trump would not have won without the help of the Russians. I
don't know the answers to those questions. I do know that I find it
abhorrent if it becomes known that the Trump campaign coordinated with the
Russians in their efforts to assist him and damage Hillary Clinton. The
Russians are a hostile nation, for crissakes! It's not as if Australia or
Canada was helping him. Big difference!

So it's OK for our friends to meddle in our election? It's OK for us to
meddle in Israel's election? For us to be outraged by Russian meddling is
the height of hypocrisy.

I knew you were going to say that. No, it's not OK for anybody to meddle
in our elections. But, you have to admit - that when it's a HOSTILE
nation, it's not only wrong, but it's REALLY wrong - and, in some people's
opinions, borderline treasonous.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It really doesn't bother me that people's votes could have been influenced
by Russian social media any more than people's votes being influenced by
what they see and hear in negative campaign ads. We have always had lots
of low information voters and their votes count just as much as the well
informed voters. Each voter is allowed to cast their vote based on
whatever criteria they choose, even if they allow themselves to be
influenced by crap. I'm no more disturbed by foreign crap than I am by
domestic crap.

Fighting among ourselves is fine. Politicians pick fights all the time and
put up negative campaign ads. They do so at their own risk. Sometimes it
works (and it usually does) and sometimes it backfires. Those are choices
the candidates make.
But outside influence - especially from a hostile nation - is a completely
different matter. And that's what we're talking about here.

As long as we do it in other countries' elections we have no business
complaining when somebody does it in ours.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
In a previous message you said that nobody has been indicted for anything
associated with the 2016 election. Wrong! The last group of Russians to be
indicted, many of them in the military, were indicted because of their
association with the IRA which DEEPLY involved itself with the 2016
election.

I've made many posts on the subject and I don't remember what post you are
referring to but I believe I either said no Americans had been indicted
for anything related to the 2016 campaign or nobody from the Trump
campaign had been indicted for anything related to the 2016 campaign. Both
of those statements are true. The only Americans indicated have been for
crimes unrelated to the 2016 campaign. It's rather laughable for Mueller
to be indicting Russian nationals who aren't residing in this country
because we know they are never going to see the inside of an American
courtroom which means Mueller will never have to show how weak his hand
is.

It's not a laughing matter. I'm sure Mueller is perfectly aware that Putin
is not going to extradite his own citizens and subject them to prosecution
in the United States. If nothing else, none of those who were indicted can
ever safely return to the United States without being arrested the moment
they step off the airplane. But the indictments DO send a strong signal to
those with whom they may have worked with in the United States, "We know
what you did last summer." That often causes those who are hiding
something to take rash action as they start feeling the pinch. And you can
see that happening to some degree. Have you read those indictments? The
detail of discovery must be quite disturbing to anybody who may have
worked with them.

I still have seen no evidence that anyone in Trump's campaign illegally
colluded with Russians. Until I do, I'm not going to assume they did.

Post by d***@gmail.com
So, it remains to be seen WHO, if anybody, those Russians may have worked
with. One thing is for sure, those in the Trump orbit had an odd
fascination with Russians, seemed eager to conceal any contact they had
with Russians, and clearly have misrepresented their involvement with them
(i.e. Don Jr.). Adoptions? Pfft? Puhleaze ... especially after he was
specifically told that those with GOVERNMENT CONNECTIONS and who SUPPORTED
TRUMP had dirt on Hillary Clinton. "... and if it's what you say I love it
especially later in the summer."

Hillary would have cut a deal with the devil if she thought it would have
gotten her elected. Had the Russians been on her side, she would have been
more than happy to accept their help. She had no problem with foreign
nation's contributing to the Clinton Foundation.

Why do you think Hillary didn't use the information in the Steele dossier
prior to the election?

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I have seen no
evidence that any of them knowingly or unknowingly worked with Russian
operatives. The latter would not be a crime.

That's because the investigation is not concluded. We don't know what
Mueller has. You'd have to know that, as he builds the case, the LAST
reveal would be the American citizens who may have been complicit. You
don't lead with that.

I've heard prosecutor's hired as media consultant's say that you lead with
your best punch. You indict the most high profile people first to make as
big media splash as you can.

Maybe in a simple case where there is one suspect you're trying to nail.
But this is far more complex that may involve SEVERAL people, some of whom
are now refusing to cooperate and others are claiming executive privilege.
It's a tougher nut to crack.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Conspiring with a foreign nation to affect a U.S. election IS a crime, by
the way. In any case, even if it were not a TECHNICAL crime, it would be a
political liability (well, at least it SHOULD be a political liability) so
toxic that it should be reason enough to remove Trump from office.

It's only a crime if you know the person you are working with is a foreign
national. The early round of indictments against the Russians indicated
they duped a lot of people by pretending to be Americans.

Don Jr. was explicitly TOLD that they (Trump Tower meeting) were
representing the interests of the Russian government which was supporting
Trump.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Are you OK with our presidential candidates getting help from hostile
foreign nations on the premise that ... technically, it's not a crime? I
can't wait until we get a presidential candidate who gets help from China,
North Korea or Iran - and hear you say the same thing.

I guess I don't have a Pollyanna view of the world. I know we meddle in
other countries' elections when we think it is in our interest to do so
and I expect that other countries would do the same to us. I'm not
outraged by any of it.

Like I said - this was at a whole new level. And, you can see that it has
worked as our tribalism as at whole new level. So, this is NOT as you're
characterizing it ... ho hum, just more of the same-o, same-o. This was
different.

Post by bigdog
It's no different than conducting espionage. We do it to others so we
should expect others to do it to us.

Yes, there is always espionage. But the Russians are now doing it much
better and we have shown a weakness for the way that they're waging this
operation.

You don't think a member of a presidential campaign EMBRACING and INVITING
hostile influence in the election is something new? When has that ever
happened, especially in such an overt way?

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Oddly, the Republican party has come a long way from viewing the Russians
as the "evil empire" (Reagan) to their current love fest with the
Russians. I mean, after all, Putin's not so bad. Sure, he may kill people
... but are we so innocent? Pfft! It's all relative, right?

The Republicans aren't the only ones who have flipped. The Democrats used
to be chummy with the Soviets and were outraged by Reagan's casting them
as the evil empire. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

The Democrats have never been pro-Soviet. The Democrats disagreed with the
kind of rhetoric Reagan was using. (Remember the time, when checking the
microphone, Reagan said, "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you
today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We
begin bombing in five minutes." That's careless just silliness. Parts of
the military went into higher levels of readiness because of that one
comment.) Reagan was fortunate to be able to work with a Russian president
the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan could get away with saying such
outrageous and provocative things - because Gorbachev was a liberal-minded
rationalist. Putin is anything BUT that.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
The indictments, themselves, do not explicitly say that no Americans are
involved.

In announcing the indictments, Rothstein stated that there was no evidence
any American had knowingly worked with the Russians that were indicted.

Post by d***@gmail.com
You're confusing that with the fact that the indictments do not
mention any specific American. But that doesn't mean none existed. Roger
Stone is convinced that HE is the one alluded to very cryptically in those
indictments. My guess is that Mueller isn't showing his cards yet on this
matter because he has yet to interview the president. He doesn't want them
to know what HE knows, thus making easier for them to craft their answers
accordingly. That is a typical prosecutory technique.

As long as we're guessing, my guess is that Mueller won't show his cards
until after the midterms because as long as he can create the illusion
that people in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, that will
work in favor of the Democrats. If he were to complete his investigation
before the midterms and nobody from the Trump campaign were to be indicted
for any election activities, that would kill the best issue the Democrats
have working for them. If Mueller holds off until after the election,
perception becomes reality.

I'll bet Mueller is far more interested in maintaining the accuracy and
integrity of the investigation with which he's been tasked and is far less
concerned with who wins in the 4th district of Nevada. I'm sure he
realizes that he will ultimately be judged by the integrity of the
investigation - not how many seats he can flip in the House or Senate. It
doesn't sound like you know Bob Mueller very well. Those who know him well
would laugh at your assertion that that would be a motivating force in
this investigation - and those goes for many Republican legislators, as
well.

You have far more faith in Mueller's integrity than I do. This is a guy
who is highly partisan and has been using equally partisan assets within
the FBI to do much of the "investigating". Seven of the 15 lawyers on his
staff donated to Hillary's campaign while none donated to Trump.

Is this what you believed about Mueller from the outset? Is this what
FoxNews told you at the outset? NO! You've likely changed your view as you
see heading in a direction that doesn't suit your political sensibilities.
FoxNews has radically changed its views on Mueller.

I'm surprised how you think you know so much about Mueller and what his
motivations may be. I don't think I've heard the man speak. You seem to
know a lot about what's driving him. You're better than I am in that
regard.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
I think you're going to be disappointed when this is over. I'm surprised
you haven't developed a SENSE of where this is going. I think it's quite
obvious. Mueller will never indict the president. That's not his job. It's
not even clear whether the DOJ can indict a sitting president. Ultimately,
it will be a political thing. Do we want a president who embraced the help
of foreign nation in a presidential campaign. And not just ANY nation - a
HOSTILE nation.

Until I see evidence of criminal wrongdoing, I'm not going to assume there
was any.

That's fair enough. But you CAN see that it's worth looking into - right?
I mean, there IS "smoke".

There's a lot of hot air. I don't see the smoke.

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's worth seeing whether there was ever a
"fire". If nothing else, Trump seems suspiciously defensive on this
matter. It's exactly how a guilty person acts.

Post by bigdog
Even the Manafort trial is not going well for the prosecutors and
those alleged crimes have nothing to do with the Trump campaign. If the
best Mueller can come up with is Stormy Daniels, he is wasting the
taxpayers money.

Well, the Whitewater investigation boiled down to the president lying
about getting a blow job from an intern. And I'll bet you thought he
needed to be impeached for THAT! At least Monica Lewinski wasn't working
for the Russians.

Had somebody asked me before Clinton even became president if I thought
perjury was an impeachable offense I would have said yes. Lying isn't a
high crime or misdemeanor but lying under oath is. The defense for Clinton
was that it wasn't related to his duties as President so it shouldn't be
an impeachable defense. I don't know that there was any precedent that
established that.

Perjury requires two main elements: 1) The witness must KNOW that they're
lying and, more importantly, 2) It has to be on a substantive matter.

Arguably, Clinton lying about getting a blowjob from a young intern is not
very substantive. Hell, what married man with a young daughter wouldn't
lie about something like that if they thought they could get away with it?
You lie to save your reputation and your marriage. There is no harm to the
nation. Immoral? Sure! A shitty thing to do? Absolutely! Beneath the
dignity of the office? Certainly! Impeachable ... hmmmm ... the
Republicans in the Senate didn't think so.

Lying about gaining an advantage to the White House with a HOSTILE foreign
nation is completely different in my view. It's far worse than lying about
a blowjob. It DOES affect our nation!

Like I keep on saying ... we'll see.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[John McAdams]

Post by d***@gmail.com
I think most fair-minded liberals have long accepted that Clinton lost.
They are smart enough to know that ousting Trump doesn't give Clinton the
presidency. Pence will become president - and Pence has been a big
supporter of ALL of Trump's policies.
It's not just about the Russians meddling. It's about whether the Trump
campaign knew about it and embraced it.

And you have absolutely no evidence of that.

But the Obama Administration *did* know about it, and had
responsibility to stop it.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
There is no doubt that this
past election was more divisive than any in my lifetime and probably more
divisive than any since Lincoln's election. Much of that has been the
result of the left's refusal to accept Trump's victory and the media
fanning those flames. We used to have a tradition of supporting a newly
elected president even if he wasn't our choice but that has gone by the
wayside. It was called a honeymoon period but that doesn't happen anymore.

We also had a tradition for the winning candidate to bring the nation
together and realize that there were those who didn't vote for him and
that he understands he is THEIR president, too. Trump keeps pandering to
his base. Trump is in candidate-mode as a sitting president. I think he
would prefer to go to a rally than sit down and have a detailed discussion
on important domestic or foreign issues.

Do you *really* believe that Obama didn't pander to his base?

I think you want Republicans to compromise, and "look for common
ground," but are perfectly happy with Democrats going full partisan.

And have Democrats been at all conciliatory toward Trump?

Have they said "lets come together?"

No, they refused to accept the outcome of the election and mounted a
"resistance."

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
The media turned on Trump the minute it became apparent he was going to be
the winner. Before Trump had even reached the 270 threshold, NBC's Richard
Engle was already talking about impeachment and ABC's Martha Raddatz was
fighting back tears. Am I supposed to trust these people to fairly report
on the Trump presidency. The media's reaction to the Trump election was
absolutely repulsive which is why I know longer pay any attention to
anything they have to say about him.

Some people never got over the Hollywood access tape - and how Trump
rudely compared the beauty of Melanie to Ted Cruz's not-as-beautiful wife
- and how Trump suggest Carly Fiorina could never be be president because
.. "Look at that face!" ... and the stories about him walking into the
dressing rooms of young pageant contestants. And this was before we knew
about his cheating on his wife with a Playboy bunny and a porn star. I
think you can understand why so many people found Trump repugnant. He gave
people a reason to believe that. Fortunately for Trump, there were people
who found it entertaining and may also have hate Hillary Clinton enough to
vote for a rock before voting for her. Then, you just add in the
disenfranchised and angry Sanders supports and you have the perfect storm.

So Hillary was a crusader from women's rights?

You need to read this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html

Excerpts:

But privately, she embraced the Clinton campaign’s aggressive strategy
of counterattack: Women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with
Mr. Clinton would become targets of digging and discrediting — tactics
that women’s rights advocates frequently denounce.

The campaign hired a private investigator with a bare-knuckles
reputation who embarked on a mission, as he put it in a memo, to
impugn Ms. Flowers’s “character and veracity until she is destroyed
beyond all recognition.”

In a pattern that would later be repeated with other women, the
investigator’s staff scoured Arkansas and beyond, collecting
disparaging accounts from ex-boyfriends, employers and others who
claimed to know Ms. Flowers, accounts that the campaign then
disseminated to the news media.

By the time Mr. Clinton finally admitted to “sexual relations” with
Ms. Flowers, years later, Clinton aides had used stories collected by
the private investigator to brand her as a “bimbo” and a “pathological
liar.”

Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, people were upset with Trump's victory. That's what happens when you
have a campaign that is that divisive.

So calling Americans "deplorables" is not decisive.

You have a partisan double standard. You think Trump is divisive, but
Maxine Waters, and when women in the pussy hats, and Nancy Pelosi
aren't.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm sure if Hillary Clinton had
won, the Trump rallies would continue and be more frequent. Trump would
have basked in his popularity as a martyr for his cause. I think that's
what he was expecting as he prepared for his loss by characterizing the
elect as "rigged" ... right up until the point that he won. Then it wasn't
"rigged" any more ... now we had 3-4 million fraudulent votes. Pfft!

And now the liberals are saying the Russians rigged it.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I think at least some of Putin's motivation was retaliation for Hillary's
meddling in Russia's election. What goes around comes around.

The United States never did anything remotely similar to what the Russians
did. Sure, we all f*ck with each other on various matters. Our
intelligence agencies are well aware of this. But, the unclassified
intelligence report made it quite clear that this was on a whole new
level. Far more intense - far more sophisticated - far more deceptive -
far more insidious. Nothing like it before. The Russians weaponized the
internet and social media on a level never before seen.

And it happened during the Obama Administration.

Then there is this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/sunday-review/russia-isnt-the-only-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
So it's OK for our friends to meddle in our election? It's OK for us to
meddle in Israel's election? For us to be outraged by Russian meddling is
the height of hypocrisy.

I knew you were going to say that. No, it's not OK for anybody to meddle
in our elections. But, you have to admit - that when it's a HOSTILE
nation, it's not only wrong, but it's REALLY wrong - and, in some people's
opinions, borderline treasonous.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-the-left-longed-for-russian-political-interference

https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

Don't you understand that your double standards about these things
make you look like an unprincipled partisan?

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
Hillary would have cut a deal with the devil if she thought it would have
gotten her elected. Had the Russians been on her side, she would have been
more than happy to accept their help. She had no problem with foreign
nation's contributing to the Clinton Foundation.

Why do you think Hillary didn't use the information in the Steele dossier
prior to the election?

Because it was entirely unreliable. She and the DNC wasted their
money.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I've heard prosecutor's hired as media consultant's say that you lead with
your best punch. You indict the most high profile people first to make as
big media splash as you can.

Maybe in a simple case where there is one suspect you're trying to nail.
But this is far more complex that may involve SEVERAL people, some of whom
are now refusing to cooperate and others are claiming executive privilege.
It's a tougher nut to crack.

But suppose there is no "nut" to crack, and you are just throwing up
smoke?

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It's only a crime if you know the person you are working with is a foreign
national. The early round of indictments against the Russians indicated
they duped a lot of people by pretending to be Americans.

Don Jr. was explicitly TOLD that they (Trump Tower meeting) were
representing the interests of the Russian government which was supporting
Trump.

Any campaign will try to get dirt wherever they can. This is no more
sleazy than the Steele dossier.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I guess I don't have a Pollyanna view of the world. I know we meddle in
other countries' elections when we think it is in our interest to do so
and I expect that other countries would do the same to us. I'm not
outraged by any of it.

Like I said - this was at a whole new level. And, you can see that it has
worked as our tribalism as at whole new level. So, this is NOT as you're
characterizing it ... ho hum, just more of the same-o, same-o. This was
different.

What about Antifa? What about college students who shout down
speakers they don't like? I hope you are not denying that tribalism
has infected the left very badly.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It's no different than conducting espionage. We do it to others so we
should expect others to do it to us.

Yes, there is always espionage. But the Russians are now doing it much
better and we have shown a weakness for the way that they're waging this
operation.

They were doing it better during the Obama Administration.

Post by d***@gmail.com
You don't think a member of a presidential campaign EMBRACING and INVITING
hostile influence in the election is something new? When has that ever
happened, especially in such an overt way?

Trump did neither.

But Teddy did:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-the-left-longed-for-russian-political-interference

https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
The Republicans aren't the only ones who have flipped. The Democrats used
to be chummy with the Soviets and were outraged by Reagan's casting them
as the evil empire. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

The Democrats have never been pro-Soviet. The Democrats disagreed with the
kind of rhetoric Reagan was using. (Remember the time, when checking the
microphone, Reagan said, "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you
today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We
begin bombing in five minutes." That's careless just silliness. Parts of
the military went into higher levels of readiness because of that one
comment.) Reagan was fortunate to be able to work with a Russian president
the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan could get away with saying such
outrageous and provocative things - because Gorbachev was a liberal-minded
rationalist. Putin is anything BUT that.

That was a joke, and Reagan was quite moderate dealing with the
Soviets.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
You have far more faith in Mueller's integrity than I do. This is a guy
who is highly partisan and has been using equally partisan assets within
the FBI to do much of the "investigating". Seven of the 15 lawyers on his
staff donated to Hillary's campaign while none donated to Trump.

Is this what you believed about Mueller from the outset? Is this what
FoxNews told you at the outset? NO! You've likely changed your view as you
see heading in a direction that doesn't suit your political sensibilities.
FoxNews has radically changed its views on Mueller.

Trump was saying that on June 23, 2017.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/01/04/updated-do-russia-probe-attorneys-donations-to-democrats-threaten-their-independence/

The Washington Post, of course, tries to minimize this, but they can't
deny it.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm surprised how you think you know so much about Mueller and what his
motivations may be. I don't think I've heard the man speak. You seem to
know a lot about what's driving him. You're better than I am in that
regard.

Actions speak louder than words. And prosecutors have to get some
scalps. The biggest would be Trump.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
Had somebody asked me before Clinton even became president if I thought
perjury was an impeachable offense I would have said yes. Lying isn't a
high crime or misdemeanor but lying under oath is. The defense for Clinton
was that it wasn't related to his duties as President so it shouldn't be
an impeachable defense. I don't know that there was any precedent that
established that.

Perjury requires two main elements: 1) The witness must KNOW that they're
lying and, more importantly, 2) It has to be on a substantive matter.
Arguably, Clinton lying about getting a blowjob from a young intern is not
very substantive. Hell, what married man with a young daughter wouldn't
lie about something like that if they thought they could get away with it?
You lie to save your reputation and your marriage. There is no harm to the
nation. Immoral? Sure! A shitty thing to do? Absolutely! Beneath the
dignity of the office? Certainly! Impeachable ... hmmmm ... the
Republicans in the Senate didn't think so.

Clinton lied under oath. And you are making excuses.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Lying about gaining an advantage to the White House with a HOSTILE foreign
nation is completely different in my view. It's far worse than lying about
a blowjob. It DOES affect our nation!

But you have no evidence Trump did that.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com
I think most fair-minded liberals have long accepted that Clinton lost.

Yes, we did. That does not make it right or fair. Certainly not
Democratic.

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com
They are smart enough to know that ousting Trump doesn't give Clinton the
presidency. Pence will become president - and Pence has been a big
supporter of ALL of Trump's policies.
It's not just about the Russians meddling. It's about whether the Trump
campaign knew about it and embraced it.

And you have absolutely no evidence of that.
But the Obama Administration *did* know about it, and had
responsibility to stop it.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
There is no doubt that this
past election was more divisive than any in my lifetime and probably more
divisive than any since Lincoln's election. Much of that has been the
result of the left's refusal to accept Trump's victory and the media
fanning those flames. We used to have a tradition of supporting a newly
elected president even if he wasn't our choice but that has gone by the
wayside. It was called a honeymoon period but that doesn't happen anymore.

We also had a tradition for the winning candidate to bring the nation
together and realize that there were those who didn't vote for him and
that he understands he is THEIR president, too. Trump keeps pandering to
his base. Trump is in candidate-mode as a sitting president. I think he
would prefer to go to a rally than sit down and have a detailed discussion
on important domestic or foreign issues.

Do you *really* believe that Obama didn't pander to his base?
I think you want Republicans to compromise, and "look for common
ground," but are perfectly happy with Democrats going full partisan.
And have Democrats been at all conciliatory toward Trump?
Have they said "lets come together?"
No, they refused to accept the outcome of the election and mounted a
"resistance."

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
The media turned on Trump the minute it became apparent he was going to be
the winner. Before Trump had even reached the 270 threshold, NBC's Richard
Engle was already talking about impeachment and ABC's Martha Raddatz was
fighting back tears. Am I supposed to trust these people to fairly report
on the Trump presidency. The media's reaction to the Trump election was
absolutely repulsive which is why I know longer pay any attention to
anything they have to say about him.

Some people never got over the Hollywood access tape - and how Trump
rudely compared the beauty of Melanie to Ted Cruz's not-as-beautiful wife
- and how Trump suggest Carly Fiorina could never be be president because
.. "Look at that face!" ... and the stories about him walking into the
dressing rooms of young pageant contestants. And this was before we knew
about his cheating on his wife with a Playboy bunny and a porn star. I
think you can understand why so many people found Trump repugnant. He gave
people a reason to believe that. Fortunately for Trump, there were people
who found it entertaining and may also have hate Hillary Clinton enough to
vote for a rock before voting for her. Then, you just add in the
disenfranchised and angry Sanders supports and you have the perfect storm.

So Hillary was a crusader from women's rights?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html
But privately, she embraced the Clinton campaign???s aggressive strategy
of counterattack: Women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with
Mr. Clinton would become targets of digging and discrediting ??? tactics
that women???s rights advocates frequently denounce.
The campaign hired a private investigator with a bare-knuckles
reputation who embarked on a mission, as he put it in a memo, to
impugn Ms. Flowers???s ???character and veracity until she is destroyed
beyond all recognition.???
In a pattern that would later be repeated with other women, the
investigator???s staff scoured Arkansas and beyond, collecting
disparaging accounts from ex-boyfriends, employers and others who
claimed to know Ms. Flowers, accounts that the campaign then
disseminated to the news media.
By the time Mr. Clinton finally admitted to ???sexual relations??? with
Ms. Flowers, years later, Clinton aides had used stories collected by
the private investigator to brand her as a ???bimbo??? and a ???pathological
liar.???

Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, people were upset with Trump's victory. That's what happens when you
have a campaign that is that divisive.

So calling Americans "deplorables" is not decisive.
You have a partisan double standard. You think Trump is divisive, but
Maxine Waters, and when women in the pussy hats, and Nancy Pelosi
aren't.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm sure if Hillary Clinton had
won, the Trump rallies would continue and be more frequent. Trump would
have basked in his popularity as a martyr for his cause. I think that's
what he was expecting as he prepared for his loss by characterizing the
elect as "rigged" ... right up until the point that he won. Then it wasn't
"rigged" any more ... now we had 3-4 million fraudulent votes. Pfft!

And now the liberals are saying the Russians rigged it.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I think at least some of Putin's motivation was retaliation for Hillary's
meddling in Russia's election. What goes around comes around.

The United States never did anything remotely similar to what the Russians
did. Sure, we all f*ck with each other on various matters. Our
intelligence agencies are well aware of this. But, the unclassified
intelligence report made it quite clear that this was on a whole new
level. Far more intense - far more sophisticated - far more deceptive -
far more insidious. Nothing like it before. The Russians weaponized the
internet and social media on a level never before seen.

And it happened during the Obama Administration.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/sunday-review/russia-isnt-the-only-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
So it's OK for our friends to meddle in our election? It's OK for us to
meddle in Israel's election? For us to be outraged by Russian meddling is
the height of hypocrisy.

I knew you were going to say that. No, it's not OK for anybody to meddle
in our elections. But, you have to admit - that when it's a HOSTILE
nation, it's not only wrong, but it's REALLY wrong - and, in some people's
opinions, borderline treasonous.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-the-left-longed-for-russian-political-interference
https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html
Don't you understand that your double standards about these things
make you look like an unprincipled partisan?

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
Hillary would have cut a deal with the devil if she thought it would have
gotten her elected. Had the Russians been on her side, she would have been
more than happy to accept their help. She had no problem with foreign
nation's contributing to the Clinton Foundation.

Why do you think Hillary didn't use the information in the Steele dossier
prior to the election?

Because it was entirely unreliable. She and the DNC wasted their
money.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I've heard prosecutor's hired as media consultant's say that you lead with
your best punch. You indict the most high profile people first to make as
big media splash as you can.

Maybe in a simple case where there is one suspect you're trying to nail.
But this is far more complex that may involve SEVERAL people, some of whom
are now refusing to cooperate and others are claiming executive privilege.
It's a tougher nut to crack.

But suppose there is no "nut" to crack, and you are just throwing up
smoke?

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It's only a crime if you know the person you are working with is a foreign
national. The early round of indictments against the Russians indicated
they duped a lot of people by pretending to be Americans.

Don Jr. was explicitly TOLD that they (Trump Tower meeting) were
representing the interests of the Russian government which was supporting
Trump.

Any campaign will try to get dirt wherever they can. This is no more
sleazy than the Steele dossier.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I guess I don't have a Pollyanna view of the world. I know we meddle in
other countries' elections when we think it is in our interest to do so
and I expect that other countries would do the same to us. I'm not
outraged by any of it.

Like I said - this was at a whole new level. And, you can see that it has
worked as our tribalism as at whole new level. So, this is NOT as you're
characterizing it ... ho hum, just more of the same-o, same-o. This was
different.

What about Antifa? What about college students who shout down
speakers they don't like? I hope you are not denying that tribalism
has infected the left very badly.

Yeah, that happens. But do they run over protestors with a car?

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It's no different than conducting espionage. We do it to others so we
should expect others to do it to us.

Yes, there is always espionage. But the Russians are now doing it much
better and we have shown a weakness for the way that they're waging this
operation.

They were doing it better during the Obama Administration.

Post by d***@gmail.com
You don't think a member of a presidential campaign EMBRACING and INVITING
hostile influence in the election is something new? When has that ever
happened, especially in such an overt way?

Trump did neither.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-the-left-longed-for-russian-political-interference
https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
The Republicans aren't the only ones who have flipped. The Democrats used
to be chummy with the Soviets and were outraged by Reagan's casting them
as the evil empire. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

The Democrats have never been pro-Soviet. The Democrats disagreed with the
kind of rhetoric Reagan was using. (Remember the time, when checking the
microphone, Reagan said, "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you
today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We
begin bombing in five minutes." That's careless just silliness. Parts of
the military went into higher levels of readiness because of that one
comment.) Reagan was fortunate to be able to work with a Russian president
the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan could get away with saying such
outrageous and provocative things - because Gorbachev was a liberal-minded
rationalist. Putin is anything BUT that.

That was a joke, and Reagan was quite moderate dealing with the
Soviets.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
You have far more faith in Mueller's integrity than I do. This is a guy
who is highly partisan and has been using equally partisan assets within
the FBI to do much of the "investigating". Seven of the 15 lawyers on his
staff donated to Hillary's campaign while none donated to Trump.

Is this what you believed about Mueller from the outset? Is this what
FoxNews told you at the outset? NO! You've likely changed your view as you
see heading in a direction that doesn't suit your political sensibilities.
FoxNews has radically changed its views on Mueller.

Trump was saying that on June 23, 2017.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/01/04/updated-do-russia-probe-attorneys-donations-to-democrats-threaten-their-independence/
The Washington Post, of course, tries to minimize this, but they can't
deny it.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm surprised how you think you know so much about Mueller and what his
motivations may be. I don't think I've heard the man speak. You seem to
know a lot about what's driving him. You're better than I am in that
regard.

Actions speak louder than words. And prosecutors have to get some
scalps. The biggest would be Trump.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
Had somebody asked me before Clinton even became president if I thought
perjury was an impeachable offense I would have said yes. Lying isn't a
high crime or misdemeanor but lying under oath is. The defense for Clinton
was that it wasn't related to his duties as President so it shouldn't be
an impeachable defense. I don't know that there was any precedent that
established that.

Perjury requires two main elements: 1) The witness must KNOW that they're
lying and, more importantly, 2) It has to be on a substantive matter.
Arguably, Clinton lying about getting a blowjob from a young intern is not
very substantive. Hell, what married man with a young daughter wouldn't
lie about something like that if they thought they could get away with it?
You lie to save your reputation and your marriage. There is no harm to the
nation. Immoral? Sure! A shitty thing to do? Absolutely! Beneath the
dignity of the office? Certainly! Impeachable ... hmmmm ... the
Republicans in the Senate didn't think so.

Clinton lied under oath. And you are making excuses.

Hillary? About what? Show us.

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com
Lying about gaining an advantage to the White House with a HOSTILE foreign
nation is completely different in my view. It's far worse than lying about
a blowjob. It DOES affect our nation!

But you have no evidence Trump did that.

Mueller has the evidence.

Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Jason Burke]

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com

On Saturday, August 11, 2018 at 6:39:20 PM UTC-4,

I think most fair-minded liberals have long accepted that Clinton lost.

Yes, we did. That does not make it right or fair. Certainly not Democratic.

So you want to change the entire structure of the USA government
retroactively?

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com
They are smart enough to know that ousting Trump doesn't give Clinton the
presidency. Pence will become president - and Pence has been a big
supporter of ALL of Trump's policies.
It's not just about the Russians meddling. It's about whether the Trump
campaign knew about it and embraced it.

And you have absolutely no evidence of that.
But the Obama Administration *did* know about it, and had
responsibility to stop it.

Post by d***@gmail.com

There is no doubt that this
past election was more divisive than any in my lifetime and probably more
divisive than any since Lincoln's election. Much of that has been the
result of the left's refusal to accept Trump's victory and the media
fanning those flames. We used to have a tradition of supporting a newly
elected president even if he wasn't our choice but that has gone by the
wayside. It was called a honeymoon period but that doesn't happen anymore.

We also had a tradition for the winning candidate to bring the nation
together and realize that there were those who didn't vote for him and
that he understands he is THEIR president, too. Trump keeps pandering to
his base. Trump is in candidate-mode as a sitting president. I think he
would prefer to go to a rally than sit down and have a detailed discussion
on important domestic or foreign issues.

Do you *really* believe that Obama didn't pander to his base?
I think you want Republicans to compromise, and "look for common
ground," but are perfectly happy with Democrats going full partisan.
And have Democrats been at all conciliatory toward Trump?
Have they said "lets come together?"
No, they refused to accept the outcome of the election and mounted a
"resistance."

Post by d***@gmail.com

The media turned on Trump the minute it became apparent he was going to be
the winner. Before Trump had even reached the 270 threshold, NBC's Richard
Engle was already talking about impeachment and ABC's Martha Raddatz was
fighting back tears. Am I supposed to trust these people to fairly report
on the Trump presidency. The media's reaction to the Trump election was
absolutely repulsive which is why I know longer pay any attention to
anything they have to say about him.

Some people never got over the Hollywood access tape - and how Trump
rudely compared the beauty of Melanie to Ted Cruz's not-as-beautiful wife
- and how Trump suggest Carly Fiorina could never be be president because
.. "Look at that face!" ... and the stories about him walking into the
dressing rooms of young pageant contestants. And this was before we knew
about his cheating on his wife with a Playboy bunny and a porn star. I
think you can understand why so many people found Trump repugnant. He gave
people a reason to believe that. Fortunately for Trump, there were people
who found it entertaining and may also have hate Hillary Clinton enough to
vote for a rock before voting for her. Then, you just add in the
disenfranchised and angry Sanders supports and you have the perfect storm.

So Hillary was a crusader from women's rights?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html
But privately, she embraced the Clinton campaign???s aggressive strategy
of counterattack: Women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with
Mr. Clinton would become targets of digging and discrediting ??? tactics
that women???s rights advocates frequently denounce.
The campaign hired a private investigator with a bare-knuckles
reputation who embarked on a mission, as he put it in a memo, to
impugn Ms. Flowers???s ???character and veracity until she is destroyed
beyond all recognition.???
In a pattern that would later be repeated with other women, the
investigator???s staff scoured Arkansas and beyond, collecting
disparaging accounts from ex-boyfriends, employers and others who
claimed to know Ms. Flowers, accounts that the campaign then
disseminated to the news media.
By the time Mr. Clinton finally admitted to ???sexual relations??? with
Ms. Flowers, years later, Clinton aides had used stories collected by
the private investigator to brand her as a ???bimbo??? and a
???pathological
liar.???

Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, people were upset with Trump's victory. That's what happens when you
have a campaign that is that divisive.

So calling Americans "deplorables" is not decisive.
You have a partisan double standard.  You think Trump is divisive, but
Maxine Waters, and when women in the pussy hats, and Nancy Pelosi
aren't.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm sure if Hillary Clinton had
won, the Trump rallies would continue and be more frequent. Trump would
have basked in his popularity as a martyr for his cause. I think that's
what he was expecting as he prepared for his loss by characterizing the
elect as "rigged" ... right up until the point that he won. Then it wasn't
"rigged" any more ... now we had 3-4 million fraudulent votes. Pfft!

And now the liberals are saying the Russians rigged it.

Post by d***@gmail.com

I think at least some of Putin's motivation was retaliation for Hillary's
meddling in Russia's election. What goes around comes around.

The United States never did anything remotely similar to what the Russians
did. Sure, we all f*ck with each other on various matters. Our
intelligence agencies are well aware of this. But, the unclassified
intelligence report made it quite clear that this was on a whole new
level. Far more intense - far more sophisticated - far more deceptive -
far more insidious. Nothing like it before. The Russians weaponized the
internet and social media on a level never before seen.

And it happened during the Obama Administration.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/sunday-review/russia-isnt-the-only-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html

Post by d***@gmail.com

So it's OK for our friends to meddle in our election? It's OK for us to
meddle in Israel's election? For us to be outraged by Russian meddling is
the height of hypocrisy.

I knew you were going to say that. No, it's not OK for anybody to meddle
in our elections. But, you have to admit - that when it's a HOSTILE
nation, it's not only wrong, but it's REALLY wrong - and, in some people's
opinions, borderline treasonous.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-the-left-longed-for-russian-political-interference
https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html
Don't you understand that your double standards about these things
make you look like an unprincipled partisan?

Post by d***@gmail.com

Hillary would have cut a deal with the devil if she thought it would have
gotten her elected. Had the Russians been on her side, she would have been
more than happy to accept their help. She had no problem with foreign
nation's contributing to the Clinton Foundation.

Why do you think Hillary didn't use the information in the Steele dossier
prior to the election?

Because it was entirely unreliable.  She and the DNC wasted their
money.

Post by d***@gmail.com

I've heard prosecutor's hired as media consultant's say that you lead with
your best punch. You indict the most high profile people first to make as
big media splash as you can.

Maybe in a simple case where there is one suspect you're trying to nail.
But this is far more complex that may involve SEVERAL people, some of whom
are now refusing to cooperate and others are claiming executive privilege.
It's a tougher nut to crack.

But suppose there is no "nut" to crack, and you are just throwing up
smoke?

Post by d***@gmail.com

It's only a crime if you know the person you are working with is a foreign
national. The early round of indictments against the Russians indicated
they duped a lot of people by pretending to be Americans.

Don Jr. was explicitly TOLD that they (Trump Tower meeting) were
representing the interests of the Russian government which was supporting
Trump.

Any campaign will try to get dirt wherever they can.  This is no more
sleazy than the Steele dossier.

Post by d***@gmail.com

I guess I don't have a Pollyanna view of the world. I know we meddle in
other countries' elections when we think it is in our interest to do so
and I expect that other countries would do the same to us. I'm not
outraged by any of it.

Like I said - this was at a whole new level. And, you can see that it has
worked as our tribalism as at whole new level. So, this is NOT as you're
characterizing it ... ho hum, just more of the same-o, same-o. This was
different.

What about Antifa?  What about college students who shout down
speakers they don't like?  I hope you are not denying that tribalism
has infected the left very badly.

Yeah, that happens. But do they run over protestors with a car?

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com

It's no different than conducting espionage. We do it to others so we
should expect others to do it to us.

Yes, there is always espionage. But the Russians are now doing it much
better and we have shown a weakness for the way that they're waging this
operation.

They were doing it better during the Obama Administration.

Post by d***@gmail.com
You don't think a member of a presidential campaign EMBRACING and INVITING
hostile influence in the election is something new? When has that ever
happened, especially in such an overt way?

Trump did neither.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-the-left-longed-for-russian-political-interference
https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

Post by d***@gmail.com

The Republicans aren't the only ones who have flipped. The Democrats used
to be chummy with the Soviets and were outraged by Reagan's casting them
as the evil empire. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

The Democrats have never been pro-Soviet. The Democrats disagreed with the
kind of rhetoric Reagan was using. (Remember the time, when checking the
microphone, Reagan said, "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you
today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We
begin bombing in five minutes." That's careless just silliness. Parts of
the military went into higher levels of readiness because of that one
comment.) Reagan was fortunate to be able to work with a Russian president
the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan could get away with saying such
outrageous and provocative things - because Gorbachev was a
liberal-minded
rationalist. Putin is anything BUT that.

That was a joke, and Reagan was quite moderate dealing with the
Soviets.

Post by d***@gmail.com

You have far more faith in Mueller's integrity than I do. This is a guy
who is highly partisan and has been using equally partisan assets within
the FBI to do much of the "investigating". Seven of the 15 lawyers on his
staff donated to Hillary's campaign while none donated to Trump.

Is this what you believed about Mueller from the outset? Is this what
FoxNews told you at the outset? NO! You've likely changed your view as you
see heading in a direction that doesn't suit your political
sensibilities.
FoxNews has radically changed its views on Mueller.

Trump was saying that on June 23, 2017.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/01/04/updated-do-russia-probe-attorneys-donations-to-democrats-threaten-their-independence/
The Washington Post, of course, tries to minimize this, but they can't
deny it.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm surprised how you think you know so much about Mueller and what his
motivations may be. I don't think I've heard the man speak. You seem to
know a lot about what's driving him. You're better than I am in that
regard.

Actions speak louder than words.  And prosecutors have to get some
scalps.  The biggest would be Trump.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Had somebody asked me before Clinton even became president if I thought
perjury was an impeachable offense I would have said yes. Lying isn't a
high crime or misdemeanor but lying under oath is. The defense for Clinton
was that it wasn't related to his duties as President so it
shouldn't be
an impeachable defense. I don't know that there was any precedent that
established that.

Perjury requires two main elements: 1) The witness must KNOW that they're
lying and, more importantly, 2) It has to be on a substantive matter.
Arguably, Clinton lying about getting a blowjob from a young intern is not
very substantive. Hell, what married man with a young daughter wouldn't
lie about something like that if they thought they could get away with it?
You lie to save your reputation and your marriage. There is no harm to the
nation. Immoral? Sure! A shitty thing to do? Absolutely! Beneath the
dignity of the office? Certainly! Impeachable ... hmmmm ... the
Republicans in the Senate didn't think so.

Clinton lied under oath.  And you are making excuses.

Hillary? About what? Show us.

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com
Lying about gaining an advantage to the White House with a HOSTILE foreign
nation is completely different in my view. It's far worse than lying about
a blowjob. It DOES affect our nation!

But you have no evidence Trump did that.

Mueller has the evidence.

If you click your heels three times, perhaps your fantasy will come
true! At least maybe a genie will appear.

Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Jason Burke

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com

On Saturday, August 11, 2018 at 6:39:20 PM UTC-4,

I think most fair-minded liberals have long accepted that Clinton lost.

Yes, we did. That does not make it right or fair. Certainly not Democratic.

So you want to change the entire structure of the USA government
retroactively?

I said nothing about change. I said fair and legal.

Post by Jason Burke

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com
They are smart enough to know that ousting Trump doesn't give Clinton the
presidency. Pence will become president - and Pence has been a big
supporter of ALL of Trump's policies.
It's not just about the Russians meddling. It's about whether the Trump
campaign knew about it and embraced it.

And you have absolutely no evidence of that.
But the Obama Administration *did* know about it, and had
responsibility to stop it.

Post by d***@gmail.com

There is no doubt that this
past election was more divisive than any in my lifetime and probably more
divisive than any since Lincoln's election. Much of that has been the
result of the left's refusal to accept Trump's victory and the media
fanning those flames. We used to have a tradition of supporting a newly
elected president even if he wasn't our choice but that has gone by the
wayside. It was called a honeymoon period but that doesn't happen anymore.

We also had a tradition for the winning candidate to bring the nation
together and realize that there were those who didn't vote for him and
that he understands he is THEIR president, too. Trump keeps
pandering to
his base. Trump is in candidate-mode as a sitting president. I think he
would prefer to go to a rally than sit down and have a detailed discussion
on important domestic or foreign issues.

Do you *really* believe that Obama didn't pander to his base?
I think you want Republicans to compromise, and "look for common
ground," but are perfectly happy with Democrats going full partisan.
And have Democrats been at all conciliatory toward Trump?
Have they said "lets come together?"
No, they refused to accept the outcome of the election and mounted a
"resistance."

Post by d***@gmail.com

The media turned on Trump the minute it became apparent he was going to be
the winner. Before Trump had even reached the 270 threshold, NBC's Richard
Engle was already talking about impeachment and ABC's Martha Raddatz was
fighting back tears. Am I supposed to trust these people to fairly report
on the Trump presidency. The media's reaction to the Trump election was
absolutely repulsive which is why I know longer pay any attention to
anything they have to say about him.

Some people never got over the Hollywood access tape - and how Trump
rudely compared the beauty of Melanie to Ted Cruz's not-as-beautiful wife
- and how Trump suggest Carly Fiorina could never be be president because
.. "Look at that face!" ... and the stories about him walking into the
dressing rooms of young pageant contestants. And this was before we knew
about his cheating on his wife with a Playboy bunny and a porn star. I
think you can understand why so many people found Trump repugnant. He gave
people a reason to believe that. Fortunately for Trump, there were people
who found it entertaining and may also have hate Hillary Clinton enough to
vote for a rock before voting for her. Then, you just add in the
disenfranchised and angry Sanders supports and you have the perfect storm.

So Hillary was a crusader from women's rights?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html
But privately, she embraced the Clinton campaign???s aggressive strategy
of counterattack: Women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with
Mr. Clinton would become targets of digging and discrediting ??? tactics
that women???s rights advocates frequently denounce.
The campaign hired a private investigator with a bare-knuckles
reputation who embarked on a mission, as he put it in a memo, to
impugn Ms. Flowers???s ???character and veracity until she is destroyed
beyond all recognition.???
In a pattern that would later be repeated with other women, the
investigator???s staff scoured Arkansas and beyond, collecting
disparaging accounts from ex-boyfriends, employers and others who
claimed to know Ms. Flowers, accounts that the campaign then
disseminated to the news media.
By the time Mr. Clinton finally admitted to ???sexual relations??? with
Ms. Flowers, years later, Clinton aides had used stories collected by
the private investigator to brand her as a ???bimbo??? and a
???pathological
liar.???

Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, people were upset with Trump's victory. That's what happens when you
have a campaign that is that divisive.

So calling Americans "deplorables" is not decisive.
You have a partisan double standard.?? You think Trump is divisive, but
Maxine Waters, and when women in the pussy hats, and Nancy Pelosi
aren't.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm sure if Hillary Clinton had
won, the Trump rallies would continue and be more frequent. Trump would
have basked in his popularity as a martyr for his cause. I think that's
what he was expecting as he prepared for his loss by characterizing the
elect as "rigged" ... right up until the point that he won. Then it wasn't
"rigged" any more ... now we had 3-4 million fraudulent votes. Pfft!

And now the liberals are saying the Russians rigged it.

Post by d***@gmail.com

I think at least some of Putin's motivation was retaliation for Hillary's
meddling in Russia's election. What goes around comes around.

The United States never did anything remotely similar to what the Russians
did. Sure, we all f*ck with each other on various matters. Our
intelligence agencies are well aware of this. But, the unclassified
intelligence report made it quite clear that this was on a whole new
level. Far more intense - far more sophisticated - far more deceptive -
far more insidious. Nothing like it before. The Russians weaponized the
internet and social media on a level never before seen.

And it happened during the Obama Administration.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/sunday-review/russia-isnt-the-only-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html

Post by d***@gmail.com

So it's OK for our friends to meddle in our election? It's OK for us to
meddle in Israel's election? For us to be outraged by Russian meddling is
the height of hypocrisy.

I knew you were going to say that. No, it's not OK for anybody to meddle
in our elections. But, you have to admit - that when it's a HOSTILE
nation, it's not only wrong, but it's REALLY wrong - and, in some people's
opinions, borderline treasonous.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-the-left-longed-for-russian-political-interference
https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html
Don't you understand that your double standards about these things
make you look like an unprincipled partisan?

Post by d***@gmail.com

Hillary would have cut a deal with the devil if she thought it would have
gotten her elected. Had the Russians been on her side, she would have been
more than happy to accept their help. She had no problem with foreign
nation's contributing to the Clinton Foundation.

Why do you think Hillary didn't use the information in the Steele dossier
prior to the election?

Because it was entirely unreliable.?? She and the DNC wasted their
money.

Post by d***@gmail.com

I've heard prosecutor's hired as media consultant's say that you lead with
your best punch. You indict the most high profile people first to make as
big media splash as you can.

Maybe in a simple case where there is one suspect you're trying to nail.
But this is far more complex that may involve SEVERAL people, some of whom
are now refusing to cooperate and others are claiming executive privilege.
It's a tougher nut to crack.

But suppose there is no "nut" to crack, and you are just throwing up
smoke?

Post by d***@gmail.com

It's only a crime if you know the person you are working with is a foreign
national. The early round of indictments against the Russians indicated
they duped a lot of people by pretending to be Americans.

Don Jr. was explicitly TOLD that they (Trump Tower meeting) were
representing the interests of the Russian government which was supporting
Trump.

Any campaign will try to get dirt wherever they can.?? This is no more
sleazy than the Steele dossier.

Post by d***@gmail.com

I guess I don't have a Pollyanna view of the world. I know we meddle in
other countries' elections when we think it is in our interest to do so
and I expect that other countries would do the same to us. I'm not
outraged by any of it.

Like I said - this was at a whole new level. And, you can see that it has
worked as our tribalism as at whole new level. So, this is NOT as you're
characterizing it ... ho hum, just more of the same-o, same-o. This was
different.

What about Antifa??? What about college students who shout down
speakers they don't like??? I hope you are not denying that tribalism
has infected the left very badly.

Yeah, that happens. But do they run over protestors with a car?

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com

It's no different than conducting espionage. We do it to others so we
should expect others to do it to us.

Yes, there is always espionage. But the Russians are now doing it much
better and we have shown a weakness for the way that they're waging this
operation.

They were doing it better during the Obama Administration.

Post by d***@gmail.com
You don't think a member of a presidential campaign EMBRACING and INVITING
hostile influence in the election is something new? When has that ever
happened, especially in such an overt way?

Trump did neither.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-the-left-longed-for-russian-political-interference
https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

Post by d***@gmail.com

The Republicans aren't the only ones who have flipped. The
Democrats used
to be chummy with the Soviets and were outraged by Reagan's casting them
as the evil empire. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

The Democrats have never been pro-Soviet. The Democrats disagreed with the
kind of rhetoric Reagan was using. (Remember the time, when checking the
microphone, Reagan said, "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you
today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We
begin bombing in five minutes." That's careless just silliness. Parts of
the military went into higher levels of readiness because of that one
comment.) Reagan was fortunate to be able to work with a Russian president
the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan could get away with saying such
outrageous and provocative things - because Gorbachev was a
liberal-minded
rationalist. Putin is anything BUT that.

That was a joke, and Reagan was quite moderate dealing with the
Soviets.

Post by d***@gmail.com

You have far more faith in Mueller's integrity than I do. This is a guy
who is highly partisan and has been using equally partisan assets within
the FBI to do much of the "investigating". Seven of the 15 lawyers on his
staff donated to Hillary's campaign while none donated to Trump.

Is this what you believed about Mueller from the outset? Is this what
FoxNews told you at the outset? NO! You've likely changed your view as you
see heading in a direction that doesn't suit your political
sensibilities.
FoxNews has radically changed its views on Mueller.

Trump was saying that on June 23, 2017.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/01/04/updated-do-russia-probe-attorneys-donations-to-democrats-threaten-their-independence/
The Washington Post, of course, tries to minimize this, but they can't
deny it.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm surprised how you think you know so much about Mueller and what his
motivations may be. I don't think I've heard the man speak. You seem to
know a lot about what's driving him. You're better than I am in that
regard.

Actions speak louder than words.?? And prosecutors have to get some
scalps.?? The biggest would be Trump.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Had somebody asked me before Clinton even became president if I thought
perjury was an impeachable offense I would have said yes. Lying isn't a
high crime or misdemeanor but lying under oath is. The defense for Clinton
was that it wasn't related to his duties as President so it shouldn't be
an impeachable defense. I don't know that there was any precedent that
established that.

Perjury requires two main elements: 1) The witness must KNOW that they're
lying and, more importantly, 2) It has to be on a substantive matter.
Arguably, Clinton lying about getting a blowjob from a young intern is not
very substantive. Hell, what married man with a young daughter wouldn't
lie about something like that if they thought they could get away with it?
You lie to save your reputation and your marriage. There is no harm to the
nation. Immoral? Sure! A shitty thing to do? Absolutely! Beneath the
dignity of the office? Certainly! Impeachable ... hmmmm ... the
Republicans in the Senate didn't think so.

Clinton lied under oath.?? And you are making excuses.

Hillary? About what? Show us.

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com
Lying about gaining an advantage to the White House with a HOSTILE foreign
nation is completely different in my view. It's far worse than lying about
a blowjob. It DOES affect our nation!

But you have no evidence Trump did that.

Mueller has the evidence.

If you click your heels three times, perhaps your fantasy will come
true! At least maybe a genie will appear.

What fantasy? I know the world is not perfect, but we should be working
to make it better.

As Jesus said, "Whose face is on that coin?"

Post by Jason Burke

Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[bigdog]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

You don't say? How many people do think would've voted for Hillary Clinton
in some of these states where Trump eked out an electoral victory had
there not been a social media campaign (by Russia's Internet Research
Agency) to disparage her an micro-target certain demographic groups who
would be receptive (and share) these memes?

Impossible to quantify but I doubt enough to tip the election. I'll use
round numbers to illustrate the point. Trump won Wisconsin by 22,000
votes, Michigan by 10,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000. Assuming that
every Hillary vote the Russians flipped went to Trump and not one of the
other two candidates, a big if, that means they would have had to flip
11,001 votes, in Wisconsin, 5001 votes in Michigan, and 22,001 votes in
Pennsylvania and that's just to create the ridiculously unlikely scenario
of Hillary winning each of those three states by a 1 vote margin. Keep in
mind, Hillary needed to win all three. Trump would have had an electoral
college majority winning any one of them.

It's not just about flipping would-be Clinton voters into Trump voters,
it's also about angry Sanders supporters (who the Russian social media
campaign was ALSO supporting) defected to either Trump, Jill Stein, Gary
Johnson, STILL voted for Bernie Sanders as a write-in, or sat out the
election altogether.
Listen, I have no problem with how we elect presidents. Everybody knows
it's not a popular vote system. This has happened before and it will
happen again. That's the way the system was designed. My point is simply
that there was manipulation of the sentiment of the electorate to a HUGE
degree. I don't know if Trump would've won without their help or not.
Nobody knows. And there's no way to figure that out. Even the intelligence
agencies, who categorically insist that the Russian's waged an
unprecedented campaign to foment divides in hot button political issues
(Black Lives Matter, 2nd amendment, abortion, immigration, elitism, etc)
never ventured an opinion on that matter. In fact, the Russian's goal was
to weaken an anticipated Clinton presidency by dividing the country -
making it difficult for her to govern. They certainly were successful in
dividing the country. C'mon - you have to admit, this past presidential
election was as divisive as it's ever been in our lifetime. I've never
seen anything like it. In my neighborhood, there was not a single
Clinton/Kaine or Trump/Pence sign in the yard because they feared that
they would lose friends or that it would adversely affect their
businesses.

I totally agree that the Russians like most everyone else expected Clinton
to win and they did want to weaken her presidency. My objection is when
people use their meddling as an excuse for Hillary's failure as a
candidate and to delegitimize Trump's victory.

I think most fair-minded liberals have long accepted that Clinton lost.
They are smart enough to know that ousting Trump doesn't give Clinton the
presidency. Pence will become president - and Pence has been a big
supporter of ALL of Trump's policies.
It's not just about the Russians meddling. It's about whether the Trump
campaign knew about it and embraced it.

Post by bigdog
There is no doubt that this
past election was more divisive than any in my lifetime and probably more
divisive than any since Lincoln's election. Much of that has been the
result of the left's refusal to accept Trump's victory and the media
fanning those flames. We used to have a tradition of supporting a newly
elected president even if he wasn't our choice but that has gone by the
wayside. It was called a honeymoon period but that doesn't happen anymore.

We also had a tradition for the winning candidate to bring the nation
together and realize that there were those who didn't vote for him and
that he understands he is THEIR president, too. Trump keeps pandering to
his base. Trump is in candidate-mode as a sitting president. I think he
would prefer to go to a rally than sit down and have a detailed discussion
on important domestic or foreign issues.

The media never gave him a chance as evidenced by NBC talking about
impeaching him before even declaring him the victor. Then we had the silly
spectacle of the Hamilton electors movement trying to upset the
applecart.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
The media turned on Trump the minute it became apparent he was going to be
the winner. Before Trump had even reached the 270 threshold, NBC's Richard
Engle was already talking about impeachment and ABC's Martha Raddatz was
fighting back tears. Am I supposed to trust these people to fairly report
on the Trump presidency. The media's reaction to the Trump election was
absolutely repulsive which is why I know longer pay any attention to
anything they have to say about him.

Some people never got over the Hollywood access tape - and how Trump
rudely compared the beauty of Melanie to Ted Cruz's not-as-beautiful wife
- and how Trump suggest Carly Fiorina could never be be president because
.. "Look at that face!" ... and the stories about him walking into the
dressing rooms of young pageant contestants. And this was before we knew
about his cheating on his wife with a Playboy bunny and a porn star. I
think you can understand why so many people found Trump repugnant. He gave
people a reason to believe that. Fortunately for Trump, there were people
who found it entertaining and may also have hate Hillary Clinton enough to
vote for a rock before voting for her. Then, you just add in the
disenfranchised and angry Sanders supports and you have the perfect storm.

Much of the outrage came from the same people who were more than willing
to give Bill Clinton a pass on behavior no less crude.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, people were upset with Trump's victory. That's what happens when you
have a campaign that is that divisive. I'm sure if Hillary Clinton had
won, the Trump rallies would continue and be more frequent. Trump would
have basked in his popularity as a martyr for his cause. I think that's
what he was expecting as he prepared for his loss by characterizing the
elect as "rigged" ... right up until the point that he won. Then it wasn't
"rigged" any more ... now we had 3-4 million fraudulent votes. Pfft!

I seriously doubt that. Many Trump supporters were resigned to defeat
before the votes were counted. I think they would have been much more
accepting of it than the Clinton camp.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Well, the Russians DID manage to divide us into tribes. But Clinton didn't
win. Trump won. So, Trump inherited exactly what Clinton would've
inherited - a deeply divided nation. That's all the Russians really wanted
- a weakened United States - no matter WHO got elected. Sure, they
preferred Trump (because, clearly, he would be the more divisive of the
two), but they were actually anticipating a Clinton presidency.

I think at least some of Putin's motivation was retaliation for Hillary's
meddling in Russia's election. What goes around comes around.

The United States never did anything remotely similar to what the Russians
did. Sure, we all f*ck with each other on various matters. Our
intelligence agencies are well aware of this. But, the unclassified
intelligence report made it quite clear that this was on a whole new
level. Far more intense - far more sophisticated - far more deceptive -
far more insidious. Nothing like it before. The Russians weaponized the
internet and social media on a level never before seen.

One of my favorite lines from the movie The Sting is when Doyle Lonnegan
said, "What was I supposed to do, accuse him of cheating better than me in
front of the others?". It seems you are accusing the Russians of cheating
better than us.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm not claiming that Trump stole the election. I'm not even necessarily
saying that Trump would not have won without the help of the Russians. I
don't know the answers to those questions. I do know that I find it
abhorrent if it becomes known that the Trump campaign coordinated with the
Russians in their efforts to assist him and damage Hillary Clinton. The
Russians are a hostile nation, for crissakes! It's not as if Australia or
Canada was helping him. Big difference!

So it's OK for our friends to meddle in our election? It's OK for us to
meddle in Israel's election? For us to be outraged by Russian meddling is
the height of hypocrisy.

I knew you were going to say that. No, it's not OK for anybody to meddle
in our elections. But, you have to admit - that when it's a HOSTILE
nation, it's not only wrong, but it's REALLY wrong - and, in some people's
opinions, borderline treasonous.

Do you think it is less egregious to stab our friends in the back? You're
supposed to fuck with your enemies.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It really doesn't bother me that people's votes could have been influenced
by Russian social media any more than people's votes being influenced by
what they see and hear in negative campaign ads. We have always had lots
of low information voters and their votes count just as much as the well
informed voters. Each voter is allowed to cast their vote based on
whatever criteria they choose, even if they allow themselves to be
influenced by crap. I'm no more disturbed by foreign crap than I am by
domestic crap.

Fighting among ourselves is fine. Politicians pick fights all the time and
put up negative campaign ads. They do so at their own risk. Sometimes it
works (and it usually does) and sometimes it backfires. Those are choices
the candidates make.
But outside influence - especially from a hostile nation - is a completely
different matter. And that's what we're talking about here.

As long as we do it in other countries' elections we have no business
complaining when somebody does it in ours.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
In a previous message you said that nobody has been indicted for anything
associated with the 2016 election. Wrong! The last group of Russians to be
indicted, many of them in the military, were indicted because of their
association with the IRA which DEEPLY involved itself with the 2016
election.

I've made many posts on the subject and I don't remember what post you are
referring to but I believe I either said no Americans had been indicted
for anything related to the 2016 campaign or nobody from the Trump
campaign had been indicted for anything related to the 2016 campaign. Both
of those statements are true. The only Americans indicated have been for
crimes unrelated to the 2016 campaign. It's rather laughable for Mueller
to be indicting Russian nationals who aren't residing in this country
because we know they are never going to see the inside of an American
courtroom which means Mueller will never have to show how weak his hand
is.

It's not a laughing matter. I'm sure Mueller is perfectly aware that Putin
is not going to extradite his own citizens and subject them to prosecution
in the United States. If nothing else, none of those who were indicted can
ever safely return to the United States without being arrested the moment
they step off the airplane. But the indictments DO send a strong signal to
those with whom they may have worked with in the United States, "We know
what you did last summer." That often causes those who are hiding
something to take rash action as they start feeling the pinch. And you can
see that happening to some degree. Have you read those indictments? The
detail of discovery must be quite disturbing to anybody who may have
worked with them.

I still have seen no evidence that anyone in Trump's campaign illegally
colluded with Russians. Until I do, I'm not going to assume they did.

Post by d***@gmail.com
So, it remains to be seen WHO, if anybody, those Russians may have worked
with. One thing is for sure, those in the Trump orbit had an odd
fascination with Russians, seemed eager to conceal any contact they had
with Russians, and clearly have misrepresented their involvement with them
(i.e. Don Jr.). Adoptions? Pfft? Puhleaze ... especially after he was
specifically told that those with GOVERNMENT CONNECTIONS and who SUPPORTED
TRUMP had dirt on Hillary Clinton. "... and if it's what you say I love it
especially later in the summer."

Hillary would have cut a deal with the devil if she thought it would have
gotten her elected. Had the Russians been on her side, she would have been
more than happy to accept their help. She had no problem with foreign
nation's contributing to the Clinton Foundation.

Why do you think Hillary didn't use the information in the Steele dossier
prior to the election?

I really don't know. Maybe she thought it would backfire on her if it was
determined to be phony. Why risk that when all the polls said she was
going to win.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I have seen no
evidence that any of them knowingly or unknowingly worked with Russian
operatives. The latter would not be a crime.

That's because the investigation is not concluded. We don't know what
Mueller has. You'd have to know that, as he builds the case, the LAST
reveal would be the American citizens who may have been complicit. You
don't lead with that.

I've heard prosecutor's hired as media consultant's say that you lead with
your best punch. You indict the most high profile people first to make as
big media splash as you can.

Maybe in a simple case where there is one suspect you're trying to nail.
But this is far more complex that may involve SEVERAL people, some of whom
are now refusing to cooperate and others are claiming executive privilege.
It's a tougher nut to crack.

That's why I'm not assuming anything until I see evidence of wrongdoing.
Suspicions don't interest me any more than the things the conspiracy
hobbyists have suspected about the JFK assassination.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Conspiring with a foreign nation to affect a U.S. election IS a crime, by
the way. In any case, even if it were not a TECHNICAL crime, it would be a
political liability (well, at least it SHOULD be a political liability) so
toxic that it should be reason enough to remove Trump from office.

It's only a crime if you know the person you are working with is a foreign
national. The early round of indictments against the Russians indicated
they duped a lot of people by pretending to be Americans.

Don Jr. was explicitly TOLD that they (Trump Tower meeting) were
representing the interests of the Russian government which was supporting
Trump.

Talking with the Russians is not a crime. I have seen no evidence that
anything he did rose to the level of criminal behavior. If it did, Mueller
needs to show his cards. Why hasn't he?

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Are you OK with our presidential candidates getting help from hostile
foreign nations on the premise that ... technically, it's not a crime? I
can't wait until we get a presidential candidate who gets help from China,
North Korea or Iran - and hear you say the same thing.

I guess I don't have a Pollyanna view of the world. I know we meddle in
other countries' elections when we think it is in our interest to do so
and I expect that other countries would do the same to us. I'm not
outraged by any of it.

Like I said - this was at a whole new level. And, you can see that it has
worked as our tribalism as at whole new level. So, this is NOT as you're
characterizing it ... ho hum, just more of the same-o, same-o. This was
different.

It is ho-hum. The Soviet Union was doing this a long time ago. Nobody
every used it as an excuse for the loser's failure.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It's no different than conducting espionage. We do it to others so we
should expect others to do it to us.

Yes, there is always espionage. But the Russians are now doing it much
better and we have shown a weakness for the way that they're waging this
operation.

Like I said, you are accusing them of cheating better than us.

Post by d***@gmail.com
You don't think a member of a presidential campaign EMBRACING and INVITING
hostile influence in the election is something new? When has that ever
happened, especially in such an overt way?

I have yet to see evidence that there was collusion by the Trump campaign.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Oddly, the Republican party has come a long way from viewing the Russians
as the "evil empire" (Reagan) to their current love fest with the
Russians. I mean, after all, Putin's not so bad. Sure, he may kill people
... but are we so innocent? Pfft! It's all relative, right?

The Republicans aren't the only ones who have flipped. The Democrats used
to be chummy with the Soviets and were outraged by Reagan's casting them
as the evil empire. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

The Democrats have never been pro-Soviet.

Not all of them.

Post by d***@gmail.com
The Democrats disagreed with the
kind of rhetoric Reagan was using. (Remember the time, when checking the
microphone, Reagan said, "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you
today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We
begin bombing in five minutes." That's careless just silliness. Parts of
the military went into higher levels of readiness because of that one
comment.) Reagan was fortunate to be able to work with a Russian president
the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan could get away with saying such
outrageous and provocative things - because Gorbachev was a liberal-minded
rationalist. Putin is anything BUT that.

Actually, Reagan's joke happened before Gorbachev took over. It happened
in 1984 and Mondale used it as a campaign issue. Gorbachev came to power
in 1985.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
The indictments, themselves, do not explicitly say that no Americans are
involved.

In announcing the indictments, Rothstein stated that there was no evidence
any American had knowingly worked with the Russians that were indicted.

Post by d***@gmail.com
You're confusing that with the fact that the indictments do not
mention any specific American. But that doesn't mean none existed. Roger
Stone is convinced that HE is the one alluded to very cryptically in those
indictments. My guess is that Mueller isn't showing his cards yet on this
matter because he has yet to interview the president. He doesn't want them
to know what HE knows, thus making easier for them to craft their answers
accordingly. That is a typical prosecutory technique.

As long as we're guessing, my guess is that Mueller won't show his cards
until after the midterms because as long as he can create the illusion
that people in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, that will
work in favor of the Democrats. If he were to complete his investigation
before the midterms and nobody from the Trump campaign were to be indicted
for any election activities, that would kill the best issue the Democrats
have working for them. If Mueller holds off until after the election,
perception becomes reality.

I'll bet Mueller is far more interested in maintaining the accuracy and
integrity of the investigation with which he's been tasked and is far less
concerned with who wins in the 4th district of Nevada. I'm sure he
realizes that he will ultimately be judged by the integrity of the
investigation - not how many seats he can flip in the House or Senate. It
doesn't sound like you know Bob Mueller very well. Those who know him well
would laugh at your assertion that that would be a motivating force in
this investigation - and those goes for many Republican legislators, as
well.

You have far more faith in Mueller's integrity than I do. This is a guy
who is highly partisan and has been using equally partisan assets within
the FBI to do much of the "investigating". Seven of the 15 lawyers on his
staff donated to Hillary's campaign while none donated to Trump.

Is this what you believed about Mueller from the outset? Is this what
FoxNews told you at the outset? NO! You've likely changed your view as you
see heading in a direction that doesn't suit your political sensibilities.
FoxNews has radically changed its views on Mueller.

It was discovered early on that many on Mueller's staff were pro-Hillary.
That hasn't been a secret.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm surprised how you think you know so much about Mueller and what his
motivations may be. I don't think I've heard the man speak. You seem to
know a lot about what's driving him. You're better than I am in that
regard.

Well if you are allowed to make assumptions so am I.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
I think you're going to be disappointed when this is over. I'm surprised
you haven't developed a SENSE of where this is going. I think it's quite
obvious. Mueller will never indict the president. That's not his job. It's
not even clear whether the DOJ can indict a sitting president. Ultimately,
it will be a political thing. Do we want a president who embraced the help
of foreign nation in a presidential campaign. And not just ANY nation - a
HOSTILE nation.

Until I see evidence of criminal wrongdoing, I'm not going to assume there
was any.

That's fair enough. But you CAN see that it's worth looking into - right?
I mean, there IS "smoke".

There's a lot of hot air. I don't see the smoke.

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's worth seeing whether there was ever a
"fire". If nothing else, Trump seems suspiciously defensive on this
matter. It's exactly how a guilty person acts.

Post by bigdog
Even the Manafort trial is not going well for the prosecutors and
those alleged crimes have nothing to do with the Trump campaign. If the
best Mueller can come up with is Stormy Daniels, he is wasting the
taxpayers money.

Well, the Whitewater investigation boiled down to the president lying
about getting a blow job from an intern. And I'll bet you thought he
needed to be impeached for THAT! At least Monica Lewinski wasn't working
for the Russians.

Had somebody asked me before Clinton even became president if I thought
perjury was an impeachable offense I would have said yes. Lying isn't a
high crime or misdemeanor but lying under oath is. The defense for Clinton
was that it wasn't related to his duties as President so it shouldn't be
an impeachable defense. I don't know that there was any precedent that
established that.

Perjury requires two main elements: 1) The witness must KNOW that they're
lying and, more importantly, 2) It has to be on a substantive matter.

Apparently it was a serious enough offense to get him disbarred.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Arguably, Clinton lying about getting a blowjob from a young intern is not
very substantive. Hell, what married man with a young daughter wouldn't
lie about something like that if they thought they could get away with it?
You lie to save your reputation and your marriage. There is no harm to the
nation. Immoral? Sure! A shitty thing to do? Absolutely! Beneath the
dignity of the office? Certainly! Impeachable ... hmmmm ... the
Republicans in the Senate didn't think so.

As I pointed out earlier, the same people expressing outrage about Trump's
behavior are willing to give Bill Clinton a pass for his. This is a fine
example. Trump talked about grabbing pussies. Clinton's behavior went far
beyond the talking stage. Suffice it to say neither is a model of virtuous
behavior.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Lying about gaining an advantage to the White House with a HOSTILE foreign
nation is completely different in my view. It's far worse than lying about
a blowjob. It DOES affect our nation!
Like I keep on saying ... we'll see.

You seem to have predetermined what the outcome will be.

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

You don't say? How many people do think would've voted for Hillary Clinton
in some of these states where Trump eked out an electoral victory had
there not been a social media campaign (by Russia's Internet Research
Agency) to disparage her an micro-target certain demographic groups who
would be receptive (and share) these memes?

Impossible to quantify but I doubt enough to tip the election. I'll use
round numbers to illustrate the point. Trump won Wisconsin by 22,000
votes, Michigan by 10,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000. Assuming that
every Hillary vote the Russians flipped went to Trump and not one of the
other two candidates, a big if, that means they would have had to flip
11,001 votes, in Wisconsin, 5001 votes in Michigan, and 22,001 votes in
Pennsylvania and that's just to create the ridiculously unlikely scenario
of Hillary winning each of those three states by a 1 vote margin. Keep in
mind, Hillary needed to win all three. Trump would have had an electoral
college majority winning any one of them.

It's not just about flipping would-be Clinton voters into Trump voters,
it's also about angry Sanders supporters (who the Russian social media
campaign was ALSO supporting) defected to either Trump, Jill Stein, Gary
Johnson, STILL voted for Bernie Sanders as a write-in, or sat out the
election altogether.
Listen, I have no problem with how we elect presidents. Everybody knows
it's not a popular vote system. This has happened before and it will
happen again. That's the way the system was designed. My point is simply
that there was manipulation of the sentiment of the electorate to a HUGE
degree. I don't know if Trump would've won without their help or not.
Nobody knows. And there's no way to figure that out. Even the intelligence
agencies, who categorically insist that the Russian's waged an
unprecedented campaign to foment divides in hot button political issues
(Black Lives Matter, 2nd amendment, abortion, immigration, elitism, etc)
never ventured an opinion on that matter. In fact, the Russian's goal was
to weaken an anticipated Clinton presidency by dividing the country -
making it difficult for her to govern. They certainly were successful in
dividing the country. C'mon - you have to admit, this past presidential
election was as divisive as it's ever been in our lifetime. I've never
seen anything like it. In my neighborhood, there was not a single
Clinton/Kaine or Trump/Pence sign in the yard because they feared that
they would lose friends or that it would adversely affect their
businesses.

I totally agree that the Russians like most everyone else expected Clinton
to win and they did want to weaken her presidency. My objection is when
people use their meddling as an excuse for Hillary's failure as a
candidate and to delegitimize Trump's victory.

I think most fair-minded liberals have long accepted that Clinton lost.
They are smart enough to know that ousting Trump doesn't give Clinton the
presidency. Pence will become president - and Pence has been a big
supporter of ALL of Trump's policies.
It's not just about the Russians meddling. It's about whether the Trump
campaign knew about it and embraced it.

Post by bigdog
There is no doubt that this
past election was more divisive than any in my lifetime and probably more
divisive than any since Lincoln's election. Much of that has been the
result of the left's refusal to accept Trump's victory and the media
fanning those flames. We used to have a tradition of supporting a newly
elected president even if he wasn't our choice but that has gone by the
wayside. It was called a honeymoon period but that doesn't happen anymore.

We also had a tradition for the winning candidate to bring the nation
together and realize that there were those who didn't vote for him and
that he understands he is THEIR president, too. Trump keeps pandering to
his base. Trump is in candidate-mode as a sitting president. I think he
would prefer to go to a rally than sit down and have a detailed discussion
on important domestic or foreign issues.

The media never gave him a chance as evidenced by NBC talking about
impeaching him before even declaring him the victor. Then we had the silly
spectacle of the Hamilton electors movement trying to upset the
applecart.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
The media turned on Trump the minute it became apparent he was going to be
the winner. Before Trump had even reached the 270 threshold, NBC's Richard
Engle was already talking about impeachment and ABC's Martha Raddatz was
fighting back tears. Am I supposed to trust these people to fairly report
on the Trump presidency. The media's reaction to the Trump election was
absolutely repulsive which is why I know longer pay any attention to
anything they have to say about him.

Some people never got over the Hollywood access tape - and how Trump
rudely compared the beauty of Melanie to Ted Cruz's not-as-beautiful wife
- and how Trump suggest Carly Fiorina could never be be president because
.. "Look at that face!" ... and the stories about him walking into the
dressing rooms of young pageant contestants. And this was before we knew
about his cheating on his wife with a Playboy bunny and a porn star. I
think you can understand why so many people found Trump repugnant. He gave
people a reason to believe that. Fortunately for Trump, there were people
who found it entertaining and may also have hate Hillary Clinton enough to
vote for a rock before voting for her. Then, you just add in the
disenfranchised and angry Sanders supports and you have the perfect storm.

Much of the outrage came from the same people who were more than willing
to give Bill Clinton a pass on behavior no less crude.

That's just more what-aboutism. I'm mostly interested in what YOU think on
this matter - not what some kooky liberals think or what some alt-right
neo-Nazis think. I consider you a reasonable and rational person.

If YOU thought Clinton's behavior was beyond the pale and deserving of
impeachment - do you think Trump's behavior does?

You see, I do NOT think his (Trump's) sexual dalliances are an impeachment
offense. That type of behavior was already baked into the cake and
accepted when he was elected. Pretty much the same can be said about
Clinton. The fact that it turned out to be much worse than we imagined
wasn't too much of a surprise. It wasn't with Clinton and it isn't with
Trump.

But, it STILL makes them (both!) odious people and beneath the dignity
expected of that office holder.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, people were upset with Trump's victory. That's what happens when you
have a campaign that is that divisive. I'm sure if Hillary Clinton had
won, the Trump rallies would continue and be more frequent. Trump would
have basked in his popularity as a martyr for his cause. I think that's
what he was expecting as he prepared for his loss by characterizing the
elect as "rigged" ... right up until the point that he won. Then it wasn't
"rigged" any more ... now we had 3-4 million fraudulent votes. Pfft!

I seriously doubt that. Many Trump supporters were resigned to defeat
before the votes were counted. I think they would have been much more
accepting of it than the Clinton camp.

Maybe you're right - but I doubt it. When I saw a Clinton rally and
compared it to a Trump rally, I saw two distinctly different type of
crowds. I have to say that the Trump supporters were louder, more
animated, and an angrier, routier bunch - usually egged on and incited by
Trump. I think it is entirely possible Trump would have been MORE popular
in defeat than he was in victory.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Well, the Russians DID manage to divide us into tribes. But Clinton didn't
win. Trump won. So, Trump inherited exactly what Clinton would've
inherited - a deeply divided nation. That's all the Russians really wanted
- a weakened United States - no matter WHO got elected. Sure, they
preferred Trump (because, clearly, he would be the more divisive of the
two), but they were actually anticipating a Clinton presidency.

I think at least some of Putin's motivation was retaliation for Hillary's
meddling in Russia's election. What goes around comes around.

The United States never did anything remotely similar to what the Russians
did. Sure, we all f*ck with each other on various matters. Our
intelligence agencies are well aware of this. But, the unclassified
intelligence report made it quite clear that this was on a whole new
level. Far more intense - far more sophisticated - far more deceptive -
far more insidious. Nothing like it before. The Russians weaponized the
internet and social media on a level never before seen.

One of my favorite lines from the movie The Sting is when Doyle Lonnegan
said, "What was I supposed to do, accuse him of cheating better than me in
front of the others?". It seems you are accusing the Russians of cheating
better than us.

I know you like that line. It's a good one. And I love that movie, too.
But you're ignoring that this was NOT the same old routine that we have
come accustomed to. This was something new. Far more intense. Far more
sophisticated. Deceptively insidious and surprisingly effective.

Even if the Russians DO cheat better than us - isn't that something about
which to be concerned? But, more importantly, there should be no U.S.
citizen HELPING them to cheat. That's what the Special Counsel is
investigating and there are some indicators that it's something WORTH
investigating.

So, when Trump says the whole Russia "thing" is just a hoax - I hope he's
not talking about Russian meddling - because that's simply a FACT. If he's
using that term in the context of collusion - well - that remains to be
seen. We don't know what Mueller knows because we usually don't know
anything until there is an indictment. I didn't see the Manafort thing
coming. I didn't see the Cohen thing coming. I never even heard of George
Papadopoulos until he was indicted. I never heard of Carter Page before.
And the only thing I knew about Roger Stone is that he's a wacky
LBJ-did-it CT. And the Dutch lawyer, Alex van der Zwaan, who was indicted
for lying to investigators after he covered up his discussions with former
Trump campaign aide Rick Gates and a business associate based in Ukraine.
Never heard of him before.

Quite frankly, I find it amazing how tight the Mueller investigation is -
with virtually ZERO leaking. Hell, Trump can't sneeze without somebody
close to him calling a reporter.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm not claiming that Trump stole the election. I'm not even necessarily
saying that Trump would not have won without the help of the Russians. I
don't know the answers to those questions. I do know that I find it
abhorrent if it becomes known that the Trump campaign coordinated with the
Russians in their efforts to assist him and damage Hillary Clinton. The
Russians are a hostile nation, for crissakes! It's not as if Australia or
Canada was helping him. Big difference!

So it's OK for our friends to meddle in our election? It's OK for us to
meddle in Israel's election? For us to be outraged by Russian meddling is
the height of hypocrisy.

I knew you were going to say that. No, it's not OK for anybody to meddle
in our elections. But, you have to admit - that when it's a HOSTILE
nation, it's not only wrong, but it's REALLY wrong - and, in some people's
opinions, borderline treasonous.

Do you think it is less egregious to stab our friends in the back? You're
supposed to fuck with your enemies.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm saying that cooperating with
FRIENDLY foreign nation to help get yourself elected is technically
illegal, but cooperating with a HOSTILE foreign nation is on another
level. Wouldn't you agree?

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It really doesn't bother me that people's votes could have been influenced
by Russian social media any more than people's votes being influenced by
what they see and hear in negative campaign ads. We have always had lots
of low information voters and their votes count just as much as the well
informed voters. Each voter is allowed to cast their vote based on
whatever criteria they choose, even if they allow themselves to be
influenced by crap. I'm no more disturbed by foreign crap than I am by
domestic crap.

Fighting among ourselves is fine. Politicians pick fights all the time and
put up negative campaign ads. They do so at their own risk. Sometimes it
works (and it usually does) and sometimes it backfires. Those are choices
the candidates make.
But outside influence - especially from a hostile nation - is a completely
different matter. And that's what we're talking about here.

As long as we do it in other countries' elections we have no business
complaining when somebody does it in ours.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
In a previous message you said that nobody has been indicted for anything
associated with the 2016 election. Wrong! The last group of Russians to be
indicted, many of them in the military, were indicted because of their
association with the IRA which DEEPLY involved itself with the 2016
election.

I've made many posts on the subject and I don't remember what post you are
referring to but I believe I either said no Americans had been indicted
for anything related to the 2016 campaign or nobody from the Trump
campaign had been indicted for anything related to the 2016 campaign. Both
of those statements are true. The only Americans indicated have been for
crimes unrelated to the 2016 campaign. It's rather laughable for Mueller
to be indicting Russian nationals who aren't residing in this country
because we know they are never going to see the inside of an American
courtroom which means Mueller will never have to show how weak his hand
is.

It's not a laughing matter. I'm sure Mueller is perfectly aware that Putin
is not going to extradite his own citizens and subject them to prosecution
in the United States. If nothing else, none of those who were indicted can
ever safely return to the United States without being arrested the moment
they step off the airplane. But the indictments DO send a strong signal to
those with whom they may have worked with in the United States, "We know
what you did last summer." That often causes those who are hiding
something to take rash action as they start feeling the pinch. And you can
see that happening to some degree. Have you read those indictments? The
detail of discovery must be quite disturbing to anybody who may have
worked with them.

I still have seen no evidence that anyone in Trump's campaign illegally
colluded with Russians. Until I do, I'm not going to assume they did.

Post by d***@gmail.com
So, it remains to be seen WHO, if anybody, those Russians may have worked
with. One thing is for sure, those in the Trump orbit had an odd
fascination with Russians, seemed eager to conceal any contact they had
with Russians, and clearly have misrepresented their involvement with them
(i.e. Don Jr.). Adoptions? Pfft? Puhleaze ... especially after he was
specifically told that those with GOVERNMENT CONNECTIONS and who SUPPORTED
TRUMP had dirt on Hillary Clinton. "... and if it's what you say I love it
especially later in the summer."

Hillary would have cut a deal with the devil if she thought it would have
gotten her elected. Had the Russians been on her side, she would have been
more than happy to accept their help. She had no problem with foreign
nation's contributing to the Clinton Foundation.

Why do you think Hillary didn't use the information in the Steele dossier
prior to the election?

I really don't know. Maybe she thought it would backfire on her if it was
determined to be phony. Why risk that when all the polls said she was
going to win.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I have seen no
evidence that any of them knowingly or unknowingly worked with Russian
operatives. The latter would not be a crime.

That's because the investigation is not concluded. We don't know what
Mueller has. You'd have to know that, as he builds the case, the LAST
reveal would be the American citizens who may have been complicit. You
don't lead with that.

I've heard prosecutor's hired as media consultant's say that you lead with
your best punch. You indict the most high profile people first to make as
big media splash as you can.

Maybe in a simple case where there is one suspect you're trying to nail.
But this is far more complex that may involve SEVERAL people, some of whom
are now refusing to cooperate and others are claiming executive privilege.
It's a tougher nut to crack.

That's why I'm not assuming anything until I see evidence of wrongdoing.
Suspicions don't interest me any more than the things the conspiracy
hobbyists have suspected about the JFK assassination.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Conspiring with a foreign nation to affect a U.S. election IS a crime, by
the way. In any case, even if it were not a TECHNICAL crime, it would be a
political liability (well, at least it SHOULD be a political liability) so
toxic that it should be reason enough to remove Trump from office.

It's only a crime if you know the person you are working with is a foreign
national. The early round of indictments against the Russians indicated
they duped a lot of people by pretending to be Americans.

Don Jr. was explicitly TOLD that they (Trump Tower meeting) were
representing the interests of the Russian government which was supporting
Trump.

Talking with the Russians is not a crime. I have seen no evidence that
anything he did rose to the level of criminal behavior. If it did, Mueller
needs to show his cards. Why hasn't he?

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Are you OK with our presidential candidates getting help from hostile
foreign nations on the premise that ... technically, it's not a crime? I
can't wait until we get a presidential candidate who gets help from China,
North Korea or Iran - and hear you say the same thing.

I guess I don't have a Pollyanna view of the world. I know we meddle in
other countries' elections when we think it is in our interest to do so
and I expect that other countries would do the same to us. I'm not
outraged by any of it.

Like I said - this was at a whole new level. And, you can see that it has
worked as our tribalism as at whole new level. So, this is NOT as you're
characterizing it ... ho hum, just more of the same-o, same-o. This was
different.

It is ho-hum. The Soviet Union was doing this a long time ago. Nobody
every used it as an excuse for the loser's failure.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It's no different than conducting espionage. We do it to others so we
should expect others to do it to us.

Yes, there is always espionage. But the Russians are now doing it much
better and we have shown a weakness for the way that they're waging this
operation.

Like I said, you are accusing them of cheating better than us.

No. I'm not surprised that the Russians are trying to meddle. That's not
cheating - that's meddling. What is CHEATING is when a U.S. presidential
candidate uses that foreign meddling to their advantage. I don't thing
"cheating" will be the operative word, however.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
You don't think a member of a presidential campaign EMBRACING and INVITING
hostile influence in the election is something new? When has that ever
happened, especially in such an overt way?

I have yet to see evidence that there was collusion by the Trump campaign.

[sigh] That's because the investigation is ongoing. You have to admit,
when Don Jr. accepted that Trump Tower meeting with individuals who
identified themselves as Russians who were representing the Russian
governments support for Trump and to offer "dirt" on Hillary Clinton ...
that kinda seems like it's worth checking into. This is especially true
seems there seems to be some obvious smoke being blown about that meeting.
Don Jr. said it was a big "nothing burger" and that that they only
discussed the adoptions. That's kind of hard to believe. He said he never
told his father about the meeting. That's another thing hard to believe.
They say, "In any case, nothing came of it." But that's like bank robbers
saying, "Well, we TRIED to rob the bank but the vaults were empty. So, we
really didn't steal anything.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Oddly, the Republican party has come a long way from viewing the Russians
as the "evil empire" (Reagan) to their current love fest with the
Russians. I mean, after all, Putin's not so bad. Sure, he may kill people
... but are we so innocent? Pfft! It's all relative, right?

The Republicans aren't the only ones who have flipped. The Democrats used
to be chummy with the Soviets and were outraged by Reagan's casting them
as the evil empire. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

The Democrats have never been pro-Soviet.

Not all of them.

Well, I think it's fair to say that we can ALWAYS say "not all of them"
regardless of the topic we're discussing.

Most Trump supporters are racists. Not all of them!

Most Clinton supporters are socialists. Not all of them!

Most professional baseball players are good hitters. Not all of them!

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
The Democrats disagreed with the
kind of rhetoric Reagan was using. (Remember the time, when checking the
microphone, Reagan said, "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you
today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We
begin bombing in five minutes." That's careless just silliness. Parts of
the military went into higher levels of readiness because of that one
comment.) Reagan was fortunate to be able to work with a Russian president
the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan could get away with saying such
outrageous and provocative things - because Gorbachev was a liberal-minded
rationalist. Putin is anything BUT that.

Actually, Reagan's joke happened before Gorbachev took over. It happened
in 1984 and Mondale used it as a campaign issue. Gorbachev came to power
in 1985.

I realize that. I'm just describing what happened at the time Reagan made
this comment. But, mostly, Reagan's two terms as president involved
dealing and negotiating with Mikhail Gorbachev. They developed a mutual
respect for one another and that is mostly a credit I give to Gorbachev -
because Reagan was quite hawkish. Gorbachev and Putin couldn't possibly
more different in almost every respect. Gorbachev was forward thinking.
Putin is trying to "make Russia great again", like the good ole days.
Gorbachev was gregarious. Putin is stone cold and arrogant. Gorbachev
understood and respected western culture and democracy. To Putin, these
are his enemies.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[John McAdams]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
Much of the outrage came from the same people who were more than willing
to give Bill Clinton a pass on behavior no less crude.

That's just more what-aboutism. I'm mostly interested in what YOU think on
this matter - not what some kooky liberals think or what some alt-right
neo-Nazis think. I consider you a reasonable and rational person.

I can see why you anti-Trump people don't like "what-aboutism," since
it shows you folks are not arguing sincerely.

You are arguing from premises you don't really believe.

You don't really believe that treating women badly disqualifies a man
from being president. If you did, you would not have supported Bill
Clinton.

But you did.

You also supported Hillary, who *enabled* Bill's ugly sexual behavior.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html

You can't demand that other people take a "moral" stand when you
refuse to.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Amy Joyce]

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
Much of the outrage came from the same people who were more than willing
to give Bill Clinton a pass on behavior no less crude.

That's just more what-aboutism. I'm mostly interested in what YOU think on
this matter - not what some kooky liberals think or what some alt-right
neo-Nazis think. I consider you a reasonable and rational person.

I can see why you anti-Trump people don't like "what-aboutism," since
it shows you folks are not arguing sincerely.
You are arguing from premises you don't really believe.
You don't really believe that treating women badly disqualifies a man
from being president. If you did, you would not have supported Bill
Clinton.
But you did.
You also supported Hillary, who *enabled* Bill's ugly sexual behavior.

She is also a THIEF of millions of dollars at the expense of the the
American citizens, when her job was to represent our best interests; kind
of like an abusive, greed parent. Oh yeah, she's also a hypocrite and
liar - the most corrupt person to compete in a presidential election.
People that supported her while pointing at the others and taking the
moral high ground were either ignorant or evil.

Post by John McAdams
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html
You can't demand that other people take a "moral" stand when you
refuse to.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[bigdog]

Post by Amy Joyce

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
Much of the outrage came from the same people who were more than willing
to give Bill Clinton a pass on behavior no less crude.

That's just more what-aboutism. I'm mostly interested in what YOU think on
this matter - not what some kooky liberals think or what some alt-right
neo-Nazis think. I consider you a reasonable and rational person.

I can see why you anti-Trump people don't like "what-aboutism," since
it shows you folks are not arguing sincerely.
You are arguing from premises you don't really believe.
You don't really believe that treating women badly disqualifies a man
from being president. If you did, you would not have supported Bill
Clinton.
But you did.
You also supported Hillary, who *enabled* Bill's ugly sexual behavior.

She is also a THIEF of millions of dollars at the expense of the the
American citizens, when her job was to represent our best interests; kind
of like an abusive, greed parent. Oh yeah, she's also a hypocrite and
liar - the most corrupt person to compete in a presidential election.
People that supported her while pointing at the others and taking the
moral high ground were either ignorant or evil.

...or Democrats.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
Much of the outrage came from the same people who were more than willing
to give Bill Clinton a pass on behavior no less crude.

That's just more what-aboutism. I'm mostly interested in what YOU think on
this matter - not what some kooky liberals think or what some alt-right
neo-Nazis think. I consider you a reasonable and rational person.

I can see why you anti-Trump people don't like "what-aboutism," since
it shows you folks are not arguing sincerely.

It's called a false equivalency in classical logic.
I am not allowed here to say what we call it in modern terms.

Post by John McAdams
You are arguing from premises you don't really believe.

Who? You mean anyone who dares to criticize Trump?
You mean 75% of the population?

Post by John McAdams
You don't really believe that treating women badly disqualifies a man
from being president. If you did, you would not have supported Bill
Clinton.

Straw man argument. No one made that claim. You don't call how many little
girls Trump raped or how many people he killed. That was BEFORE he became
President. We are talking about his conduct as President and the horrible
things he has done as President. I don't want to back and prosecute him
for tax evasion and money laundering 20 years ago. It just speaks to his
character. But you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Post by John McAdams
But you did.
You also supported Hillary, who *enabled* Bill's ugly sexual behavior.

No. Gross. 90% of wives forgive their husbands and move on.

Post by John McAdams
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html
You can't demand that other people take a "moral" stand when you
refuse to.

Ridiculous.
If we never forgave that would be unchristian.
Go and sin no more.

Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[bigdog]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

You don't say? How many people do think would've voted for Hillary Clinton
in some of these states where Trump eked out an electoral victory had
there not been a social media campaign (by Russia's Internet Research
Agency) to disparage her an micro-target certain demographic groups who
would be receptive (and share) these memes?

Impossible to quantify but I doubt enough to tip the election. I'll use
round numbers to illustrate the point. Trump won Wisconsin by 22,000
votes, Michigan by 10,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000. Assuming that
every Hillary vote the Russians flipped went to Trump and not one of the
other two candidates, a big if, that means they would have had to flip
11,001 votes, in Wisconsin, 5001 votes in Michigan, and 22,001 votes in
Pennsylvania and that's just to create the ridiculously unlikely scenario
of Hillary winning each of those three states by a 1 vote margin. Keep in
mind, Hillary needed to win all three. Trump would have had an electoral
college majority winning any one of them.

It's not just about flipping would-be Clinton voters into Trump voters,
it's also about angry Sanders supporters (who the Russian social media
campaign was ALSO supporting) defected to either Trump, Jill Stein, Gary
Johnson, STILL voted for Bernie Sanders as a write-in, or sat out the
election altogether.
Listen, I have no problem with how we elect presidents. Everybody knows
it's not a popular vote system. This has happened before and it will
happen again. That's the way the system was designed. My point is simply
that there was manipulation of the sentiment of the electorate to a HUGE
degree. I don't know if Trump would've won without their help or not.
Nobody knows. And there's no way to figure that out. Even the intelligence
agencies, who categorically insist that the Russian's waged an
unprecedented campaign to foment divides in hot button political issues
(Black Lives Matter, 2nd amendment, abortion, immigration, elitism, etc)
never ventured an opinion on that matter. In fact, the Russian's goal was
to weaken an anticipated Clinton presidency by dividing the country -
making it difficult for her to govern. They certainly were successful in
dividing the country. C'mon - you have to admit, this past presidential
election was as divisive as it's ever been in our lifetime. I've never
seen anything like it. In my neighborhood, there was not a single
Clinton/Kaine or Trump/Pence sign in the yard because they feared that
they would lose friends or that it would adversely affect their
businesses.

I totally agree that the Russians like most everyone else expected Clinton
to win and they did want to weaken her presidency. My objection is when
people use their meddling as an excuse for Hillary's failure as a
candidate and to delegitimize Trump's victory.

I think most fair-minded liberals have long accepted that Clinton lost.
They are smart enough to know that ousting Trump doesn't give Clinton the
presidency. Pence will become president - and Pence has been a big
supporter of ALL of Trump's policies.
It's not just about the Russians meddling. It's about whether the Trump
campaign knew about it and embraced it.

Post by bigdog
There is no doubt that this
past election was more divisive than any in my lifetime and probably more
divisive than any since Lincoln's election. Much of that has been the
result of the left's refusal to accept Trump's victory and the media
fanning those flames. We used to have a tradition of supporting a newly
elected president even if he wasn't our choice but that has gone by the
wayside. It was called a honeymoon period but that doesn't happen anymore.

We also had a tradition for the winning candidate to bring the nation
together and realize that there were those who didn't vote for him and
that he understands he is THEIR president, too. Trump keeps pandering to
his base. Trump is in candidate-mode as a sitting president. I think he
would prefer to go to a rally than sit down and have a detailed discussion
on important domestic or foreign issues.

The media never gave him a chance as evidenced by NBC talking about
impeaching him before even declaring him the victor. Then we had the silly
spectacle of the Hamilton electors movement trying to upset the
applecart.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
The media turned on Trump the minute it became apparent he was going to be
the winner. Before Trump had even reached the 270 threshold, NBC's Richard
Engle was already talking about impeachment and ABC's Martha Raddatz was
fighting back tears. Am I supposed to trust these people to fairly report
on the Trump presidency. The media's reaction to the Trump election was
absolutely repulsive which is why I know longer pay any attention to
anything they have to say about him.

Some people never got over the Hollywood access tape - and how Trump
rudely compared the beauty of Melanie to Ted Cruz's not-as-beautiful wife
- and how Trump suggest Carly Fiorina could never be be president because
.. "Look at that face!" ... and the stories about him walking into the
dressing rooms of young pageant contestants. And this was before we knew
about his cheating on his wife with a Playboy bunny and a porn star. I
think you can understand why so many people found Trump repugnant. He gave
people a reason to believe that. Fortunately for Trump, there were people
who found it entertaining and may also have hate Hillary Clinton enough to
vote for a rock before voting for her. Then, you just add in the
disenfranchised and angry Sanders supports and you have the perfect storm.

Much of the outrage came from the same people who were more than willing
to give Bill Clinton a pass on behavior no less crude.

That's just more what-aboutism. I'm mostly interested in what YOU think on
this matter - not what some kooky liberals think or what some alt-right
neo-Nazis think. I consider you a reasonable and rational person.

I think his personal behavior is shameful and his tweets are cringe worthy
but I for the most part I have been happy with the way he has governed,
particularly his tax cut and his Supreme Court nominees. I am more
interested in what he does than what he says.

Post by d***@gmail.com
If YOU thought Clinton's behavior was beyond the pale and deserving of
impeachment - do you think Trump's behavior does?

The threshold for impeachment is "high crimes or misdemeanors". It seems
to me perjury falls into that category. I have yet to see evidence
anything Trump has done which falls into that category.

Post by d***@gmail.com
You see, I do NOT think his (Trump's) sexual dalliances are an impeachment
offense. That type of behavior was already baked into the cake and
accepted when he was elected. Pretty much the same can be said about
Clinton. The fact that it turned out to be much worse than we imagined
wasn't too much of a surprise. It wasn't with Clinton and it isn't with
Trump.

The difference is that Clinton lied about it under oath. It was a serious
enough offense to get him disbarred but apparently not enough to convict
him and remove him from office.

Post by d***@gmail.com
But, it STILL makes them (both!) odious people and beneath the dignity
expected of that office holder.

Virtuous personal behavior hasn't seemed to be a prerequisite to be
president. I would guess that many of our Presidents were philanderers.
The difference is that in recent times, the news media haven't covered it
up.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, people were upset with Trump's victory. That's what happens when you
have a campaign that is that divisive. I'm sure if Hillary Clinton had
won, the Trump rallies would continue and be more frequent. Trump would
have basked in his popularity as a martyr for his cause. I think that's
what he was expecting as he prepared for his loss by characterizing the
elect as "rigged" ... right up until the point that he won. Then it wasn't
"rigged" any more ... now we had 3-4 million fraudulent votes. Pfft!

I seriously doubt that. Many Trump supporters were resigned to defeat
before the votes were counted. I think they would have been much more
accepting of it than the Clinton camp.

Maybe you're right - but I doubt it. When I saw a Clinton rally and
compared it to a Trump rally, I saw two distinctly different type of
crowds. I have to say that the Trump supporters were louder, more
animated, and an angrier, routier bunch - usually egged on and incited by
Trump. I think it is entirely possible Trump would have been MORE popular
in defeat than he was in victory.

Some people would characterize the Trump rallies as more enthusiastic. We
had a race between Elmer Gantry and Nurse Ratched. Which one would you
think would create the most buzz?

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Well, the Russians DID manage to divide us into tribes. But Clinton didn't
win. Trump won. So, Trump inherited exactly what Clinton would've
inherited - a deeply divided nation. That's all the Russians really wanted
- a weakened United States - no matter WHO got elected. Sure, they
preferred Trump (because, clearly, he would be the more divisive of the
two), but they were actually anticipating a Clinton presidency.

I think at least some of Putin's motivation was retaliation for Hillary's
meddling in Russia's election. What goes around comes around.

The United States never did anything remotely similar to what the Russians
did. Sure, we all f*ck with each other on various matters. Our
intelligence agencies are well aware of this. But, the unclassified
intelligence report made it quite clear that this was on a whole new
level. Far more intense - far more sophisticated - far more deceptive -
far more insidious. Nothing like it before. The Russians weaponized the
internet and social media on a level never before seen.

One of my favorite lines from the movie The Sting is when Doyle Lonnegan
said, "What was I supposed to do, accuse him of cheating better than me in
front of the others?". It seems you are accusing the Russians of cheating
better than us.

I know you like that line. It's a good one. And I love that movie, too.
But you're ignoring that this was NOT the same old routine that we have
come accustomed to. This was something new. Far more intense. Far more
sophisticated. Deceptively insidious and surprisingly effective.

Yes it was. They used social media to do their meddling. They did indeed
cheat better than us. I doubt it made much difference in the outcome.
What demographic is most likely to use social media? Millennials. Which
demographic has the poorest turnout? Millennials. Who did the millennials
favor? Hillary. The effect of Russian meddling likely had no more than a
slight effect on a demographic with low voter turnout and that supported
Hillary anyway. Somehow I don't see that translating into tens of
thousands of votes in the key swing states.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Even if the Russians DO cheat better than us - isn't that something about
which to be concerned? But, more importantly, there should be no U.S.
citizen HELPING them to cheat. That's what the Special Counsel is
investigating and there are some indicators that it's something WORTH
investigating.

I'll be interested when he shows evidence that actually happened.

Post by d***@gmail.com
So, when Trump says the whole Russia "thing" is just a hoax - I hope he's
not talking about Russian meddling - because that's simply a FACT. If he's
using that term in the context of collusion - well - that remains to be
seen. We don't know what Mueller knows because we usually don't know
anything until there is an indictment. I didn't see the Manafort thing
coming. I didn't see the Cohen thing coming. I never even heard of George
Papadopoulos until he was indicted. I never heard of Carter Page before.
And the only thing I knew about Roger Stone is that he's a wacky
LBJ-did-it CT. And the Dutch lawyer, Alex van der Zwaan, who was indicted
for lying to investigators after he covered up his discussions with former
Trump campaign aide Rick Gates and a business associate based in Ukraine.
Never heard of him before.

I believe it was CNN's Van Jones who said while thinking he was off camera
that the Russia collusion story was a big nothing burger. I think he will
be proven right.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Quite frankly, I find it amazing how tight the Mueller investigation is -
with virtually ZERO leaking. Hell, Trump can't sneeze without somebody
close to him calling a reporter.

Maybe that is an indication they have nothing worth leaking.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm not claiming that Trump stole the election. I'm not even necessarily
saying that Trump would not have won without the help of the Russians. I
don't know the answers to those questions. I do know that I find it
abhorrent if it becomes known that the Trump campaign coordinated with the
Russians in their efforts to assist him and damage Hillary Clinton. The
Russians are a hostile nation, for crissakes! It's not as if Australia or
Canada was helping him. Big difference!

So it's OK for our friends to meddle in our election? It's OK for us to
meddle in Israel's election? For us to be outraged by Russian meddling is
the height of hypocrisy.

I knew you were going to say that. No, it's not OK for anybody to meddle
in our elections. But, you have to admit - that when it's a HOSTILE
nation, it's not only wrong, but it's REALLY wrong - and, in some people's
opinions, borderline treasonous.

Do you think it is less egregious to stab our friends in the back? You're
supposed to fuck with your enemies.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm saying that cooperating with
FRIENDLY foreign nation to help get yourself elected is technically
illegal, but cooperating with a HOSTILE foreign nation is on another
level. Wouldn't you agree?

No. Both are illegal. The law doesn't differentiate.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It really doesn't bother me that people's votes could have been influenced
by Russian social media any more than people's votes being influenced by
what they see and hear in negative campaign ads. We have always had lots
of low information voters and their votes count just as much as the well
informed voters. Each voter is allowed to cast their vote based on
whatever criteria they choose, even if they allow themselves to be
influenced by crap. I'm no more disturbed by foreign crap than I am by
domestic crap.

Fighting among ourselves is fine. Politicians pick fights all the time and
put up negative campaign ads. They do so at their own risk. Sometimes it
works (and it usually does) and sometimes it backfires. Those are choices
the candidates make.
But outside influence - especially from a hostile nation - is a completely
different matter. And that's what we're talking about here.

As long as we do it in other countries' elections we have no business
complaining when somebody does it in ours.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
In a previous message you said that nobody has been indicted for anything
associated with the 2016 election. Wrong! The last group of Russians to be
indicted, many of them in the military, were indicted because of their
association with the IRA which DEEPLY involved itself with the 2016
election.

I've made many posts on the subject and I don't remember what post you are
referring to but I believe I either said no Americans had been indicted
for anything related to the 2016 campaign or nobody from the Trump
campaign had been indicted for anything related to the 2016 campaign. Both
of those statements are true. The only Americans indicated have been for
crimes unrelated to the 2016 campaign. It's rather laughable for Mueller
to be indicting Russian nationals who aren't residing in this country
because we know they are never going to see the inside of an American
courtroom which means Mueller will never have to show how weak his hand
is.

It's not a laughing matter. I'm sure Mueller is perfectly aware that Putin
is not going to extradite his own citizens and subject them to prosecution
in the United States. If nothing else, none of those who were indicted can
ever safely return to the United States without being arrested the moment
they step off the airplane. But the indictments DO send a strong signal to
those with whom they may have worked with in the United States, "We know
what you did last summer." That often causes those who are hiding
something to take rash action as they start feeling the pinch. And you can
see that happening to some degree. Have you read those indictments? The
detail of discovery must be quite disturbing to anybody who may have
worked with them.

I still have seen no evidence that anyone in Trump's campaign illegally
colluded with Russians. Until I do, I'm not going to assume they did.

Post by d***@gmail.com
So, it remains to be seen WHO, if anybody, those Russians may have worked
with. One thing is for sure, those in the Trump orbit had an odd
fascination with Russians, seemed eager to conceal any contact they had
with Russians, and clearly have misrepresented their involvement with them
(i.e. Don Jr.). Adoptions? Pfft? Puhleaze ... especially after he was
specifically told that those with GOVERNMENT CONNECTIONS and who SUPPORTED
TRUMP had dirt on Hillary Clinton. "... and if it's what you say I love it
especially later in the summer."

Hillary would have cut a deal with the devil if she thought it would have
gotten her elected. Had the Russians been on her side, she would have been
more than happy to accept their help. She had no problem with foreign
nation's contributing to the Clinton Foundation.

Why do you think Hillary didn't use the information in the Steele dossier
prior to the election?

I really don't know. Maybe she thought it would backfire on her if it was
determined to be phony. Why risk that when all the polls said she was
going to win.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I have seen no
evidence that any of them knowingly or unknowingly worked with Russian
operatives. The latter would not be a crime.

That's because the investigation is not concluded. We don't know what
Mueller has. You'd have to know that, as he builds the case, the LAST
reveal would be the American citizens who may have been complicit. You
don't lead with that.

I've heard prosecutor's hired as media consultant's say that you lead with
your best punch. You indict the most high profile people first to make as
big media splash as you can.

Maybe in a simple case where there is one suspect you're trying to nail.
But this is far more complex that may involve SEVERAL people, some of whom
are now refusing to cooperate and others are claiming executive privilege.
It's a tougher nut to crack.

That's why I'm not assuming anything until I see evidence of wrongdoing.
Suspicions don't interest me any more than the things the conspiracy
hobbyists have suspected about the JFK assassination.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Conspiring with a foreign nation to affect a U.S. election IS a crime, by
the way. In any case, even if it were not a TECHNICAL crime, it would be a
political liability (well, at least it SHOULD be a political liability) so
toxic that it should be reason enough to remove Trump from office.

It's only a crime if you know the person you are working with is a foreign
national. The early round of indictments against the Russians indicated
they duped a lot of people by pretending to be Americans.

Don Jr. was explicitly TOLD that they (Trump Tower meeting) were
representing the interests of the Russian government which was supporting
Trump.

Talking with the Russians is not a crime. I have seen no evidence that
anything he did rose to the level of criminal behavior. If it did, Mueller
needs to show his cards. Why hasn't he?

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Are you OK with our presidential candidates getting help from hostile
foreign nations on the premise that ... technically, it's not a crime? I
can't wait until we get a presidential candidate who gets help from China,
North Korea or Iran - and hear you say the same thing.

I guess I don't have a Pollyanna view of the world. I know we meddle in
other countries' elections when we think it is in our interest to do so
and I expect that other countries would do the same to us. I'm not
outraged by any of it.

Like I said - this was at a whole new level. And, you can see that it has
worked as our tribalism as at whole new level. So, this is NOT as you're
characterizing it ... ho hum, just more of the same-o, same-o. This was
different.

It is ho-hum. The Soviet Union was doing this a long time ago. Nobody
every used it as an excuse for the loser's failure.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It's no different than conducting espionage. We do it to others so we
should expect others to do it to us.

Yes, there is always espionage. But the Russians are now doing it much
better and we have shown a weakness for the way that they're waging this
operation.

Like I said, you are accusing them of cheating better than us.

No. I'm not surprised that the Russians are trying to meddle. That's not
cheating - that's meddling. What is CHEATING is when a U.S. presidential
candidate uses that foreign meddling to their advantage. I don't thing
"cheating" will be the operative word, however.

If Mueller has such evidence, what is he waiting for?

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
You don't think a member of a presidential campaign EMBRACING and INVITING
hostile influence in the election is something new? When has that ever
happened, especially in such an overt way?

I have yet to see evidence that there was collusion by the Trump campaign.

[sigh] That's because the investigation is ongoing. You have to admit,
when Don Jr. accepted that Trump Tower meeting with individuals who
identified themselves as Russians who were representing the Russian
governments support for Trump and to offer "dirt" on Hillary Clinton ...
that kinda seems like it's worth checking into. This is especially true
seems there seems to be some obvious smoke being blown about that meeting.
Don Jr. said it was a big "nothing burger" and that that they only
discussed the adoptions. That's kind of hard to believe. He said he never
told his father about the meeting. That's another thing hard to believe.
They say, "In any case, nothing came of it." But that's like bank robbers
saying, "Well, we TRIED to rob the bank but the vaults were empty. So, we
really didn't steal anything.

It comes down to evidence. I'll believe it when I see evidence.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Oddly, the Republican party has come a long way from viewing the Russians
as the "evil empire" (Reagan) to their current love fest with the
Russians. I mean, after all, Putin's not so bad. Sure, he may kill people
... but are we so innocent? Pfft! It's all relative, right?

The Republicans aren't the only ones who have flipped. The Democrats used
to be chummy with the Soviets and were outraged by Reagan's casting them
as the evil empire. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

The Democrats have never been pro-Soviet.

Not all of them.

Well, I think it's fair to say that we can ALWAYS say "not all of them"
regardless of the topic we're discussing.
Most Trump supporters are racists. Not all of them!

Patently untrue.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Most Clinton supporters are socialists. Not all of them!

Also untrue

Post by d***@gmail.com
Most professional baseball players are good hitters. Not all of them!

I guess you would have to define good hitter. Other than the pitchers,
almost anybody who makes it to the big leagues is a great hitter. Even Bob
Uecker. Even most minor leaguers were very good hitters or they wouldn't
have become pro players.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
The Democrats disagreed with the
kind of rhetoric Reagan was using. (Remember the time, when checking the
microphone, Reagan said, "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you
today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We
begin bombing in five minutes." That's careless just silliness. Parts of
the military went into higher levels of readiness because of that one
comment.) Reagan was fortunate to be able to work with a Russian president
the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan could get away with saying such
outrageous and provocative things - because Gorbachev was a liberal-minded
rationalist. Putin is anything BUT that.

Actually, Reagan's joke happened before Gorbachev took over. It happened
in 1984 and Mondale used it as a campaign issue. Gorbachev came to power
in 1985.

I realize that. I'm just describing what happened at the time Reagan made
this comment. But, mostly, Reagan's two terms as president involved
dealing and negotiating with Mikhail Gorbachev. They developed a mutual
respect for one another and that is mostly a credit I give to Gorbachev -
because Reagan was quite hawkish.

No, that was a two way street. In fact during their first summit, it was
Reagan who first reached out to Gorbachev to establish a personal
relationship with him. To Gorbachev's credit, he accepted Reagan's
gesture.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Gorbachev and Putin couldn't possibly
more different in almost every respect. Gorbachev was forward thinking.
Putin is trying to "make Russia great again", like the good ole days.
Gorbachev was gregarious. Putin is stone cold and arrogant. Gorbachev
understood and respected western culture and democracy. To Putin, these
are his enemies.

Maybe we should meddle in their elections.

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
One of my favorite lines from the movie The Sting is when Doyle Lonnegan
said, "What was I supposed to do, accuse him of cheating better than me in
front of the others?". It seems you are accusing the Russians of cheating
better than us.

I know you like that line. It's a good one. And I love that movie, too.
But you're ignoring that this was NOT the same old routine that we have
come accustomed to. This was something new. Far more intense. Far more
sophisticated. Deceptively insidious and surprisingly effective.

Yes it was. They used social media to do their meddling. They did indeed
cheat better than us. I doubt it made much difference in the outcome.
What demographic is most likely to use social media? Millennials. Which
demographic has the poorest turnout? Millennials. Who did the millennials
favor? Hillary. The effect of Russian meddling likely had no more than a
slight effect on a demographic with low voter turnout and that supported
Hillary anyway. Somehow I don't see that translating into tens of
thousands of votes in the key swing states.

You keep using the word "cheating" as a sly way of minimizing the Russian
meddling/disinformation campaign - as if we are playing a game of Monopoly
with Russia and they grabbed an extra $500 bill from the bank while we
weren't looking or slipped an extra hotel on Park Place that they didn't
pay for.

That's like saying that we "meddled" with Japan when we dropped a bomb on
Hiroshima.

Our intelligence agencies have characterized this quite differently. They
don't call it "cheating". You use that word but nobody who is well-versed
in what Russia has done calls it that. It's an attack, of sorts - a
cyberattack on the sentiment of the U.S. electorate and the pouring of
gasoline on all the divisive issues that we Americans often debate and are
divided. Trump was their vehicle. Trump denigrates our Department of
Justice, our intelligence agencies, our investigative agencies, and calls
the press "the enemy of the people". That is music to Putin's ears!

You sound like Trump when you buy into this false and corrosive false
equivalency narrative. You're saying, "Well, we do it. They do it. That's
just the way the game is played. We're not so innocent. You don't think we
cheat? You don't think we have killers?" The Russians attacked the heart
of one of the most sovereign things we do in this country - selecting our
leader. This wasn't just a dispute on a single policy. This was trying to
get somebody into the Oval Office who was sympathetic to all the causes
that an adversary holds dear.

Hell, why wouldn't Putin want Trump to be president? Almost everything
Candidate Trump said could come right out of a Putin-written script.

Trump said he would look into recognizing Crimea as being part of Russia.
Trump talked about NATO being obsolete. Trump talked about lifting Russian
sanctions. Trump compared our use of force with Russia's use of force -
that moral equivalency is an argument Russians make all the time. Trump
denigrate almost all our agencies. Trump even claimed to know more than
our Generals on all matters military. Hillary Clinton's positions on these
matters were completely the opposite.

So, this wasn't just "cheating" - this was a new kind of attack - a bigger
attack - an unprecedented attack because of its scale and sophistication -
not just more of the same, or just better "cheating".

The next time chemical weapons are used in Syria, I'll be interested to
hear you say that Bashar al-Assad is "cheating".

I'll admit I have a bit of a bias. I served in the military during the
Cold War era. Russia was the enemy. It seemed promising when the Soviet
Union collapsed and that it might join the world among democratic nations.
But that was short-lived. Russia just couldn't do it. And then an old Cold
Warrior (Putin) gains control, a man who has been seething and cringing
every time we claimed we had defeated Russia in the Cold War. He was not
over it.

Further, I have had a lot of training in not only the Russian language,
but also Russian culture by native Russians who worked for the Defense
Language Institute, starting when I was in SIXTH GRADE!

These are not our friends. We fooled ourselves into thinking that they
COULD be our friends. We hoped they could be our friends. But this rift is
too ingrained in Russian culture and is now being stoked by Putin.

Many Republicans (and almost all Trump supporters) have a
disproportionately favorable view of Russia, parroting Trump's praise. I
think it's dangerous, ill-advised, and foolish - and I'm not alone in that
view. Some of our top people who have been working in this area share that
view - people Trump distrusts, some of whom have recently had their
security clearances stripped away so they can no longer be consulted by
their replacements on past matters that may be helpful.

This isn't the same as Reagan working with Gorbachev - a comparison many
people make. It's not even close. Putin is no Gorbachev ... not even
close.

Yeah, the Russians are better "cheaters" than us. Pfft!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[John McAdams]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
Yes it was. They used social media to do their meddling. They did indeed
cheat better than us. I doubt it made much difference in the outcome.
What demographic is most likely to use social media? Millennials. Which
demographic has the poorest turnout? Millennials. Who did the millennials
favor? Hillary. The effect of Russian meddling likely had no more than a
slight effect on a demographic with low voter turnout and that supported
Hillary anyway. Somehow I don't see that translating into tens of
thousands of votes in the key swing states.

You keep using the word "cheating" as a sly way of minimizing the Russian
meddling/disinformation campaign - as if we are playing a game of Monopoly
with Russia and they grabbed an extra $500 bill from the bank while we
weren't looking or slipped an extra hotel on Park Place that they didn't
pay for.
That's like saying that we "meddled" with Japan when we dropped a bomb on
Hiroshima.

So their Facebook posts were like dropping a nuclear bomb.

Do you understand how bizarre you sound?

Post by d***@gmail.com
Our intelligence agencies have characterized this quite differently. They
don't call it "cheating". You use that word but nobody who is well-versed
in what Russia has done calls it that. It's an attack, of sorts - a
cyberattack on the sentiment of the U.S. electorate and the pouring of
gasoline on all the divisive issues that we Americans often debate and are
divided.

During the Obama Administration. Which knew about it and did nothing
to stop it.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump denigrates our Department of
Justice, our intelligence agencies, our investigative agencies,

You mean the agencies that *should* have done something about the
Russian "attack," but failed to.

But now are attacking Trump, and calling him a "traitor?"

Post by d***@gmail.com
and calls
the press "the enemy of the people". That is music to Putin's ears!

And in your world, attacking the press is never allowed.

Unless it's Fox News.

Post by d***@gmail.com
You sound like Trump when you buy into this false and corrosive false
equivalency narrative. You're saying, "Well, we do it. They do it. That's
just the way the game is played. We're not so innocent. You don't think we
cheat? You don't think we have killers?" The Russians attacked the heart
of one of the most sovereign things we do in this country - selecting our
leader. This wasn't just a dispute on a single policy. This was trying to
get somebody into the Oval Office who was sympathetic to all the causes
that an adversary holds dear.

You mean like putting missile defense in Poland?

Like attacking Syrian airbases?

Do you really believe that Obama was any sort of hawk with Russia?

Post by d***@gmail.com
Hell, why wouldn't Putin want Trump to be president? Almost everything
Candidate Trump said could come right out of a Putin-written script.

This is a bizarre statement.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump said he would look into recognizing Crimea as being part of Russia.
Trump talked about NATO being obsolete. Trump talked about lifting Russian
sanctions. Trump compared our use of force with Russia's use of force -
that moral equivalency is an argument Russians make all the time. Trump
denigrate almost all our agencies. Trump even claimed to know more than
our Generals on all matters military.

Odd a leftist like you siding with generals.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Hillary Clinton's positions on these
matters were completely the opposite.
So, this wasn't just "cheating" - this was a new kind of attack - a bigger
attack - an unprecedented attack because of its scale and sophistication -
not just more of the same, or just better "cheating".

It was under Obama, and the security officials you now consider heros
since they attack Trump.

Post by d***@gmail.com
The next time chemical weapons are used in Syria, I'll be interested to
hear you say that Bashar al-Assad is "cheating".

And just what did Obama do about those chemical attacks?

Post by d***@gmail.com
These are not our friends. We fooled ourselves into thinking that they
COULD be our friends.

You understand *liberals* were the chief group thinking we could be
friends, right?

Post by d***@gmail.com
Many Republicans (and almost all Trump supporters) have a
disproportionately favorable view of Russia, parroting Trump's praise. I
think it's dangerous, ill-advised, and foolish - and I'm not alone in that
view. Some of our top people who have been working in this area share that
view - people Trump distrusts, some of whom have recently had their
security clearances stripped away so they can no longer be consulted by
their replacements on past matters that may be helpful.

Yes, former intelligence officials on whose watch the Russian "attack"
happened.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

You don't say? How many people do think would've voted for Hillary Clinton
in some of these states where Trump eked out an electoral victory had
there not been a social media campaign (by Russia's Internet Research
Agency) to disparage her an micro-target certain demographic groups who
would be receptive (and share) these memes?

Impossible to quantify but I doubt enough to tip the election. I'll use
round numbers to illustrate the point. Trump won Wisconsin by 22,000
votes, Michigan by 10,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000. Assuming that
every Hillary vote the Russians flipped went to Trump and not one of the
other two candidates, a big if, that means they would have had to flip
11,001 votes, in Wisconsin, 5001 votes in Michigan, and 22,001 votes in
Pennsylvania and that's just to create the ridiculously unlikely scenario
of Hillary winning each of those three states by a 1 vote margin. Keep in
mind, Hillary needed to win all three. Trump would have had an electoral
college majority winning any one of them.

It's not just about flipping would-be Clinton voters into Trump voters,
it's also about angry Sanders supporters (who the Russian social media
campaign was ALSO supporting) defected to either Trump, Jill Stein, Gary
Johnson, STILL voted for Bernie Sanders as a write-in, or sat out the
election altogether.
Listen, I have no problem with how we elect presidents. Everybody knows
it's not a popular vote system. This has happened before and it will
happen again. That's the way the system was designed. My point is simply
that there was manipulation of the sentiment of the electorate to a HUGE
degree. I don't know if Trump would've won without their help or not.
Nobody knows. And there's no way to figure that out. Even the intelligence
agencies, who categorically insist that the Russian's waged an
unprecedented campaign to foment divides in hot button political issues
(Black Lives Matter, 2nd amendment, abortion, immigration, elitism, etc)
never ventured an opinion on that matter. In fact, the Russian's goal was
to weaken an anticipated Clinton presidency by dividing the country -
making it difficult for her to govern. They certainly were successful in
dividing the country. C'mon - you have to admit, this past presidential
election was as divisive as it's ever been in our lifetime. I've never
seen anything like it. In my neighborhood, there was not a single
Clinton/Kaine or Trump/Pence sign in the yard because they feared that
they would lose friends or that it would adversely affect their
businesses.

I totally agree that the Russians like most everyone else expected Clinton
to win and they did want to weaken her presidency. My objection is when
people use their meddling as an excuse for Hillary's failure as a
candidate and to delegitimize Trump's victory.

I think most fair-minded liberals have long accepted that Clinton lost.
They are smart enough to know that ousting Trump doesn't give Clinton the
presidency. Pence will become president - and Pence has been a big
supporter of ALL of Trump's policies.
It's not just about the Russians meddling. It's about whether the Trump
campaign knew about it and embraced it.

Post by bigdog
There is no doubt that this
past election was more divisive than any in my lifetime and probably more
divisive than any since Lincoln's election. Much of that has been the
result of the left's refusal to accept Trump's victory and the media
fanning those flames. We used to have a tradition of supporting a newly
elected president even if he wasn't our choice but that has gone by the
wayside. It was called a honeymoon period but that doesn't happen anymore.

We also had a tradition for the winning candidate to bring the nation
together and realize that there were those who didn't vote for him and
that he understands he is THEIR president, too. Trump keeps pandering to
his base. Trump is in candidate-mode as a sitting president. I think he
would prefer to go to a rally than sit down and have a detailed discussion
on important domestic or foreign issues.

The media never gave him a chance as evidenced by NBC talking about
impeaching him before even declaring him the victor. Then we had the silly
spectacle of the Hamilton electors movement trying to upset the
applecart.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
The media turned on Trump the minute it became apparent he was going to be
the winner. Before Trump had even reached the 270 threshold, NBC's Richard
Engle was already talking about impeachment and ABC's Martha Raddatz was
fighting back tears. Am I supposed to trust these people to fairly report
on the Trump presidency. The media's reaction to the Trump election was
absolutely repulsive which is why I know longer pay any attention to
anything they have to say about him.

Some people never got over the Hollywood access tape - and how Trump
rudely compared the beauty of Melanie to Ted Cruz's not-as-beautiful wife
- and how Trump suggest Carly Fiorina could never be be president because
.. "Look at that face!" ... and the stories about him walking into the
dressing rooms of young pageant contestants. And this was before we knew
about his cheating on his wife with a Playboy bunny and a porn star. I
think you can understand why so many people found Trump repugnant. He gave
people a reason to believe that. Fortunately for Trump, there were people
who found it entertaining and may also have hate Hillary Clinton enough to
vote for a rock before voting for her. Then, you just add in the
disenfranchised and angry Sanders supports and you have the perfect storm.

Much of the outrage came from the same people who were more than willing
to give Bill Clinton a pass on behavior no less crude.

That's just more what-aboutism. I'm mostly interested in what YOU think on
this matter - not what some kooky liberals think or what some alt-right
neo-Nazis think. I consider you a reasonable and rational person.
If YOU thought Clinton's behavior was beyond the pale and deserving of
impeachment - do you think Trump's behavior does?
You see, I do NOT think his (Trump's) sexual dalliances are an impeachment
offense. That type of behavior was already baked into the cake and

Correct. It doesn't matter how many 13-year old girls he raped or how many
people he had killed before he was sworn in. He was correct when he said
that he could go down to 5th Avenue and shoot someone and he wouldn't lose
any votes. His Nazi supporters don't care about the law or common decency.

Post by d***@gmail.com
accepted when he was elected. Pretty much the same can be said about
Clinton. The fact that it turned out to be much worse than we imagined
wasn't too much of a surprise. It wasn't with Clinton and it isn't with
Trump.
But, it STILL makes them (both!) odious people and beneath the dignity
expected of that office holder.

WTF are you talking about? His supporters don't care. At least he isn't
black.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, people were upset with Trump's victory. That's what happens when you
have a campaign that is that divisive. I'm sure if Hillary Clinton had
won, the Trump rallies would continue and be more frequent. Trump would
have basked in his popularity as a martyr for his cause. I think that's
what he was expecting as he prepared for his loss by characterizing the
elect as "rigged" ... right up until the point that he won. Then it wasn't
"rigged" any more ... now we had 3-4 million fraudulent votes. Pfft!

I seriously doubt that. Many Trump supporters were resigned to defeat
before the votes were counted. I think they would have been much more
accepting of it than the Clinton camp.

Maybe you're right - but I doubt it. When I saw a Clinton rally and
compared it to a Trump rally, I saw two distinctly different type of
crowds. I have to say that the Trump supporters were louder, more
animated, and an angrier, routier bunch - usually egged on and incited by
Trump. I think it is entirely possible Trump would have been MORE popular
in defeat than he was in victory.

And assulted more blacks. How many blacks were assaulted at Hillary
rallies? <crickets>

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Well, the Russians DID manage to divide us into tribes. But Clinton didn't
win. Trump won. So, Trump inherited exactly what Clinton would've
inherited - a deeply divided nation. That's all the Russians really wanted
- a weakened United States - no matter WHO got elected. Sure, they
preferred Trump (because, clearly, he would be the more divisive of the
two), but they were actually anticipating a Clinton presidency.

I think at least some of Putin's motivation was retaliation for Hillary's
meddling in Russia's election. What goes around comes around.

The United States never did anything remotely similar to what the Russians
did. Sure, we all f*ck with each other on various matters. Our
intelligence agencies are well aware of this. But, the unclassified
intelligence report made it quite clear that this was on a whole new
level. Far more intense - far more sophisticated - far more deceptive -
far more insidious. Nothing like it before. The Russians weaponized the
internet and social media on a level never before seen.

One of my favorite lines from the movie The Sting is when Doyle Lonnegan
said, "What was I supposed to do, accuse him of cheating better than me in
front of the others?". It seems you are accusing the Russians of cheating
better than us.

I know you like that line. It's a good one. And I love that movie, too.
But you're ignoring that this was NOT the same old routine that we have
come accustomed to. This was something new. Far more intense. Far more
sophisticated. Deceptively insidious and surprisingly effective.
Even if the Russians DO cheat better than us - isn't that something about
which to be concerned? But, more importantly, there should be no U.S.
citizen HELPING them to cheat. That's what the Special Counsel is
investigating and there are some indicators that it's something WORTH
investigating.
So, when Trump says the whole Russia "thing" is just a hoax - I hope he's
not talking about Russian meddling - because that's simply a FACT. If he's

Just in case you didn't know it, the Russians could have done a lot of
meddling and Trump would not have to know about it, so you can still claim
he's innocent. "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest"?

Post by d***@gmail.com
using that term in the context of collusion - well - that remains to be
seen. We don't know what Mueller knows because we usually don't know
anything until there is an indictment. I didn't see the Manafort thing
coming. I didn't see the Cohen thing coming. I never even heard of George
Papadopoulos until he was indicted. I never heard of Carter Page before.
And the only thing I knew about Roger Stone is that he's a wacky
LBJ-did-it CT. And the Dutch lawyer, Alex van der Zwaan, who was indicted
for lying to investigators after he covered up his discussions with former
Trump campaign aide Rick Gates and a business associate based in Ukraine.
Never heard of him before.
Quite frankly, I find it amazing how tight the Mueller investigation is -
with virtually ZERO leaking. Hell, Trump can't sneeze without somebody
close to him calling a reporter.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm not claiming that Trump stole the election. I'm not even necessarily
saying that Trump would not have won without the help of the Russians. I
don't know the answers to those questions. I do know that I find it
abhorrent if it becomes known that the Trump campaign coordinated with the
Russians in their efforts to assist him and damage Hillary Clinton. The
Russians are a hostile nation, for crissakes! It's not as if Australia or
Canada was helping him. Big difference!

So it's OK for our friends to meddle in our election? It's OK for us to
meddle in Israel's election? For us to be outraged by Russian meddling is
the height of hypocrisy.

I knew you were going to say that. No, it's not OK for anybody to meddle
in our elections. But, you have to admit - that when it's a HOSTILE
nation, it's not only wrong, but it's REALLY wrong - and, in some people's
opinions, borderline treasonous.

Do you think it is less egregious to stab our friends in the back? You're
supposed to fuck with your enemies.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm saying that cooperating with
FRIENDLY foreign nation to help get yourself elected is technically
illegal, but cooperating with a HOSTILE foreign nation is on another
level. Wouldn't you agree?

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It really doesn't bother me that people's votes could have been influenced
by Russian social media any more than people's votes being influenced by
what they see and hear in negative campaign ads. We have always had lots
of low information voters and their votes count just as much as the well
informed voters. Each voter is allowed to cast their vote based on
whatever criteria they choose, even if they allow themselves to be
influenced by crap. I'm no more disturbed by foreign crap than I am by
domestic crap.

Fighting among ourselves is fine. Politicians pick fights all the time and
put up negative campaign ads. They do so at their own risk. Sometimes it
works (and it usually does) and sometimes it backfires. Those are choices
the candidates make.
But outside influence - especially from a hostile nation - is a completely
different matter. And that's what we're talking about here.

As long as we do it in other countries' elections we have no business
complaining when somebody does it in ours.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
In a previous message you said that nobody has been indicted for anything
associated with the 2016 election. Wrong! The last group of Russians to be
indicted, many of them in the military, were indicted because of their
association with the IRA which DEEPLY involved itself with the 2016
election.

I've made many posts on the subject and I don't remember what post you are
referring to but I believe I either said no Americans had been indicted
for anything related to the 2016 campaign or nobody from the Trump
campaign had been indicted for anything related to the 2016 campaign. Both
of those statements are true. The only Americans indicated have been for
crimes unrelated to the 2016 campaign. It's rather laughable for Mueller
to be indicting Russian nationals who aren't residing in this country
because we know they are never going to see the inside of an American
courtroom which means Mueller will never have to show how weak his hand
is.

It's not a laughing matter. I'm sure Mueller is perfectly aware that Putin
is not going to extradite his own citizens and subject them to prosecution
in the United States. If nothing else, none of those who were indicted can
ever safely return to the United States without being arrested the moment
they step off the airplane. But the indictments DO send a strong signal to
those with whom they may have worked with in the United States, "We know
what you did last summer." That often causes those who are hiding
something to take rash action as they start feeling the pinch. And you can
see that happening to some degree. Have you read those indictments? The
detail of discovery must be quite disturbing to anybody who may have
worked with them.

I still have seen no evidence that anyone in Trump's campaign illegally
colluded with Russians. Until I do, I'm not going to assume they did.

Post by d***@gmail.com
So, it remains to be seen WHO, if anybody, those Russians may have worked
with. One thing is for sure, those in the Trump orbit had an odd
fascination with Russians, seemed eager to conceal any contact they had
with Russians, and clearly have misrepresented their involvement with them
(i.e. Don Jr.). Adoptions? Pfft? Puhleaze ... especially after he was
specifically told that those with GOVERNMENT CONNECTIONS and who SUPPORTED
TRUMP had dirt on Hillary Clinton. "... and if it's what you say I love it
especially later in the summer."

Hillary would have cut a deal with the devil if she thought it would have
gotten her elected. Had the Russians been on her side, she would have been
more than happy to accept their help. She had no problem with foreign
nation's contributing to the Clinton Foundation.

Why do you think Hillary didn't use the information in the Steele dossier
prior to the election?

I really don't know. Maybe she thought it would backfire on her if it was
determined to be phony. Why risk that when all the polls said she was
going to win.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
I have seen no
evidence that any of them knowingly or unknowingly worked with Russian
operatives. The latter would not be a crime.

That's because the investigation is not concluded. We don't know what
Mueller has. You'd have to know that, as he builds the case, the LAST
reveal would be the American citizens who may have been complicit. You
don't lead with that.

I've heard prosecutor's hired as media consultant's say that you lead with
your best punch. You indict the most high profile people first to make as
big media splash as you can.

Maybe in a simple case where there is one suspect you're trying to nail.
But this is far more complex that may involve SEVERAL people, some of whom
are now refusing to cooperate and others are claiming executive privilege.
It's a tougher nut to crack.

That's why I'm not assuming anything until I see evidence of wrongdoing.
Suspicions don't interest me any more than the things the conspiracy
hobbyists have suspected about the JFK assassination.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Conspiring with a foreign nation to affect a U.S. election IS a crime, by
the way. In any case, even if it were not a TECHNICAL crime, it would be a
political liability (well, at least it SHOULD be a political liability) so
toxic that it should be reason enough to remove Trump from office.

It's only a crime if you know the person you are working with is a foreign
national. The early round of indictments against the Russians indicated
they duped a lot of people by pretending to be Americans.

Don Jr. was explicitly TOLD that they (Trump Tower meeting) were
representing the interests of the Russian government which was supporting
Trump.

Talking with the Russians is not a crime. I have seen no evidence that
anything he did rose to the level of criminal behavior. If it did, Mueller
needs to show his cards. Why hasn't he?

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Are you OK with our presidential candidates getting help from hostile
foreign nations on the premise that ... technically, it's not a crime? I
can't wait until we get a presidential candidate who gets help from China,
North Korea or Iran - and hear you say the same thing.

I guess I don't have a Pollyanna view of the world. I know we meddle in
other countries' elections when we think it is in our interest to do so
and I expect that other countries would do the same to us. I'm not
outraged by any of it.

Like I said - this was at a whole new level. And, you can see that it has
worked as our tribalism as at whole new level. So, this is NOT as you're
characterizing it ... ho hum, just more of the same-o, same-o. This was
different.

It is ho-hum. The Soviet Union was doing this a long time ago. Nobody
every used it as an excuse for the loser's failure.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It's no different than conducting espionage. We do it to others so we
should expect others to do it to us.

Yes, there is always espionage. But the Russians are now doing it much
better and we have shown a weakness for the way that they're waging this
operation.

Like I said, you are accusing them of cheating better than us.

No. I'm not surprised that the Russians are trying to meddle. That's not
cheating - that's meddling. What is CHEATING is when a U.S. presidential
candidate uses that foreign meddling to their advantage. I don't thing
"cheating" will be the operative word, however.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
You don't think a member of a presidential campaign EMBRACING and INVITING
hostile influence in the election is something new? When has that ever
happened, especially in such an overt way?

I have yet to see evidence that there was collusion by the Trump campaign.

[sigh] That's because the investigation is ongoing. You have to admit,
when Don Jr. accepted that Trump Tower meeting with individuals who
identified themselves as Russians who were representing the Russian
governments support for Trump and to offer "dirt" on Hillary Clinton ...
that kinda seems like it's worth checking into. This is especially true
seems there seems to be some obvious smoke being blown about that meeting.
Don Jr. said it was a big "nothing burger" and that that they only
discussed the adoptions. That's kind of hard to believe. He said he never
told his father about the meeting. That's another thing hard to believe.
They say, "In any case, nothing came of it." But that's like bank robbers
saying, "Well, we TRIED to rob the bank but the vaults were empty. So, we
really didn't steal anything.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Oddly, the Republican party has come a long way from viewing the Russians
as the "evil empire" (Reagan) to their current love fest with the
Russians. I mean, after all, Putin's not so bad. Sure, he may kill people
... but are we so innocent? Pfft! It's all relative, right?

The Republicans aren't the only ones who have flipped. The Democrats used
to be chummy with the Soviets and were outraged by Reagan's casting them
as the evil empire. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

The Democrats have never been pro-Soviet.

Not all of them.

Well, I think it's fair to say that we can ALWAYS say "not all of them"
regardless of the topic we're discussing.
Most Trump supporters are racists. Not all of them!
Most Clinton supporters are socialists. Not all of them!
Most professional baseball players are good hitters. Not all of them!

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
The Democrats disagreed with the
kind of rhetoric Reagan was using. (Remember the time, when checking the
microphone, Reagan said, "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you
today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We
begin bombing in five minutes." That's careless just silliness. Parts of
the military went into higher levels of readiness because of that one
comment.) Reagan was fortunate to be able to work with a Russian president
the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan could get away with saying such
outrageous and provocative things - because Gorbachev was a liberal-minded
rationalist. Putin is anything BUT that.

Actually, Reagan's joke happened before Gorbachev took over. It happened
in 1984 and Mondale used it as a campaign issue. Gorbachev came to power
in 1985.

I realize that. I'm just describing what happened at the time Reagan made
this comment. But, mostly, Reagan's two terms as president involved
dealing and negotiating with Mikhail Gorbachev. They developed a mutual

But you're OK with yout hero Reagan funding and arming al Qaeda.

Post by d***@gmail.com
respect for one another and that is mostly a credit I give to Gorbachev -
because Reagan was quite hawkish. Gorbachev and Putin couldn't possibly
more different in almost every respect. Gorbachev was forward thinking.
Putin is trying to "make Russia great again", like the good ole days.
Gorbachev was gregarious. Putin is stone cold and arrogant. Gorbachev
understood and respected western culture and democracy. To Putin, these
are his enemies.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

You don't say? How many people do think would've voted for Hillary Clinton
in some of these states where Trump eked out an electoral victory had
there not been a social media campaign (by Russia's Internet Research
Agency) to disparage her an micro-target certain demographic groups who
would be receptive (and share) these memes?
In a previous message you said that nobody has been indicted for anything
associated with the 2016 election. Wrong! The last group of Russians to be
indicted, many of them in the military, were indicted because of their
association with the IRA which DEEPLY involved itself with the 2016
election.
You seem to be banking on the legal technicality that nobody in the Trump
orbit REALIZED they were cooperating with the Russians. In other words,
they were duped! Is that your tacit admission that they WERE working with
the Russians? Because, it sounds like it. What remains to be seen is if
they were actually duped. Apparently, it was made perfectly clear to Don
Jr. that these were Russians who represented the government's effort to
help Donald Trump.
The indictments, themselves, do not explicitly say that no Americans are
involved. You're confusing that with the fact that the indictments do not
mention any specific American. But that doesn't mean none existed. Roger
Stone is convinced that HE is the one alluded to very cryptically in those
indictments. My guess is that Mueller isn't showing his cards yet on this
matter because he has yet to interview the president. He doesn't want them
to know what HE knows, thus making easier for them to craft their answers
accordingly. That is a typical prosecutory technique.
I think you're going to be disappointed when this is over. I'm surprised
you haven't developed a SENSE of where this is going. I think it's quite
obvious. Mueller will never indict the president. That's not his job. It's
not even clear whether the DOJ can indict a sitting president. Ultimately,

I am not in favor of indicting Trump.
Ever hear of the 25th amendment. It seems a more appropriate way of
removing an insane person.

Post by d***@gmail.com
it will be a political thing. Do we want a president who embraced the help
of foreign nation in a presidential campaign. And not just ANY nation - a
HOSTILE nation.

But you could argue that he was secretly trying to make it less hostile.
Ever hear of a country named England? We once had a war with them.
Actually 2 wars. And they burned down our White House. Friends don't do
that. But now we are friends fighting against the same enemy.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Personally, I could care less whether Trump is impeached or not because I
Mike Pence is a kook in a different way. He's religious fanatic.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

You don't say? How many people do think would've voted for Hillary Clinton
in some of these states where Trump eked out an electoral victory had
there not been a social media campaign (by Russia's Internet Research
Agency) to disparage her an micro-target certain demographic groups who
would be receptive (and share) these memes?
In a previous message you said that nobody has been indicted for anything
associated with the 2016 election. Wrong! The last group of Russians to be
indicted, many of them in the military, were indicted because of their
association with the IRA which DEEPLY involved itself with the 2016
election.
You seem to be banking on the legal technicality that nobody in the Trump
orbit REALIZED they were cooperating with the Russians. In other words,
they were duped! Is that your tacit admission that they WERE working with
the Russians? Because, it sounds like it. What remains to be seen is if
they were actually duped. Apparently, it was made perfectly clear to Don
Jr. that these were Russians who represented the government's effort to
help Donald Trump.
The indictments, themselves, do not explicitly say that no Americans are
involved. You're confusing that with the fact that the indictments do not
mention any specific American. But that doesn't mean none existed. Roger
Stone is convinced that HE is the one alluded to very cryptically in those
indictments. My guess is that Mueller isn't showing his cards yet on this
matter because he has yet to interview the president. He doesn't want them
to know what HE knows, thus making easier for them to craft their answers
accordingly. That is a typical prosecutory technique.
I think you're going to be disappointed when this is over. I'm surprised
you haven't developed a SENSE of where this is going. I think it's quite
obvious. Mueller will never indict the president. That's not his job. It's
not even clear whether the DOJ can indict a sitting president. Ultimately,

I am not in favor of indicting Trump.
Ever hear of the 25th amendment. It seems a more appropriate way of
removing an insane person.

Post by d***@gmail.com
it will be a political thing. Do we want a president who embraced the help
of foreign nation in a presidential campaign. And not just ANY nation - a
HOSTILE nation.

But you could argue that he was secretly trying to make it less hostile.
Ever hear of a country named England? We once had a war with them.
Actually 2 wars. And they burned down our White House. Friends don't do
that. But now we are friends fighting against the same enemy.

It's not a particularly unprecedented historical dynamic where previously
hostile nations become allies. A better example than your England example
is the "Axis" - Germany, Japan and Italy - our enemies in World War II.
Now we're strong allies ... although Trump is certainly working to
distance us from Germany (and our other European allies).

Back to your England example ... Can you think of any nations that were
once our "enemy", who are now our "friends", with whom we did not have
some intervening conflict - usually a war?

We typically don't start playing nice with a hostile nation until the
points in dispute have been settled. You don't try to shake the hand of a
person who wants to punch you in the nose. So, your analogy with our
current U.S.-Russia relation to previous relations between the U.S. and
England is invalid. We only became friends once England resigned itself
that the United States was an independent and sovereign nation. Of course,
we had to have the Revolutionary War prior to that.

Russia is currently on a high-tech attack to disrupt political sentiment
in this country - something which Trump goes back-and-forth in
acknowledging - but mostly rejecting it. In a very short period of time,
our nation has become as politically polarized as we've seen in our
lifetime. You can't be friends with somebody who is unwilling to be your
friend. Putin does not strike me as somebody who wants to be our friend.
He wants to PRETEND he's our friend because, it seems, all the world
leaders are learning is that Trump is very easy to manipulate with his
fragile ego and need for compliments - although the European leaders seem
to have had their fill of Trump and have somewhat given up flattering him.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

You don't say? How many people do think would've voted for Hillary Clinton
in some of these states where Trump eked out an electoral victory had
there not been a social media campaign (by Russia's Internet Research
Agency) to disparage her an micro-target certain demographic groups who
would be receptive (and share) these memes?
In a previous message you said that nobody has been indicted for anything
associated with the 2016 election. Wrong! The last group of Russians to be
indicted, many of them in the military, were indicted because of their
association with the IRA which DEEPLY involved itself with the 2016
election.
You seem to be banking on the legal technicality that nobody in the Trump
orbit REALIZED they were cooperating with the Russians. In other words,
they were duped! Is that your tacit admission that they WERE working with
the Russians? Because, it sounds like it. What remains to be seen is if
they were actually duped. Apparently, it was made perfectly clear to Don
Jr. that these were Russians who represented the government's effort to
help Donald Trump.
The indictments, themselves, do not explicitly say that no Americans are
involved. You're confusing that with the fact that the indictments do not
mention any specific American. But that doesn't mean none existed. Roger
Stone is convinced that HE is the one alluded to very cryptically in those
indictments. My guess is that Mueller isn't showing his cards yet on this
matter because he has yet to interview the president. He doesn't want them
to know what HE knows, thus making easier for them to craft their answers
accordingly. That is a typical prosecutory technique.
I think you're going to be disappointed when this is over. I'm surprised
you haven't developed a SENSE of where this is going. I think it's quite
obvious. Mueller will never indict the president. That's not his job. It's
not even clear whether the DOJ can indict a sitting president. Ultimately,
it will be a political thing. Do we want a president who embraced the help
of foreign nation in a presidential campaign. And not just ANY nation - a
HOSTILE nation.
Personally, I could care less whether Trump is impeached or not because I
Mike Pence is a kook in a different way. He's religious fanatic.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Does it bother you at all that the Clinton campaign hired a former foreign
spy to dig up dirt on Trump and during that investigation he used (or was
used by) active Russian agents for information on him?

Yes, the Steel Dossier. The claims against Trump in that document came, in
part, from Putin's people.

Look, I have no political dog in this hunt: if Trump was found to have
colluded then impeachment proceedings should begin. I detest Trump but I
want to use facts and evidence against him and not just slings things
against him. Which, frankly, a lot of people on the liberal left have been
doing. Aided by a reckless media.

It seems obvious that you think Putin was trying to help Trump when, in my
view, he was trying to hurt the US. It didn't matter who he benefited or
who he harmed: his goal is to weaken the US.

And it's working.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

You don't say? How many people do think would've voted for Hillary Clinton
in some of these states where Trump eked out an electoral victory had
there not been a social media campaign (by Russia's Internet Research
Agency) to disparage her an micro-target certain demographic groups who
would be receptive (and share) these memes?
In a previous message you said that nobody has been indicted for anything
associated with the 2016 election. Wrong! The last group of Russians to be
indicted, many of them in the military, were indicted because of their
association with the IRA which DEEPLY involved itself with the 2016
election.
You seem to be banking on the legal technicality that nobody in the Trump
orbit REALIZED they were cooperating with the Russians. In other words,
they were duped! Is that your tacit admission that they WERE working with
the Russians? Because, it sounds like it. What remains to be seen is if
they were actually duped. Apparently, it was made perfectly clear to Don
Jr. that these were Russians who represented the government's effort to
help Donald Trump.
The indictments, themselves, do not explicitly say that no Americans are
involved. You're confusing that with the fact that the indictments do not
mention any specific American. But that doesn't mean none existed. Roger
Stone is convinced that HE is the one alluded to very cryptically in those
indictments. My guess is that Mueller isn't showing his cards yet on this
matter because he has yet to interview the president. He doesn't want them
to know what HE knows, thus making easier for them to craft their answers
accordingly. That is a typical prosecutory technique.
I think you're going to be disappointed when this is over. I'm surprised
you haven't developed a SENSE of where this is going. I think it's quite
obvious. Mueller will never indict the president. That's not his job. It's
not even clear whether the DOJ can indict a sitting president. Ultimately,
it will be a political thing. Do we want a president who embraced the help
of foreign nation in a presidential campaign. And not just ANY nation - a
HOSTILE nation.
Personally, I could care less whether Trump is impeached or not because I
Mike Pence is a kook in a different way. He's religious fanatic.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Does it bother you at all that the Clinton campaign hired a former foreign
spy to dig up dirt on Trump and during that investigation he used (or was
used by) active Russian agents for information on him?

No. You know absolutely nothing about spies.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Yes, the Steel Dossier. The claims against Trump in that document came, in
part, from Putin's people.

Yes, insiders who squeaked on him.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Look, I have no political dog in this hunt: if Trump was found to have

Yes, you do. Always the Hawk. Always the white guy.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
colluded then impeachment proceedings should begin. I detest Trump but I
want to use facts and evidence against him and not just slings things
against him. Which, frankly, a lot of people on the liberal left have been
doing. Aided by a reckless media.

Have you seen all the fact that Mueller has? No. Some people were
surprised by how much information he had on Manafort.
He has much more on Trump.
Remember, Obama personally swooped into the roof of Ttump Tower and
bugged every room in 10 minutes undetected.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
It seems obvious that you think Putin was trying to help Trump when, in my
view, he was trying to hurt the US. It didn't matter who he benefited or
who he harmed: his goal is to weaken the US.

Wake up. Putin admitted it. What do you think "Da" means?

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
And it's working.

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

You don't say? How many people do think would've voted for Hillary Clinton
in some of these states where Trump eked out an electoral victory had
there not been a social media campaign (by Russia's Internet Research
Agency) to disparage her an micro-target certain demographic groups who
would be receptive (and share) these memes?
In a previous message you said that nobody has been indicted for anything
associated with the 2016 election. Wrong! The last group of Russians to be
indicted, many of them in the military, were indicted because of their
association with the IRA which DEEPLY involved itself with the 2016
election.
You seem to be banking on the legal technicality that nobody in the Trump
orbit REALIZED they were cooperating with the Russians. In other words,
they were duped! Is that your tacit admission that they WERE working with
the Russians? Because, it sounds like it. What remains to be seen is if
they were actually duped. Apparently, it was made perfectly clear to Don
Jr. that these were Russians who represented the government's effort to
help Donald Trump.
The indictments, themselves, do not explicitly say that no Americans are
involved. You're confusing that with the fact that the indictments do not
mention any specific American. But that doesn't mean none existed. Roger
Stone is convinced that HE is the one alluded to very cryptically in those
indictments. My guess is that Mueller isn't showing his cards yet on this
matter because he has yet to interview the president. He doesn't want them
to know what HE knows, thus making easier for them to craft their answers
accordingly. That is a typical prosecutory technique.
I think you're going to be disappointed when this is over. I'm surprised
you haven't developed a SENSE of where this is going. I think it's quite
obvious. Mueller will never indict the president. That's not his job. It's
not even clear whether the DOJ can indict a sitting president. Ultimately,
it will be a political thing. Do we want a president who embraced the help
of foreign nation in a presidential campaign. And not just ANY nation - a
HOSTILE nation.
Personally, I could care less whether Trump is impeached or not because I
Mike Pence is a kook in a different way. He's religious fanatic.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Does it bother you at all that the Clinton campaign hired a former foreign
spy to dig up dirt on Trump and during that investigation he used (or was
used by) active Russian agents for information on him?

A great example of "false equivalency". Clearly, you have swallowed the
FoxNews narrative hook, line & sinker.

Let's see if I can lay this out and even YOU can see that there is a big
difference...

1. Fusion GPS has been doing opposition research for a long time, for
members of BOTH parties. Using Fusion GPS for this purpose was neither
secretive nor illegal.

2. Where or how Fusion GPS gets its information is something that does not
involve the candidate who finances their work. Those are decisions made
by Fusion GPS. All the candidates wants is any useful information. HOW
Fusion GPS gets that information is usually not discussed with the
candidate.

3. Fusion GPS decided to hire a British ex-spy. England is not a hostile
nation. Russia is.

4. Christopher Steele was not representing his government's effort to help
Hillary Clinton win the 2016 United States presidential election.
Fusion GPS approached HIM, not the other way around. He was
freelancing. On the other hand, the Russian operatives were
specifically directed from the top level of their government - Putin.
Those operatives approached the inner circle of the Trump campaign and
were warmly received.

4. It seems whatever "dirt" the Russians had on Hillary Clinton was
definitely USED! Not only that, but strategically timed, just as Don
Jr. had suggested in the email exchange with these Russian operatives.
On the other hand, nothing in the dossier was ever used during the
campaign. Nobody (in the public, at least), even knew about the dossier
until after Trump was sworn in. So, if Hillary Clinton knew what was in
that dossier (It's not clear she even knew about it. That has never
been established. I'm not sure what difference it would make one way or
the other.), apparently somebody had made the decision that it was not
to be used against Trump prior to the election - because it wasn't!

* * *

Ultimately, this is going to be a political issue, in my opinion ... not a
legal issue for Trump. One can say, "Technically, it's not a crime" all
they want, but the American people, and our legislators, are going to have
to resolve two key points:

1. Is this something we can tolerate from a presidential candidate, using
the services of a hostile foreign country to enhance his/her chances of
being elected president? I want to emphasis ... a HOSTILE foreign
country!

2. What is the significance of our president's LYING about his involvement
with the Russian effort to help him? If there was no malicious intent
... if there was no sense that anything inappropriate or illegal was
being done ... why has he so vehemently (apoplectically so) denied what
we now know is true?

It's almost comical to read Trump's tweet: "Collusion is not a crime, but
that doesn't matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked
Hillary and the Democrats)."

That's like an attorney saying: "My client didn't murder the victim. But,
if he did, it was in self defense." Yeah, that would go over big with a
jury.

Trump knows that this is ultimately going to be a political issue -
probably not a legal one. That's why he's so involved in a media campaign.
If he can muddy the waters with confusing narratives that seem to change
from day to day ... if he can diminish the reputation of the investigation
... if he can convince enough of his supporters that he's a victim of the
"deep state" ... that would put enough political pressure on the Senate
(which will likely remain in the hands of the Republicans) to never remove
him from office. Being impeached by the House means very little, as we
found out with the Bill Clinton impeachment. That turned out to be nothing
more than a bump in the road for him as he ended his presidency with a
very high popularity rating.

It's very unlikely that Trump will ever be impeached. But that's no reason
not to expose what he has done. He is an inarticulate, unintelligent,
impulsive con man who stumbled into political narrative of populism that
has been seething under the surface ever since Obama got elected.

When Obama got elected as our first black (actually, no more black than
white) president, many people were saying, "Finally, America was ready for
its first black president. We've come a long way." Well, not really. Not
ALL of America. We're just now finding out that America was not QUITE
ready. Trump is the backlash. The pendulum always swings - but this time
it swung rather rapidly.

Like I've always said: Not all those who voted for Trump were racists. But
if you ARE a racist (or a xenophobe, a misogynist, a single issue voter on
abortion or gun rights, or somebody whose hatred for Hillary Clinton was
so deep that you would literally vote for ANYBODY other than her, no
matter what glaring shortcomings they had) it's a certainty that you voted
for Trump. I think that is very telling.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Yes, the Steel Dossier. The claims against Trump in that document came, in
part, from Putin's people.
Look, I have no political dog in this hunt: if Trump was found to have
colluded then impeachment proceedings should begin. I detest Trump but I
want to use facts and evidence against him and not just slings things
against him. Which, frankly, a lot of people on the liberal left have been
doing. Aided by a reckless media.

Well, then you'll just have to wait like the rest of us to see what the
Mueller investigation comes up with. Those who say, "There is no evidence
of collusion" cannot possibly know that, yet. Maybe we'll find out that
Trump had nothing to do with it and that OTHERS colluded, independently,
on Trump's behalf ... maybe somebody like Roger Stone. That would STILL be
worth knowing!

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
It seems obvious that you think Putin was trying to help Trump when, in my
view, he was trying to hurt the US. It didn't matter who he benefited or
who he harmed: his goal is to weaken the US.
And it's working.

Oh, I agree. Even the intelligence report said that Russia's PRIMARY goal
was to sow discord within the electorate and weaken the office of the
presidency - which even the Russian's thought would be Hillary Clinton.

But, supporting Trump was the BEST way to sow discord - even if he lost.
Because, in defeat, the Trump supporters would not simply quietly go off
into the night. They would dog the Clinton presidency in probably a more
ardent manner than the left is dog the Trump presidency. This is playing
out just as Russia had hoped.

That's why the Russians were also helping Bernie Sanders. Trump and
Sanders represented the two most destabilizing candidates who had the best
chance to throw a monkey wrench into the political system because of their
radical, extreme and divisive policies.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bigdog]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
It seems obvious that you think Putin was trying to help Trump when, in my
view, he was trying to hurt the US. It didn't matter who he benefited or
who he harmed: his goal is to weaken the US.
And it's working.

Oh, I agree. Even the intelligence report said that Russia's PRIMARY goal
was to sow discord within the electorate and weaken the office of the
presidency - which even the Russian's thought would be Hillary Clinton.
But, supporting Trump was the BEST way to sow discord - even if he lost.
Because, in defeat, the Trump supporters would not simply quietly go off
into the night. They would dog the Clinton presidency in probably a more
ardent manner than the left is dog the Trump presidency.

It is hard for me to imagine how that would even be possible.

Post by d***@gmail.com
This is playing out just as Russia had hoped.

Yes it is and it should be noted that right after Trump's surprise victory
these same Russian assets put the Trump administration in their
crosshairs. They were behind many of the anti-Trump demonstrations that
followed the election.

Post by d***@gmail.com
That's why the Russians were also helping Bernie Sanders. Trump and
Sanders represented the two most destabilizing candidates who had the best
chance to throw a monkey wrench into the political system because of their
radical, extreme and divisive policies.

Divisive, yes. I wouldn't characterize them as radical or extreme. While
his rhetoric is over the top, his policies are not. The tax cut was
favored by the mainstream Republican Party as has been his efforts to
enforce existing immigration laws. Most Republicans are very happy with
his choices for the Supreme Court. I care more about what Trump does and
try to ignore the silly things he says. While I support free trade, if his
tariffs are a ploy to get other countries to renegotiate existing trade
agreements to lower or eliminate tariffs on our exports, it might prove to
be a useful tactic.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

You don't say? How many people do think would've voted for Hillary Clinton
in some of these states where Trump eked out an electoral victory had
there not been a social media campaign (by Russia's Internet Research
Agency) to disparage her an micro-target certain demographic groups who
would be receptive (and share) these memes?
In a previous message you said that nobody has been indicted for anything
associated with the 2016 election. Wrong! The last group of Russians to be
indicted, many of them in the military, were indicted because of their
association with the IRA which DEEPLY involved itself with the 2016
election.
You seem to be banking on the legal technicality that nobody in the Trump
orbit REALIZED they were cooperating with the Russians. In other words,
they were duped! Is that your tacit admission that they WERE working with
the Russians? Because, it sounds like it. What remains to be seen is if
they were actually duped. Apparently, it was made perfectly clear to Don
Jr. that these were Russians who represented the government's effort to
help Donald Trump.
The indictments, themselves, do not explicitly say that no Americans are
involved. You're confusing that with the fact that the indictments do not
mention any specific American. But that doesn't mean none existed. Roger
Stone is convinced that HE is the one alluded to very cryptically in those
indictments. My guess is that Mueller isn't showing his cards yet on this
matter because he has yet to interview the president. He doesn't want them
to know what HE knows, thus making easier for them to craft their answers
accordingly. That is a typical prosecutory technique.
I think you're going to be disappointed when this is over. I'm surprised
you haven't developed a SENSE of where this is going. I think it's quite
obvious. Mueller will never indict the president. That's not his job. It's
not even clear whether the DOJ can indict a sitting president. Ultimately,
it will be a political thing. Do we want a president who embraced the help
of foreign nation in a presidential campaign. And not just ANY nation - a
HOSTILE nation.
Personally, I could care less whether Trump is impeached or not because I
Mike Pence is a kook in a different way. He's religious fanatic.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Does it bother you at all that the Clinton campaign hired a former foreign
spy to dig up dirt on Trump and during that investigation he used (or was
used by) active Russian agents for information on him?

A great example of "false equivalency". Clearly, you have swallowed the
FoxNews narrative hook, line & sinker.
Let's see if I can lay this out and even YOU can see that there is a big
difference...
1. Fusion GPS has been doing opposition research for a long time, for
members of BOTH parties. Using Fusion GPS for this purpose was neither
secretive nor illegal.
2. Where or how Fusion GPS gets its information is something that does not
involve the candidate who finances their work. Those are decisions made
by Fusion GPS. All the candidates wants is any useful information. HOW
Fusion GPS gets that information is usually not discussed with the
candidate.
3. Fusion GPS decided to hire a British ex-spy. England is not a hostile
nation. Russia is.
4. Christopher Steele was not representing his government's effort to help
Hillary Clinton win the 2016 United States presidential election.
Fusion GPS approached HIM, not the other way around. He was
freelancing. On the other hand, the Russian operatives were
specifically directed from the top level of their government - Putin.
Those operatives approached the inner circle of the Trump campaign and
were warmly received.
4. It seems whatever "dirt" the Russians had on Hillary Clinton was
definitely USED! Not only that, but strategically timed, just as Don
Jr. had suggested in the email exchange with these Russian operatives.
On the other hand, nothing in the dossier was ever used during the
campaign. Nobody (in the public, at least), even knew about the dossier
until after Trump was sworn in. So, if Hillary Clinton knew what was in
that dossier (It's not clear she even knew about it. That has never
been established. I'm not sure what difference it would make one way or
the other.), apparently somebody had made the decision that it was not
to be used against Trump prior to the election - because it wasn't!
* * *
Ultimately, this is going to be a political issue, in my opinion ... not a
legal issue for Trump. One can say, "Technically, it's not a crime" all
they want, but the American people, and our legislators, are going to have
1. Is this something we can tolerate from a presidential candidate, using
the services of a hostile foreign country to enhance his/her chances of
being elected president? I want to emphasis ... a HOSTILE foreign
country!
2. What is the significance of our president's LYING about his involvement
with the Russian effort to help him? If there was no malicious intent
... if there was no sense that anything inappropriate or illegal was
being done ... why has he so vehemently (apoplectically so) denied what
we now know is true?
It's almost comical to read Trump's tweet: "Collusion is not a crime, but
that doesn't matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked
Hillary and the Democrats)."
That's like an attorney saying: "My client didn't murder the victim. But,
if he did, it was in self defense." Yeah, that would go over big with a
jury.
Trump knows that this is ultimately going to be a political issue -
probably not a legal one. That's why he's so involved in a media campaign.
If he can muddy the waters with confusing narratives that seem to change
from day to day ... if he can diminish the reputation of the investigation
... if he can convince enough of his supporters that he's a victim of the
"deep state" ... that would put enough political pressure on the Senate
(which will likely remain in the hands of the Republicans) to never remove
him from office. Being impeached by the House means very little, as we
found out with the Bill Clinton impeachment. That turned out to be nothing
more than a bump in the road for him as he ended his presidency with a
very high popularity rating.
It's very unlikely that Trump will ever be impeached. But that's no reason
not to expose what he has done. He is an inarticulate, unintelligent,
impulsive con man who stumbled into political narrative of populism that
has been seething under the surface ever since Obama got elected.
When Obama got elected as our first black (actually, no more black than
white) president, many people were saying, "Finally, America was ready for
its first black president. We've come a long way." Well, not really. Not
ALL of America. We're just now finding out that America was not QUITE
ready. Trump is the backlash. The pendulum always swings - but this time
it swung rather rapidly.
Like I've always said: Not all those who voted for Trump were racists. But
if you ARE a racist (or a xenophobe, a misogynist, a single issue voter on
abortion or gun rights, or somebody whose hatred for Hillary Clinton was
so deep that you would literally vote for ANYBODY other than her, no
matter what glaring shortcomings they had) it's a certainty that you voted
for Trump. I think that is very telling.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Yes, the Steel Dossier. The claims against Trump in that document came, in
part, from Putin's people.
Look, I have no political dog in this hunt: if Trump was found to have
colluded then impeachment proceedings should begin. I detest Trump but I
want to use facts and evidence against him and not just slings things
against him. Which, frankly, a lot of people on the liberal left have been
doing. Aided by a reckless media.

Well, then you'll just have to wait like the rest of us to see what the
Mueller investigation comes up with. Those who say, "There is no evidence
of collusion" cannot possibly know that, yet. Maybe we'll find out that
Trump had nothing to do with it and that OTHERS colluded, independently,
on Trump's behalf ... maybe somebody like Roger Stone. That would STILL be
worth knowing!

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
It seems obvious that you think Putin was trying to help Trump when, in my
view, he was trying to hurt the US. It didn't matter who he benefited or
who he harmed: his goal is to weaken the US.
And it's working.

Oh, I agree. Even the intelligence report said that Russia's PRIMARY goal
was to sow discord within the electorate and weaken the office of the
presidency - which even the Russian's thought would be Hillary Clinton.
But, supporting Trump was the BEST way to sow discord - even if he lost.
Because, in defeat, the Trump supporters would not simply quietly go off
into the night. They would dog the Clinton presidency in probably a more
ardent manner than the left is dog the Trump presidency. This is playing
out just as Russia had hoped.
That's why the Russians were also helping Bernie Sanders. Trump and
Sanders represented the two most destabilizing candidates who had the best
chance to throw a monkey wrench into the political system because of their
radical, extreme and divisive policies.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

False equivalency? I didn't equate the two.

Look, David, you're a smart man but you're fanatical hatred of Trump and
his supporters blinds you.

This is the problem wit the anti-Trump crowd. All you see is black and
white - Trump bad therefore whatever is in opposition to him is good.

It's not that simple.

As I've said, I see Trump as a disgrace and the sooner we as a nation
moves on from him the better. But that doesn't mean whatever is said about
him or whatever the "other side" does is fine.

This isn't a morality tale. There are lots of shades of gray hear
involving what the opponents of Trump did and whether people inside the
Obama administration abused and misused their power to get him.

As Alan Dershowitz has said, even people like Trump have rights.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

You don't say? How many people do think would've voted for Hillary Clinton
in some of these states where Trump eked out an electoral victory had
there not been a social media campaign (by Russia's Internet Research
Agency) to disparage her an micro-target certain demographic groups who
would be receptive (and share) these memes?
In a previous message you said that nobody has been indicted for anything
associated with the 2016 election. Wrong! The last group of Russians to be
indicted, many of them in the military, were indicted because of their
association with the IRA which DEEPLY involved itself with the 2016
election.
You seem to be banking on the legal technicality that nobody in the Trump
orbit REALIZED they were cooperating with the Russians. In other words,
they were duped! Is that your tacit admission that they WERE working with
the Russians? Because, it sounds like it. What remains to be seen is if
they were actually duped. Apparently, it was made perfectly clear to Don
Jr. that these were Russians who represented the government's effort to
help Donald Trump.
The indictments, themselves, do not explicitly say that no Americans are
involved. You're confusing that with the fact that the indictments do not
mention any specific American. But that doesn't mean none existed. Roger
Stone is convinced that HE is the one alluded to very cryptically in those
indictments. My guess is that Mueller isn't showing his cards yet on this
matter because he has yet to interview the president. He doesn't want them
to know what HE knows, thus making easier for them to craft their answers
accordingly. That is a typical prosecutory technique.
I think you're going to be disappointed when this is over. I'm surprised
you haven't developed a SENSE of where this is going. I think it's quite
obvious. Mueller will never indict the president. That's not his job. It's
not even clear whether the DOJ can indict a sitting president. Ultimately,
it will be a political thing. Do we want a president who embraced the help
of foreign nation in a presidential campaign. And not just ANY nation - a
HOSTILE nation.
Personally, I could care less whether Trump is impeached or not because I
Mike Pence is a kook in a different way. He's religious fanatic.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Does it bother you at all that the Clinton campaign hired a former foreign
spy to dig up dirt on Trump and during that investigation he used (or was
used by) active Russian agents for information on him?

A great example of "false equivalency". Clearly, you have swallowed the
FoxNews narrative hook, line & sinker.
Let's see if I can lay this out and even YOU can see that there is a big
difference...
1. Fusion GPS has been doing opposition research for a long time, for
members of BOTH parties. Using Fusion GPS for this purpose was neither
secretive nor illegal.
2. Where or how Fusion GPS gets its information is something that does not
involve the candidate who finances their work. Those are decisions made
by Fusion GPS. All the candidates wants is any useful information. HOW
Fusion GPS gets that information is usually not discussed with the
candidate.
3. Fusion GPS decided to hire a British ex-spy. England is not a hostile
nation. Russia is.
4. Christopher Steele was not representing his government's effort to help
Hillary Clinton win the 2016 United States presidential election.
Fusion GPS approached HIM, not the other way around. He was
freelancing. On the other hand, the Russian operatives were
specifically directed from the top level of their government - Putin.
Those operatives approached the inner circle of the Trump campaign and
were warmly received.
4. It seems whatever "dirt" the Russians had on Hillary Clinton was
definitely USED! Not only that, but strategically timed, just as Don
Jr. had suggested in the email exchange with these Russian operatives.
On the other hand, nothing in the dossier was ever used during the
campaign. Nobody (in the public, at least), even knew about the dossier
until after Trump was sworn in. So, if Hillary Clinton knew what was in
that dossier (It's not clear she even knew about it. That has never
been established. I'm not sure what difference it would make one way or
the other.), apparently somebody had made the decision that it was not
to be used against Trump prior to the election - because it wasn't!
* * *
Ultimately, this is going to be a political issue, in my opinion ... not a
legal issue for Trump. One can say, "Technically, it's not a crime" all
they want, but the American people, and our legislators, are going to have
1. Is this something we can tolerate from a presidential candidate, using
the services of a hostile foreign country to enhance his/her chances of
being elected president? I want to emphasis ... a HOSTILE foreign
country!
2. What is the significance of our president's LYING about his involvement
with the Russian effort to help him? If there was no malicious intent
... if there was no sense that anything inappropriate or illegal was
being done ... why has he so vehemently (apoplectically so) denied what
we now know is true?
It's almost comical to read Trump's tweet: "Collusion is not a crime, but
that doesn't matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked
Hillary and the Democrats)."
That's like an attorney saying: "My client didn't murder the victim. But,
if he did, it was in self defense." Yeah, that would go over big with a
jury.
Trump knows that this is ultimately going to be a political issue -
probably not a legal one. That's why he's so involved in a media campaign.
If he can muddy the waters with confusing narratives that seem to change
from day to day ... if he can diminish the reputation of the investigation
... if he can convince enough of his supporters that he's a victim of the
"deep state" ... that would put enough political pressure on the Senate
(which will likely remain in the hands of the Republicans) to never remove
him from office. Being impeached by the House means very little, as we
found out with the Bill Clinton impeachment. That turned out to be nothing
more than a bump in the road for him as he ended his presidency with a
very high popularity rating.
It's very unlikely that Trump will ever be impeached. But that's no reason
not to expose what he has done. He is an inarticulate, unintelligent,
impulsive con man who stumbled into political narrative of populism that
has been seething under the surface ever since Obama got elected.
When Obama got elected as our first black (actually, no more black than
white) president, many people were saying, "Finally, America was ready for
its first black president. We've come a long way." Well, not really. Not
ALL of America. We're just now finding out that America was not QUITE
ready. Trump is the backlash. The pendulum always swings - but this time
it swung rather rapidly.
Like I've always said: Not all those who voted for Trump were racists. But
if you ARE a racist (or a xenophobe, a misogynist, a single issue voter on
abortion or gun rights, or somebody whose hatred for Hillary Clinton was
so deep that you would literally vote for ANYBODY other than her, no
matter what glaring shortcomings they had) it's a certainty that you voted
for Trump. I think that is very telling.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Yes, the Steel Dossier. The claims against Trump in that document came, in
part, from Putin's people.
Look, I have no political dog in this hunt: if Trump was found to have
colluded then impeachment proceedings should begin. I detest Trump but I
want to use facts and evidence against him and not just slings things
against him. Which, frankly, a lot of people on the liberal left have been
doing. Aided by a reckless media.

Well, then you'll just have to wait like the rest of us to see what the
Mueller investigation comes up with. Those who say, "There is no evidence
of collusion" cannot possibly know that, yet. Maybe we'll find out that
Trump had nothing to do with it and that OTHERS colluded, independently,
on Trump's behalf ... maybe somebody like Roger Stone. That would STILL be
worth knowing!

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
It seems obvious that you think Putin was trying to help Trump when, in my
view, he was trying to hurt the US. It didn't matter who he benefited or
who he harmed: his goal is to weaken the US.
And it's working.

Oh, I agree. Even the intelligence report said that Russia's PRIMARY goal
was to sow discord within the electorate and weaken the office of the
presidency - which even the Russian's thought would be Hillary Clinton.
But, supporting Trump was the BEST way to sow discord - even if he lost.
Because, in defeat, the Trump supporters would not simply quietly go off
into the night. They would dog the Clinton presidency in probably a more
ardent manner than the left is dog the Trump presidency. This is playing
out just as Russia had hoped.
That's why the Russians were also helping Bernie Sanders. Trump and
Sanders represented the two most destabilizing candidates who had the best
chance to throw a monkey wrench into the political system because of their
radical, extreme and divisive policies.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Once again, the Steele Dossier - which was done to uncover dirt on Trump
on behalf of the Clinton campaign - used Russian FSB agents to get that
information on Trump.

You have no concern whatsoever as to whether that was proper and whether
it was indicative of Putin trying to disrupt the American process. And you
have no concern whether such a document was improperly used to get FISA
warrants on American citizens. We put the FISA process in place to prevent
abuses; apparently now it doesn't matter whether that was properly
followed (for what it's worth, it appears to have been properly followed
but that raises the question as to whether those procedures are right).

I did not equate what Trump allegedly did with the Steele Dossier. I
raised the question as to whether you were concerned that Putin's agents
were disseminating dirt on Trump.

You expressed no concern or worry about that.

You and other anti-Trump people don't care about anything other than
getting Trump. You see this as a morality tale - bad Trump vs. good
anti-Trump. The fact that you characterized my question as part of Fox New
propaganda is a perfect example of your mindset.

All you want to do is get Trump. Any other questions such as whether the
FISA warrant process was abused, whether Obama Administration officials
misused that process, whether Putin was behind the dirt on Trump is of no
concern for you.

This is the problem. And it's probably why this idiot fool fraud Trump
will win re-election. His opponents have been driven goofy.

[John McAdams]

On 18 Aug 2018 20:35:45 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Once again, the Steele Dossier - which was done to uncover dirt on Trump
on behalf of the Clinton campaign - used Russian FSB agents to get that
information on Trump.
You have no concern whatsoever as to whether that was proper and whether
it was indicative of Putin trying to disrupt the American process. And you
have no concern whether such a document was improperly used to get FISA
warrants on American citizens. We put the FISA process in place to prevent
abuses; apparently now it doesn't matter whether that was properly
followed (for what it's worth, it appears to have been properly followed
but that raises the question as to whether those procedures are right).
I did not equate what Trump allegedly did with the Steele Dossier. I
raised the question as to whether you were concerned that Putin's agents
were disseminating dirt on Trump.
You expressed no concern or worry about that.
You and other anti-Trump people don't care about anything other than
getting Trump. You see this as a morality tale - bad Trump vs. good
anti-Trump. The fact that you characterized my question as part of Fox New
propaganda is a perfect example of your mindset.
All you want to do is get Trump. Any other questions such as whether the
FISA warrant process was abused, whether Obama Administration officials
misused that process, whether Putin was behind the dirt on Trump is of no
concern for you.
This is the problem. And it's probably why this idiot fool fraud Trump
will win re-election. His opponents have been driven goofy.

He's not an idiot fool. He would have lost all his money if he were.
He is terribly undisciplined and very impulsive.

But you are right in Trump being lucky in having goofy adversaries.

Peggy Noonan has made this point:

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/05/trump-very-lucky-in-his-enemies.html

David has so far ignored my massive long list of anti-Trump fake news
that the mainstream media have published.

Trump, having driven them bonkers, now gets the advantage of being
able to point to bogus stories they have published.

But to David, everything they publish is true. Even if they have to
retract it.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by bigdog
It's also an abuse of power to use the investigation to try to influence
the midterms which is what I suspect this is all about. As long as they
don't show their cards, they create the illusion they have evidence of
collusion by the Trump campaign. You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

What makes you think Robert Mueller is trying to affect mid-term
elections? I see no evidence of that. It's not his fault that each new
revelation looks worse and worse for those in the Trump orbit. It's not
his fault that Trump keeps Tweeting and bringing the subject to the
forefront - because Mueller sure isn't talking about it. Besides, I don't
see Trump's name on any ballots.

Giuliani keeps talking about "getting this doggone thing over with"; yet,
I don't see how that can happen without, at least, interviewing Trump. And
Trump is the one dragging this out because I'm sure Mueller would be
willing to interview him YESTERDAY. Trying to dictate what the Special
Council can and cannot ask him is not the way investigations work. Trump
feigns willingness to be interviewed but is clearly reluctant to do so. He
strikes me as conspicuously defensive about this whole thing. It's the way
a person acts when they have something to hide. Innocent people are
usually eager to tell their side of the story.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bigdog]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It's also an abuse of power to use the investigation to try to influence
the midterms which is what I suspect this is all about. As long as they
don't show their cards, they create the illusion they have evidence of
collusion by the Trump campaign. You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

What makes you think Robert Mueller is trying to affect mid-term
elections?

For one he was appointed as US Attorney by the Clintons and those jobs are
political plums usually given out as rewards to loyal associates. They
serve at the pleasure of the President which is why most of them are fired
when there is a change of administration. It is absurd to think Mueller
isn't highly partisan.

His indictments have so far been of Russians who will never see the inside
of an American courtroom or for Trump associates for alleged crimes having
nothing to do with what he was appointed to investigate.

I see no evidence of that.

I see no evidence anybody in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians
to tip the election but that is the impression Mueller is creating.

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's not his fault that each new
revelation looks worse and worse for those in the Trump orbit.

Not a single one has provided evidence of Trump campaign collusion with
the Russians.

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's not
his fault that Trump keeps Tweeting and bringing the subject to the
forefront - because Mueller sure isn't talking about it. Besides, I don't
see Trump's name on any ballots.

The Democrats are trying to make this all about Trump hoping the backlash
against him will give them control of the House and maybe even the Senate
although the latter is a longshot.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Giuliani keeps talking about "getting this doggone thing over with"; yet,
I don't see how that can happen without, at least, interviewing Trump. And
Trump is the one dragging this out because I'm sure Mueller would be
willing to interview him YESTERDAY.

Any attorney worth is salt would be advising his client not to speak to
someone investigating him.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trying to dictate what the Special
Council can and cannot ask him is not the way investigations work. Trump
feigns willingness to be interviewed but is clearly reluctant to do so. He
strikes me as conspicuously defensive about this whole thing. It's the way
a person acts when they have something to hide.

If I were in Trump's shoes I wouldn't be cooperating with someone
investigating me. Nothing positive can come from that.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Innocent people are usually eager to tell their side of the story.

Nonsense. Even innocent people who are wise enough to consult with an
attorney will be advised to exercise their right to remain silent. Why
help someone who is trying to prosecute you? A person exercising their
constitutional right is not evidence that person is guilty of anything. A
perfect example is Martha Stewart. The only crime she was convicted of was
what she told the investigators. Had she clammed up, she would never have
gone to jail.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <ce045205-5740-4310-a9fc-***@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...

Post by bigdog

=20

It's also an abuse of power to use the investigation to try to influenc=

e=20

the midterms which is what I suspect this is all about. As long as they=

=20

don't show their cards, they create the illusion they have evidence of=

=20

collusion by the Trump campaign. You don't have to influence that many=

=20

voters to tip an election one way or the other.

=20
What makes you think Robert Mueller is trying to affect mid-term=20
elections?

For one he was appointed as US Attorney by the Clintons and those jobs are
political plums usually given out as rewards to loyal associates. They
serve at the pleasure of the President which is why most of them are fired
when there is a change of administration. It is absurd to think Mueller
isn't highly partisan.
His indictments have so far been of Russians who will never see the inside
of an American courtroom or for Trump associates for alleged crimes having
nothing to do with what he was appointed to investigate.
I see no evidence of that.
I see no evidence anybody in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians
to tip the election but that is the impression Mueller is creating.

It's not his fault that each new=20
revelation looks worse and worse for those in the Trump orbit.=20

Not a single one has provided evidence of Trump campaign collusion with
the Russians.

It's not=20
his fault that Trump keeps Tweeting and bringing the subject to the=20
forefront - because Mueller sure isn't talking about it. Besides, I don't=

=20

see Trump's name on any ballots.
=20

The Democrats are trying to make this all about Trump hoping the backlash
against him will give them control of the House and maybe even the Senate
although the latter is a longshot.

Giuliani keeps talking about "getting this doggone thing over with"; yet,=

=20

I don't see how that can happen without, at least, interviewing Trump. An=

d=20

Trump is the one dragging this out because I'm sure Mueller would be=20
willing to interview him YESTERDAY.

Any attorney worth is salt would be advising his client not to speak to
someone investigating him.

Trying to dictate what the Special=20
Council can and cannot ask him is not the way investigations work. Trump=

=20

feigns willingness to be interviewed but is clearly reluctant to do so. H=

e=20

strikes me as conspicuously defensive about this whole thing. It's the wa=

y=20

a person acts when they have something to hide.=20
=20

If I were in Trump's shoes I wouldn't be cooperating with someone
investigating me. Nothing positive can come from that.

Innocent people are usually eager to tell their side of the story.

Nonsense. Even innocent people who are wise enough to consult with an
attorney will be advised to exercise their right to remain silent. Why
help someone who is trying to prosecute you? A person exercising their
constitutional right is not evidence that person is guilty of anything. A
perfect example is Martha Stewart. The only crime she was convicted of was
what she told the investigators. Had she clammed up, she would never have
gone to jail.

Bang on. I've been blessed with a very smart and honest lawyer for the
last 5years. His motto was don't say a word, it may come back to bite you.
Don't takthe sobriety test on the side of the road, the tape will make you
look bad nmatter if you have been drinking or not.

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by Bill Clarke
says...

Post by bigdog

=20

It's also an abuse of power to use the investigation to try to influenc=

e=20

the midterms which is what I suspect this is all about. As long as they=

=20

don't show their cards, they create the illusion they have evidence of=

=20

collusion by the Trump campaign. You don't have to influence that many=

=20

voters to tip an election one way or the other.

=20
What makes you think Robert Mueller is trying to affect mid-term=20
elections?

For one he was appointed as US Attorney by the Clintons and those jobs are
political plums usually given out as rewards to loyal associates. They
serve at the pleasure of the President which is why most of them are fired
when there is a change of administration. It is absurd to think Mueller
isn't highly partisan.
His indictments have so far been of Russians who will never see the inside
of an American courtroom or for Trump associates for alleged crimes having
nothing to do with what he was appointed to investigate.
I see no evidence of that.
I see no evidence anybody in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians
to tip the election but that is the impression Mueller is creating.

It's not his fault that each new=20
revelation looks worse and worse for those in the Trump orbit.=20

Not a single one has provided evidence of Trump campaign collusion with
the Russians.

It's not=20
his fault that Trump keeps Tweeting and bringing the subject to the=20
forefront - because Mueller sure isn't talking about it. Besides, I don't=

=20

see Trump's name on any ballots.
=20

The Democrats are trying to make this all about Trump hoping the backlash
against him will give them control of the House and maybe even the Senate
although the latter is a longshot.

Giuliani keeps talking about "getting this doggone thing over with"; yet,=

=20

I don't see how that can happen without, at least, interviewing Trump. An=

d=20

Trump is the one dragging this out because I'm sure Mueller would be=20
willing to interview him YESTERDAY.

Any attorney worth is salt would be advising his client not to speak to
someone investigating him.

Trying to dictate what the Special=20
Council can and cannot ask him is not the way investigations work. Trump=

=20

feigns willingness to be interviewed but is clearly reluctant to do so. H=

e=20

strikes me as conspicuously defensive about this whole thing. It's the wa=

y=20

a person acts when they have something to hide.=20
=20

If I were in Trump's shoes I wouldn't be cooperating with someone
investigating me. Nothing positive can come from that.

Innocent people are usually eager to tell their side of the story.

Nonsense. Even innocent people who are wise enough to consult with an
attorney will be advised to exercise their right to remain silent. Why
help someone who is trying to prosecute you? A person exercising their
constitutional right is not evidence that person is guilty of anything. A
perfect example is Martha Stewart. The only crime she was convicted of was
what she told the investigators. Had she clammed up, she would never have
gone to jail.

Bang on. I've been blessed with a very smart and honest lawyer for the
last 5years. His motto was don't say a word, it may come back to bite you.
Don't takthe sobriety test on the side of the road, the tape will make you
look bad nmatter if you have been drinking or not.

You have a lawyer? Who has a lawyer? I don't have "a lawyer". Should I?

If I was completely innocent of a crime and I knew it ... I would
certainly convey that to my attorney.

This is the President of the United States, however. We'll see how it
plays out politically for Trump if he refuses to testify. It's not as if
Trump always listens to his attorneys and advisers. We know he does not.
He always thinks he's the smartest man in the room. All of a sudden, he's
just taking the advise of his attorneys? Pfft!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[John McAdams]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Bang on. I've been blessed with a very smart and honest lawyer for the
last 5years. His motto was don't say a word, it may come back to bite you.
Don't takthe sobriety test on the side of the road, the tape will make you
look bad nmatter if you have been drinking or not.

You have a lawyer? Who has a lawyer? I don't have "a lawyer". Should I?
If I was completely innocent of a crime and I knew it ... I would
certainly convey that to my attorney.

And doubtless Trump has.

Post by d***@gmail.com
This is the President of the United States, however. We'll see how it
plays out politically for Trump if he refuses to testify. It's not as if
Trump always listens to his attorneys and advisers. We know he does not.
He always thinks he's the smartest man in the room. All of a sudden, he's
just taking the advise of his attorneys? Pfft!

You can't be so naive as to believe that not wanting to testify means
you are guilty.

The trick -- on the part of prosecutors -- is to get the witnesses to
give one false or mistaken statement under oath -- even if the
statement is not material to any criminal act -- and then charge
perjury.

Ever hear of Scooter Libby?

Add to that the prosecutor's trick of getting the witnesses to say
something that can be twisted or distorted to condemn the witness, and
your view is just naive.

I don't think you would view things this way if a right-wing
prosecutor were going after Hillary.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Clarke
says...
Bang on. I've been blessed with a very smart and honest lawyer for the
last 5years. His motto was don't say a word, it may come back to bite you.
Don't takthe sobriety test on the side of the road, the tape will make you
look bad nmatter if you have been drinking or not.

You have a lawyer? Who has a lawyer? I don't have "a lawyer". Should I?
If I was completely innocent of a crime and I knew it ... I would
certainly convey that to my attorney.

And doubtless Trump has.

Post by d***@gmail.com
This is the President of the United States, however. We'll see how it
plays out politically for Trump if he refuses to testify. It's not as if
Trump always listens to his attorneys and advisers. We know he does not.
He always thinks he's the smartest man in the room. All of a sudden, he's
just taking the advise of his attorneys? Pfft!

You can't be so naive as to believe that not wanting to testify means
you are guilty.
The trick -- on the part of prosecutors -- is to get the witnesses to
give one false or mistaken statement under oath -- even if the
statement is not material to any criminal act -- and then charge
perjury.
Ever hear of Scooter Libby?
Add to that the prosecutor's trick of getting the witnesses to say
something that can be twisted or distorted to condemn the witness, and
your view is just naive.

Knowing Trump he could even screw up when they ask him his name.

Post by John McAdams
I don't think you would view things this way if a right-wing
prosecutor were going after Hillary.

Didn't we already have that?
So you say that only righting prosecutors can go after left-wing
politicians and only left-wing prosecutors can go after right-wing
politicians? Or you just don't believe in the law when your guy is under
fire.

Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bill Clarke]

g

Post by Bill Clarke
says...

=3D20

It's also an abuse of power to use the investigation to try to influ=

enc=3D

Post by Bill Clarke

e=3D20

the midterms which is what I suspect this is all about. As long as t=

hey=3D

Post by Bill Clarke

=3D20

don't show their cards, they create the illusion they have evidence =

of=3D

Post by Bill Clarke

=3D20

collusion by the Trump campaign. You don't have to influence that ma=

ny=3D

Post by Bill Clarke

=3D20

voters to tip an election one way or the other.

=3D20
What makes you think Robert Mueller is trying to affect mid-term=3D20
elections?

For one he was appointed as US Attorney by the Clintons and those jobs a=

re=20

Post by Bill Clarke

political plums usually given out as rewards to loyal associates. They=

=20

Post by Bill Clarke

serve at the pleasure of the President which is why most of them are fir=

ed=20

Post by Bill Clarke

when there is a change of administration. It is absurd to think Mueller=

=20

Post by Bill Clarke

isn't highly partisan.
His indictments have so far been of Russians who will never see the insi=

de=20

Post by Bill Clarke

of an American courtroom or for Trump associates for alleged crimes havi=

ng=20

Post by Bill Clarke

nothing to do with what he was appointed to investigate.=20
I see no evidence of that.
I see no evidence anybody in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russia=

ns=20

Post by Bill Clarke

to tip the election but that is the impression Mueller is creating.

It's not his fault that each new=3D20
revelation looks worse and worse for those in the Trump orbit.=3D20

Not a single one has provided evidence of Trump campaign collusion with=

=20

Post by Bill Clarke

the Russians.

It's not=3D20
his fault that Trump keeps Tweeting and bringing the subject to the=3D=

20

Post by Bill Clarke

forefront - because Mueller sure isn't talking about it. Besides, I do=

n't=3D

Post by Bill Clarke

=3D20

see Trump's name on any ballots.
=3D20

The Democrats are trying to make this all about Trump hoping the backlas=

h=20

Post by Bill Clarke

against him will give them control of the House and maybe even the Senat=

e=20

Post by Bill Clarke

although the latter is a longshot.

Giuliani keeps talking about "getting this doggone thing over with"; y=

et,=3D

Post by Bill Clarke

=3D20

I don't see how that can happen without, at least, interviewing Trump.=

An=3D

Post by Bill Clarke

d=3D20

Trump is the one dragging this out because I'm sure Mueller would be=

=3D20

Post by Bill Clarke

willing to interview him YESTERDAY.

Any attorney worth is salt would be advising his client not to speak to=

=20

Post by Bill Clarke

someone investigating him.

Trying to dictate what the Special=3D20
Council can and cannot ask him is not the way investigations work. Tru=

mp=3D

Post by Bill Clarke

=3D20

feigns willingness to be interviewed but is clearly reluctant to do so=

. H=3D

Post by Bill Clarke

e=3D20

strikes me as conspicuously defensive about this whole thing. It's the=

wa=3D

Post by Bill Clarke

y=3D20

a person acts when they have something to hide.=3D20
=3D20

If I were in Trump's shoes I wouldn't be cooperating with someone=20
investigating me. Nothing positive can come from that.

Innocent people are usually eager to tell their side of the story.

Nonsense. Even innocent people who are wise enough to consult with an=20
attorney will be advised to exercise their right to remain silent. Why=

=20

Post by Bill Clarke

help someone who is trying to prosecute you? A person exercising their=

=20

Post by Bill Clarke

constitutional right is not evidence that person is guilty of anything. =

A=20

Post by Bill Clarke

perfect example is Martha Stewart. The only crime she was convicted of w=

as=20

Post by Bill Clarke

what she told the investigators. Had she clammed up, she would never hav=

e=20

Post by Bill Clarke

gone to jail.

=20
Bang on. I've been blessed with a very smart and honest lawyer for the=

=20

Post by Bill Clarke
last 5years. His motto was don't say a word, it may come back to bite you=

. =20

Post by Bill Clarke
Don't takthe sobriety test on the side of the road, the tape will make yo=

u=20

Post by Bill Clarke
look bad nmatter if you have been drinking or not.

You have a lawyer? Who has a lawyer? I don't have "a lawyer". Should I?

Do you have a will? You need one. Ever had to sue someone because they
wouldn't pay you for building their road. Ever had to get one of your
employees out of jail? If your answer to all is in the negative then I
don't guess you need a lawyer.

If I was completely innocent of a crime and I knew it ... I would
certainly convey that to my attorney.

You seem to have missed the point. My lawyer didn't say not to talk to
him which would be pretty silly to most here. He said not to talk to the
cops.

This is the President of the United States, however. We'll see how it
plays out politically for Trump if he refuses to testify. It's not as if
Trump always listens to his attorneys and advisers. We know he does not.
He always thinks he's the smartest man in the room. All of a sudden, he's
just taking the advise of his attorneys? Pfft!
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Pfft!

You just pass gas here or what?

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It's also an abuse of power to use the investigation to try to influence
the midterms which is what I suspect this is all about. As long as they
don't show their cards, they create the illusion they have evidence of
collusion by the Trump campaign. You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

What makes you think Robert Mueller is trying to affect mid-term
elections?

For one he was appointed as US Attorney by the Clintons and those jobs are
political plums usually given out as rewards to loyal associates. They
serve at the pleasure of the President which is why most of them are fired
when there is a change of administration. It is absurd to think Mueller
isn't highly partisan.
His indictments have so far been of Russians who will never see the inside
of an American courtroom or for Trump associates for alleged crimes having
nothing to do with what he was appointed to investigate.

Well escuse me, but made you don't have a TV so you didn't see that they
already have one Russian in jail. I don't see how she can get out of
jail without going into a courtroom unless you break her out.

Post by bigdog
I see no evidence of that.
I see no evidence anybody in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians
to tip the election but that is the impression Mueller is creating.

Stop working for Trump. He will always betray you.
It's not collusion. That is not a crime. It's TREASON.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's not his fault that each new
revelation looks worse and worse for those in the Trump orbit.

Not a single one has provided evidence of Trump campaign collusion with
the Russians.

Stop saying collusion, you sound uneducated.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's not
his fault that Trump keeps Tweeting and bringing the subject to the
forefront - because Mueller sure isn't talking about it. Besides, I don't
see Trump's name on any ballots.

The Democrats are trying to make this all about Trump hoping the backlash
against him will give them control of the House and maybe even the Senate
although the latter is a longshot.

In case you didn't know it, some Republicans are also calling for
everyone to vote for Democrats so that the real Republicans can take
back their party.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/conservative-george-will-says-vote-against-republicans-in-midterms-2018-06-23


George Will, Having Left Republican Party, Urges Conservatives to Vote
Against Donald Trump
By Kevin Kelleher Updated: June 23, 2018 3:02 PM ET

George Will, a longtime political commentator and staunch defender of
the conservative movement, chided the Republican Party, citing the
party’s support for Donald Trump in the upcoming 2020 presidential election.

On Friday, Will published a column in the Washington Post explaining his
view, using the kind of excoriating language his columns are known for.
The column, titled “Vote against the GOP this November,” argued that the
number of Republicans in Congress “must be substantially reduced.”

Quoting from a variety of works, such as Robert Bolt’s play A Man for
All Seasons and The Federalist Papers, Will also found caustic words of
his own for Republican leaders, notably Ryan. The House Speaker, Will
wrote, “sold his soul… for a tax cut” and had become one of “the
president’s poodles.”

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Giuliani keeps talking about "getting this doggone thing over with"; yet,
I don't see how that can happen without, at least, interviewing Trump. And
Trump is the one dragging this out because I'm sure Mueller would be
willing to interview him YESTERDAY.

Any attorney worth is salt would be advising his client not to speak to
someone investigating him.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trying to dictate what the Special
Council can and cannot ask him is not the way investigations work. Trump
feigns willingness to be interviewed but is clearly reluctant to do so. He
strikes me as conspicuously defensive about this whole thing. It's the way
a person acts when they have something to hide.

If I were in Trump's shoes I wouldn't be cooperating with someone
investigating me. Nothing positive can come from that.

If someone is innocent then what do they need to hide?

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Innocent people are usually eager to tell their side of the story.

Nonsense. Even innocent people who are wise enough to consult with an
attorney will be advised to exercise their right to remain silent. Why

So you think that everyone has the right to never answer any questions.
Is that why you refuse to answer questions here?
Or do you have something to hide?
Isn't it obvious when you won't even use your real name?

Post by bigdog
help someone who is trying to prosecute you? A person exercising their
constitutional right is not evidence that person is guilty of anything. A
perfect example is Martha Stewart. The only crime she was convicted of was
what she told the investigators. Had she clammed up, she would never have
gone to jail.

Silly. The documents speak for themselves.
They have no constitutional right to remain silent.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It's also an abuse of power to use the investigation to try to influence
the midterms which is what I suspect this is all about. As long as they
don't show their cards, they create the illusion they have evidence of
collusion by the Trump campaign. You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

What makes you think Robert Mueller is trying to affect mid-term
elections?

For one he was appointed as US Attorney by the Clintons and those jobs are
political plums usually given out as rewards to loyal associates. They

So you say that Bush appointees are biased in favor of Clinton? So Bush is
part of this Clinton conspiracy? Did he shoot Vincent Foster?

Post by bigdog
serve at the pleasure of the President which is why most of them are fired
when there is a change of administration. It is absurd to think Mueller
isn't highly partisan.
His indictments have so far been of Russians who will never see the inside
of an American courtroom or for Trump associates for alleged crimes having
nothing to do with what he was appointed to investigate.

Why is that cute Russian girl in jail? Prostitution?

Post by bigdog
I see no evidence of that.
I see no evidence anybody in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians
to tip the election but that is the impression Mueller is creating.

Stop your childish nonsense. That is not the charge. Collusion is not a
crime.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's not his fault that each new
revelation looks worse and worse for those in the Trump orbit.

Not a single one has provided evidence of Trump campaign collusion with
the Russians.

He's not on trial yet.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's not
his fault that Trump keeps Tweeting and bringing the subject to the
forefront - because Mueller sure isn't talking about it. Besides, I don't
see Trump's name on any ballots.

The Democrats are trying to make this all about Trump hoping the backlash
against him will give them control of the House and maybe even the Senate
although the latter is a longshot.

Duh! Because the Republicans are lap dogs who just want the money.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Giuliani keeps talking about "getting this doggone thing over with"; yet,
I don't see how that can happen without, at least, interviewing Trump. And
Trump is the one dragging this out because I'm sure Mueller would be
willing to interview him YESTERDAY.

Any attorney worth is salt would be advising his client not to speak to
someone investigating him.

You mean a REAL attorney instead of a clown?

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trying to dictate what the Special
Council can and cannot ask him is not the way investigations work. Trump
feigns willingness to be interviewed but is clearly reluctant to do so. He
strikes me as conspicuously defensive about this whole thing. It's the way
a person acts when they have something to hide.

If I were in Trump's shoes I wouldn't be cooperating with someone
investigating me. Nothing positive can come from that.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Innocent people are usually eager to tell their side of the story.

Nonsense. Even innocent people who are wise enough to consult with an
attorney will be advised to exercise their right to remain silent. Why
help someone who is trying to prosecute you? A person exercising their
constitutional right is not evidence that person is guilty of anything. A
perfect example is Martha Stewart. The only crime she was convicted of was
what she told the investigators. Had she clammed up, she would never have
gone to jail.

Childish. They had a mountain of evidence against her.

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It's also an abuse of power to use the investigation to try to influence
the midterms which is what I suspect this is all about. As long as they
don't show their cards, they create the illusion they have evidence of
collusion by the Trump campaign. You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

What makes you think Robert Mueller is trying to affect mid-term
elections?

For one he was appointed as US Attorney by the Clintons and those jobs are
political plums usually given out as rewards to loyal associates. They
serve at the pleasure of the President which is why most of them are fired
when there is a change of administration. It is absurd to think Mueller
isn't highly partisan.

I don't recall any of this partisan outrage when he was first appointed,
even by the ardent pro-Trump Republicans. There was an immediate
consensus, on both sides of the aisle, that Robert Mueller is a
straight-shooter who can be trusted to conduct a fair investigation. This
even wasn't a narrative on FoxNews at the time.

Now that we're getting a sense of where this investigation is headed, the
outrage has begun and now, all of a sudden, it's the "Mueller crime
family" as Sean Hannity put it.

Post by bigdog
His indictments have so far been of Russians who will never see the inside
of an American courtroom or for Trump associates for alleged crimes having
nothing to do with what he was appointed to investigate.
I see no evidence of that.
I see no evidence anybody in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians
to tip the election but that is the impression Mueller is creating.

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's not his fault that each new
revelation looks worse and worse for those in the Trump orbit.

Not a single one has provided evidence of Trump campaign collusion with
the Russians.

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's not
his fault that Trump keeps Tweeting and bringing the subject to the
forefront - because Mueller sure isn't talking about it. Besides, I don't
see Trump's name on any ballots.

The Democrats are trying to make this all about Trump hoping the backlash
against him will give them control of the House and maybe even the Senate
although the latter is a longshot.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Giuliani keeps talking about "getting this doggone thing over with"; yet,
I don't see how that can happen without, at least, interviewing Trump. And
Trump is the one dragging this out because I'm sure Mueller would be
willing to interview him YESTERDAY.

Any attorney worth is salt would be advising his client not to speak to
someone investigating him.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trying to dictate what the Special
Council can and cannot ask him is not the way investigations work. Trump
feigns willingness to be interviewed but is clearly reluctant to do so. He
strikes me as conspicuously defensive about this whole thing. It's the way
a person acts when they have something to hide.

If I were in Trump's shoes I wouldn't be cooperating with someone
investigating me. Nothing positive can come from that.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Innocent people are usually eager to tell their side of the story.

Nonsense. Even innocent people who are wise enough to consult with an
attorney will be advised to exercise their right to remain silent.

Sure, once it gets in the courtroom, it is often best not to testify. It's
rare that somebody who is truly innocent doesn't testify.

Attorneys will advise ALL clients to remain silent prior to court
proceedings, whether innocent or guilty.

Trump likes to talk, however. He seldom let's the slightest criticism go
unaddressed, even when it is in his best interest to just let it go - like
most presidents have done.

You're an umpire, right? So am I. It's a hobby I love. One of the
weaknesses I see in many umpires is their inability to let things go. They
feel they have to address every bit of criticism, whether it comes from a
coach or a fan. They have rabbit ears and hear everything and react to it.
They simply cannot tolerate any criticism. Trump reminds me of one of
those type of umpires. He always has to prove that he's right. He's always
got to strike back. He always has to be a gun to fist fight.

Yet, on this collusion issue, all he seems to be able to say are, "Witch
hunt!" and "There was no collusion." (but if there WAS collusion, it would
not be illegal. LOL)

I find it impossible to believe that Trump, who exercises virtually no
discipline or consistency in a host of matters, can only find a few
phrases that he repeats like a mantra when it comes with this one
issue.

Post by bigdog
Why
help someone who is trying to prosecute you?

First, you are operating with the possibly false premise that Mueller
wants to prosecute Trump instead of simply getting to the facts. I think
Mueller understands that this will be his legacy and getting to the bottom
of the matter, wherever that may take him, is going to be how his legacy
will be defined.

At least Bill Clinton, for the most part, continued to run the country and
seldom commented about the ongoing Starr investigation. Trump can't let it
go for a single day.

Post by bigdog
A person exercising their
constitutional right is not evidence that person is guilty of anything. A
perfect example is Martha Stewart. The only crime she was convicted of was
what she told the investigators. Had she clammed up, she would never have
gone to jail.

You're right about Martha Stewart. But, ultimately, she DID lie to
investigators. It wasn't an accidental lie, by the way. It was a
calculated lie. He was considering not even prosecuting her because of her
fame. It came in the it's-not-worth-it category. But once she lied, his
hands were tied. She probably could have gotten off with a fine - pocket
change to her. But she lied.

To me, it seems pretty easy to tell the truth. Apparently, this is going
to be big challenge for Trump.

I think there's much more going on than dismissing this as Trump simply
asserting his right not to make a statement and how that right is quite
routinely asserted. I think it's much more about Trump having a tendency
to ramble aimlessly, engage in hyperbole and to be lose with the facts -
let alone flat out LYING. Trump is a defense attorney's nightmare. You
can't shut him up. You can't direct him. And he thinks he's smarter than
the lawyers and investigators.

We'll see.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bigdog]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It's also an abuse of power to use the investigation to try to influence
the midterms which is what I suspect this is all about. As long as they
don't show their cards, they create the illusion they have evidence of
collusion by the Trump campaign. You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

What makes you think Robert Mueller is trying to affect mid-term
elections?

For one he was appointed as US Attorney by the Clintons and those jobs are
political plums usually given out as rewards to loyal associates. They
serve at the pleasure of the President which is why most of them are fired
when there is a change of administration. It is absurd to think Mueller
isn't highly partisan.

I don't recall any of this partisan outrage when he was first appointed,
even by the ardent pro-Trump Republicans. There was an immediate
consensus, on both sides of the aisle, that Robert Mueller is a
straight-shooter who can be trusted to conduct a fair investigation. This
even wasn't a narrative on FoxNews at the time.

There seems to be a mindset among establishment Republicans that it is
best not to rock the boat lest they be portrayed as obstructionists by the
Democrats and their media friends. It's the same wishy-washy attitude that
led them to cave time and again on budget deals. The irony is it buys them
nothing with the media who still vilify them. The Republicans were the
minority party in the Congress for so long that I think that mind set
carries over to this day. Even though they are now the majority party they
don't act like it. It's one of the reasons I am no longer a Republican.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that we're getting a sense of where this investigation is headed, the
outrage has begun and now, all of a sudden, it's the "Mueller crime
family" as Sean Hannity put it.

Post by bigdog
His indictments have so far been of Russians who will never see the inside
of an American courtroom or for Trump associates for alleged crimes having
nothing to do with what he was appointed to investigate.
I see no evidence of that.
I see no evidence anybody in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians
to tip the election but that is the impression Mueller is creating.

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's not his fault that each new
revelation looks worse and worse for those in the Trump orbit.

Not a single one has provided evidence of Trump campaign collusion with
the Russians.

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's not
his fault that Trump keeps Tweeting and bringing the subject to the
forefront - because Mueller sure isn't talking about it. Besides, I don't
see Trump's name on any ballots.

The Democrats are trying to make this all about Trump hoping the backlash
against him will give them control of the House and maybe even the Senate
although the latter is a longshot.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Giuliani keeps talking about "getting this doggone thing over with"; yet,
I don't see how that can happen without, at least, interviewing Trump. And
Trump is the one dragging this out because I'm sure Mueller would be
willing to interview him YESTERDAY.

Any attorney worth is salt would be advising his client not to speak to
someone investigating him.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trying to dictate what the Special
Council can and cannot ask him is not the way investigations work. Trump
feigns willingness to be interviewed but is clearly reluctant to do so. He
strikes me as conspicuously defensive about this whole thing. It's the way
a person acts when they have something to hide.

If I were in Trump's shoes I wouldn't be cooperating with someone
investigating me. Nothing positive can come from that.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Innocent people are usually eager to tell their side of the story.

Nonsense. Even innocent people who are wise enough to consult with an
attorney will be advised to exercise their right to remain silent.

Sure, once it gets in the courtroom, it is often best not to testify. It's
rare that somebody who is truly innocent doesn't testify.

It's best not to talk even before it gets to court. Ask Martha Stewart.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Attorneys will advise ALL clients to remain silent prior to court
proceedings, whether innocent or guilty.

Yes they will and with good reason.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump likes to talk, however. He seldom let's the slightest criticism go
unaddressed, even when it is in his best interest to just let it go - like
most presidents have done.

I'm sure it drives his lawyers up a wall but as long as he refuses
Mueller's request for an interview, there probably is no harm in it.

Post by d***@gmail.com
You're an umpire, right? So am I. It's a hobby I love. One of the
weaknesses I see in many umpires is their inability to let things go. They
feel they have to address every bit of criticism, whether it comes from a
coach or a fan. They have rabbit ears and hear everything and react to it.
They simply cannot tolerate any criticism. Trump reminds me of one of
those type of umpires. He always has to prove that he's right. He's always
got to strike back. He always has to be a gun to fist fight.

That's always a fine line an umpire has to walk between being overly
aggressive and being too weak. Having worked professional, college and
high school baseball for almost 40 years, I can tell you that the line is
different at each level. What works at one level won't work at another. At
the pro level you have to stand your ground or you get run over. College
baseball you don't need to be quite as hard nosed but you still have to be
firm and business like and remember that the players and coaches are not
your friends even if they at times act friendly. I've found that the easy
going guys are the ones who seem to have the most success at the high
school level.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Yet, on this collusion issue, all he seems to be able to say are, "Witch
hunt!" and "There was no collusion." (but if there WAS collusion, it would
not be illegal. LOL)

I'll believe there was conclusion when I see some concrete evidence of it.
So far I have seen none.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I find it impossible to believe that Trump, who exercises virtually no
discipline or consistency in a host of matters, can only find a few
phrases that he repeats like a mantra when it comes with this one
issue.

Whatever you may think of his act, and it is an act, it has worked pretty
well for him up to now so why would he change?

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
Why
help someone who is trying to prosecute you?

First, you are operating with the possibly false premise that Mueller
wants to prosecute Trump instead of simply getting to the facts. I think
Mueller understands that this will be his legacy and getting to the bottom
of the matter, wherever that may take him, is going to be how his legacy
will be defined.

If he reaches the end of his investigation and announces that he could
find no evidence of collusion with the Russians by any American he is
going to be seen as a failure especially by the people who have been his
allies in the past. They expect him to collect some scalps and one way or
another I'm betting he will try to do that.

Post by d***@gmail.com
At least Bill Clinton, for the most part, continued to run the country and
seldom commented about the ongoing Starr investigation. Trump can't let it
go for a single day.

I can think of better role models than Bill Clinton.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
A person exercising their
constitutional right is not evidence that person is guilty of anything. A
perfect example is Martha Stewart. The only crime she was convicted of was
what she told the investigators. Had she clammed up, she would never have
gone to jail.

You're right about Martha Stewart. But, ultimately, she DID lie to
investigators. It wasn't an accidental lie, by the way. It was a
calculated lie. He was considering not even prosecuting her because of her
fame. It came in the it's-not-worth-it category. But once she lied, his
hands were tied. She probably could have gotten off with a fine - pocket
change to her. But she lied.
To me, it seems pretty easy to tell the truth. Apparently, this is going
to be big challenge for Trump.
I think there's much more going on than dismissing this as Trump simply
asserting his right not to make a statement and how that right is quite
routinely asserted. I think it's much more about Trump having a tendency
to ramble aimlessly, engage in hyperbole and to be lose with the facts -
let alone flat out LYING. Trump is a defense attorney's nightmare. You
can't shut him up. You can't direct him. And he thinks he's smarter than
the lawyers and investigators.

Which is exactly why he is being advised not to talk to Mueller.

Post by d***@gmail.com
We'll see.

Yes we will. The question is will we see before the midterm elections. I'm
betting we won't.

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It's also an abuse of power to use the investigation to try to influence
the midterms which is what I suspect this is all about. As long as they
don't show their cards, they create the illusion they have evidence of
collusion by the Trump campaign. You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

What makes you think Robert Mueller is trying to affect mid-term
elections?

For one he was appointed as US Attorney by the Clintons and those jobs are
political plums usually given out as rewards to loyal associates. They
serve at the pleasure of the President which is why most of them are fired
when there is a change of administration. It is absurd to think Mueller
isn't highly partisan.

I don't recall any of this partisan outrage when he was first appointed,
even by the ardent pro-Trump Republicans. There was an immediate
consensus, on both sides of the aisle, that Robert Mueller is a
straight-shooter who can be trusted to conduct a fair investigation. This
even wasn't a narrative on FoxNews at the time.

There seems to be a mindset among establishment Republicans that it is
best not to rock the boat lest they be portrayed as obstructionists by the
Democrats and their media friends. It's the same wishy-washy attitude that
led them to cave time and again on budget deals. The irony is it buys them
nothing with the media who still vilify them. The Republicans were the
minority party in the Congress for so long that I think that mind set
carries over to this day. Even though they are now the majority party they
don't act like it. It's one of the reasons I am no longer a Republican.

I don't think any of the Republicans, whether considered an establishment
Republican or a Trump Republican (which really means being populist), is
particularly shy about blocking Democratic efforts. They're quite aware
that they have the majority in the both the House and Senate, having a
president with an "R" by his name, and having a majority of a conservative
justices on the bench in the Supreme Court provides a unique opportunity
to advance whatever agenda they want. I'm sure the Democrats would (and
have!) done the same thing.

In fact, it's amazing they have been unable to accomplish much more.

The problem is always the Republicans who live in blue or purple
districts. The Democrats have the same problem - Democrats who live in red
or purple districts. Those type of legislators often do not rubber stamp
their party's efforts as a matter of political survival.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that we're getting a sense of where this investigation is headed, the
outrage has begun and now, all of a sudden, it's the "Mueller crime
family" as Sean Hannity put it.

Post by bigdog
His indictments have so far been of Russians who will never see the inside
of an American courtroom or for Trump associates for alleged crimes having
nothing to do with what he was appointed to investigate.
I see no evidence of that.
I see no evidence anybody in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians
to tip the election but that is the impression Mueller is creating.

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's not his fault that each new
revelation looks worse and worse for those in the Trump orbit.

Not a single one has provided evidence of Trump campaign collusion with
the Russians.

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's not
his fault that Trump keeps Tweeting and bringing the subject to the
forefront - because Mueller sure isn't talking about it. Besides, I don't
see Trump's name on any ballots.

The Democrats are trying to make this all about Trump hoping the backlash
against him will give them control of the House and maybe even the Senate
although the latter is a longshot.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Giuliani keeps talking about "getting this doggone thing over with"; yet,
I don't see how that can happen without, at least, interviewing Trump. And
Trump is the one dragging this out because I'm sure Mueller would be
willing to interview him YESTERDAY.

Any attorney worth is salt would be advising his client not to speak to
someone investigating him.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trying to dictate what the Special
Council can and cannot ask him is not the way investigations work. Trump
feigns willingness to be interviewed but is clearly reluctant to do so. He
strikes me as conspicuously defensive about this whole thing. It's the way
a person acts when they have something to hide.

If I were in Trump's shoes I wouldn't be cooperating with someone
investigating me. Nothing positive can come from that.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Innocent people are usually eager to tell their side of the story.

Nonsense. Even innocent people who are wise enough to consult with an
attorney will be advised to exercise their right to remain silent.

Sure, once it gets in the courtroom, it is often best not to testify. It's
rare that somebody who is truly innocent doesn't testify.

It's best not to talk even before it gets to court. Ask Martha Stewart.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Attorneys will advise ALL clients to remain silent prior to court
proceedings, whether innocent or guilty.

Yes they will and with good reason.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump likes to talk, however. He seldom let's the slightest criticism go
unaddressed, even when it is in his best interest to just let it go - like
most presidents have done.

I'm sure it drives his lawyers up a wall but as long as he refuses
Mueller's request for an interview, there probably is no harm in it.

Post by d***@gmail.com
You're an umpire, right? So am I. It's a hobby I love. One of the
weaknesses I see in many umpires is their inability to let things go. They
feel they have to address every bit of criticism, whether it comes from a
coach or a fan. They have rabbit ears and hear everything and react to it.
They simply cannot tolerate any criticism. Trump reminds me of one of
those type of umpires. He always has to prove that he's right. He's always
got to strike back. He always has to be a gun to fist fight.

That's always a fine line an umpire has to walk between being overly
aggressive and being too weak. Having worked professional, college and
high school baseball for almost 40 years, I can tell you that the line is
different at each level. What works at one level won't work at another. At
the pro level you have to stand your ground or you get run over. College
baseball you don't need to be quite as hard nosed but you still have to be
firm and business like and remember that the players and coaches are not
your friends even if they at times act friendly. I've found that the easy
going guys are the ones who seem to have the most success at the high
school level.

I've only done high school and college, but never professional. I agree
with everything you've said. You always umpire to the level of play. But I
think you understand my point. It's a weak umpire who has thin skin and
cannot make the distinction between "letting things go" and "shutting that
shit down."

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Yet, on this collusion issue, all he seems to be able to say are, "Witch
hunt!" and "There was no collusion." (but if there WAS collusion, it would
not be illegal. LOL)

I'll believe there was conclusion when I see some concrete evidence of it.
So far I have seen none.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I find it impossible to believe that Trump, who exercises virtually no
discipline or consistency in a host of matters, can only find a few
phrases that he repeats like a mantra when it comes with this one
issue.

Whatever you may think of his act, and it is an act, it has worked pretty
well for him up to now so why would he change?

Oh, no doubt - but only with Republicans. Trump is getting a bigger piece
of a shrinking pie. A majority of those who identify as a Republican buy
into everything Trump is telling them - including to ignore what they hear
and see from the press. They have totally bought into his Stalinist "the
press is the enemy of the people" narrative - although they exclude
FoxNews from that moniker for some curious reason.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
Why
help someone who is trying to prosecute you?

First, you are operating with the possibly false premise that Mueller
wants to prosecute Trump instead of simply getting to the facts. I think
Mueller understands that this will be his legacy and getting to the bottom
of the matter, wherever that may take him, is going to be how his legacy
will be defined.

If he reaches the end of his investigation and announces that he could
find no evidence of collusion with the Russians by any American he is
going to be seen as a failure especially by the people who have been his
allies in the past. They expect him to collect some scalps and one way or
another I'm betting he will try to do that.

That's an unjustifiably cynical view. I think Mueller is expected to get
to the bottom of the matter. The fact that he has run across individuals
who have committed other crimes is simply the result of people in Trump's
orbit getting caught in the crosshairs. Manafort and Cohen would probably
have been fine if they had never entered that orbit.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
At least Bill Clinton, for the most part, continued to run the country and
seldom commented about the ongoing Starr investigation. Trump can't let it
go for a single day.

I can think of better role models than Bill Clinton.

Well, I can certainly think of better role models as well - but I was
comparing one president under investigation by a Special Counsel to
another president who was under investigation by a Special Counsel. Apples
to apples. I wasn't hunting for a role model. I'm not sure why you framed
it that way because that wasn't my point.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
A person exercising their
constitutional right is not evidence that person is guilty of anything. A
perfect example is Martha Stewart. The only crime she was convicted of was
what she told the investigators. Had she clammed up, she would never have
gone to jail.

You're right about Martha Stewart. But, ultimately, she DID lie to
investigators. It wasn't an accidental lie, by the way. It was a
calculated lie. He was considering not even prosecuting her because of her
fame. It came in the it's-not-worth-it category. But once she lied, his
hands were tied. She probably could have gotten off with a fine - pocket
change to her. But she lied.
To me, it seems pretty easy to tell the truth. Apparently, this is going
to be big challenge for Trump.
I think there's much more going on than dismissing this as Trump simply
asserting his right not to make a statement and how that right is quite
routinely asserted. I think it's much more about Trump having a tendency
to ramble aimlessly, engage in hyperbole and to be lose with the facts -
let alone flat out LYING. Trump is a defense attorney's nightmare. You
can't shut him up. You can't direct him. And he thinks he's smarter than
the lawyers and investigators.

Which is exactly why he is being advised not to talk to Mueller.

Well, it makes perfect sense from a purely legal perspective. I'm not so
sure that works out so well politically - a president refusing to talk
with the special investigator on a matter that, to most reasonable people,
seems worth investigating.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
We'll see.

Yes we will. The question is will we see before the midterm elections. I'm
betting we won't.

How can you be so sure that Mueller reaching a conclusion BEFORE midterm
elections would be either a good or bad thing for Trump? Doesn't it depend
what the conclusion is? If Mueller comes to a scathing conclusion about
Russian involvement by Trump and many of his closest advisers, do you
think that would be a good thing to come out prior to November? Yet, if he
finds no finding of collusion among Trump or any members in his campaign
prior to November - that WOULD be a good thing for Republicans. So, there
is no way of knowing whether it would be "good" or "bad" until you know
what the Special Counsel finds - right?

I don't pretend to know what it will be - but I have a sense where it's
heading. You seem to know that Mueller has found nothing. I don't know
what he's found because he's not talking, tweeting or going on daily
rants.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[John McAdams]

Post by d***@gmail.com
Oh, no doubt - but only with Republicans. Trump is getting a bigger piece
of a shrinking pie. A majority of those who identify as a Republican buy
into everything Trump is telling them - including to ignore what they hear
and see from the press. They have totally bought into his Stalinist "the
press is the enemy of the people" narrative - although they exclude
FoxNews from that moniker for some curious reason.

Oh, so it's "Stalinst" to encourage a critical attitude toward the
press?

But it's OK to be skeptical of Fox News?

You need to read some of the following:

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/12/fake-news-about-donald-trump-compliation.html

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/07/more-anti-trump-media-blunders.html

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2018/06/more-fake-news-about-donald-trump.html

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/03/fake-news-from-anti-trump-media.html

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/06/trump-fake-news-and-mainstream-media.html

So people should just accept that the mainstream media says, right?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[bigdog]

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com
Oh, no doubt - but only with Republicans. Trump is getting a bigger piece
of a shrinking pie. A majority of those who identify as a Republican buy
into everything Trump is telling them - including to ignore what they hear
and see from the press. They have totally bought into his Stalinist "the
press is the enemy of the people" narrative - although they exclude
FoxNews from that moniker for some curious reason.

Oh, so it's "Stalinst" to encourage a critical attitude toward the
press?
But it's OK to be skeptical of Fox News?
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/12/fake-news-about-donald-trump-compliation.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/07/more-anti-trump-media-blunders.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2018/06/more-fake-news-about-donald-trump.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/03/fake-news-from-anti-trump-media.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/06/trump-fake-news-and-mainstream-media.html
So people should just accept that the mainstream media says, right?

Well said, John. A free press doesn't mean it should be free from
criticism. Part of their job is to hold those in power accountable but
they need to be held accountable as well. That doesn't mean there should
be restrictions on what they report but their reporting needs to be
scrutinized and if they are acting irresponsibly, we are free to exercise
our First Amendment rights to point that out.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com
Oh, no doubt - but only with Republicans. Trump is getting a bigger piece
of a shrinking pie. A majority of those who identify as a Republican buy
into everything Trump is telling them - including to ignore what they hear
and see from the press. They have totally bought into his Stalinist "the
press is the enemy of the people" narrative - although they exclude
FoxNews from that moniker for some curious reason.

Oh, so it's "Stalinst" to encourage a critical attitude toward the
press?
But it's OK to be skeptical of Fox News?
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/12/fake-news-about-donald-trump-compliation.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/07/more-anti-trump-media-blunders.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2018/06/more-fake-news-about-donald-trump.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/03/fake-news-from-anti-trump-media.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/06/trump-fake-news-and-mainstream-media.html
So people should just accept that the mainstream media says, right?

Well said, John. A free press doesn't mean it should be free from

Childish.

Post by bigdog
criticism. Part of their job is to hold those in power accountable but
they need to be held accountable as well. That doesn't mean there should

So you believe in censorship, not the US Constitution. Then, go move to
Russia where you'll be happier.

Post by bigdog
be restrictions on what they report but their reporting needs to be
scrutinized and if they are acting irresponsibly, we are free to exercise
our First Amendment rights to point that out.

They have their own fact checkers.
YOU can shout as much as you want against the US Constitution, but I
doubt that you have the votes to eliminate it.
How did your Confederacy go? Real popular, hey?

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by John McAdams

Post by d***@gmail.com
Oh, no doubt - but only with Republicans. Trump is getting a bigger piece
of a shrinking pie. A majority of those who identify as a Republican buy
into everything Trump is telling them - including to ignore what they hear
and see from the press. They have totally bought into his Stalinist "the
press is the enemy of the people" narrative - although they exclude
FoxNews from that moniker for some curious reason.

Oh, so it's "Stalinst" to encourage a critical attitude toward the
press?

Who said Stalinist?
What Trump is doing is not Stalinist. Stalinism is dead.
What Trump is doing is like Nazism.
Nazis are not Stalinists. They FOUGHT the Battle of Stalingrad.

Post by John McAdams
But it's OK to be skeptical of Fox News?

Yes. You can be skeptical of the Bible if you wish.
Freedom of Thought.

Post by John McAdams
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/12/fake-news-about-donald-trump-compliation.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/07/more-anti-trump-media-blunders.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2018/06/more-fake-news-about-donald-trump.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/03/fake-news-from-anti-trump-media.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/06/trump-fake-news-and-mainstream-media.html
So people should just accept that the mainstream media says, right?

Are those all righwing rants by a Trumpie?
I think you should acccept it when they tell you that the Earth is
round. But that doesn't mean that it is PERFECTLY roun. It's got a fat
tummy.

Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[bigdog]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It's also an abuse of power to use the investigation to try to influence
the midterms which is what I suspect this is all about. As long as they
don't show their cards, they create the illusion they have evidence of
collusion by the Trump campaign. You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

What makes you think Robert Mueller is trying to affect mid-term
elections?

For one he was appointed as US Attorney by the Clintons and those jobs are
political plums usually given out as rewards to loyal associates. They
serve at the pleasure of the President which is why most of them are fired
when there is a change of administration. It is absurd to think Mueller
isn't highly partisan.

I don't recall any of this partisan outrage when he was first appointed,
even by the ardent pro-Trump Republicans. There was an immediate
consensus, on both sides of the aisle, that Robert Mueller is a
straight-shooter who can be trusted to conduct a fair investigation. This
even wasn't a narrative on FoxNews at the time.

There seems to be a mindset among establishment Republicans that it is
best not to rock the boat lest they be portrayed as obstructionists by the
Democrats and their media friends. It's the same wishy-washy attitude that
led them to cave time and again on budget deals. The irony is it buys them
nothing with the media who still vilify them. The Republicans were the
minority party in the Congress for so long that I think that mind set
carries over to this day. Even though they are now the majority party they
don't act like it. It's one of the reasons I am no longer a Republican.

I don't think any of the Republicans, whether considered an establishment
Republican or a Trump Republican (which really means being populist), is
particularly shy about blocking Democratic efforts. They're quite aware
that they have the majority in the both the House and Senate, having a
president with an "R" by his name, and having a majority of a conservative
justices on the bench in the Supreme Court provides a unique opportunity
to advance whatever agenda they want. I'm sure the Democrats would (and
have!) done the same thing.

Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer both announced they would have done the same
thing if a Supreme Court vacancy had come up in the last year of either
Bush Presidency. I believe both where Chairman of he Senate Judiciary
Committee at the time and both had the power to block any Bush appointee
from making it out of their committee.

Post by d***@gmail.com
In fact, it's amazing they have been unable to accomplish much more.

It gets back to what I said about them not knowing how to act like the
majority party. If they really believe the things they say they do, they
seem afraid to actually do it for fear of being vilified by the Democrats
and the media. A perfect example is Obamacare. They were more than willing
to pass one repeal/replace bill after another knowing full well Obama
would veto them all and there would be no actual consequences. Once they
had a president who was willing to actually sign one of their bills, they
got cold feet. Since McCain was a short timer, he took the bullet for the
team by casting the deciding vote against repeal but I'm sure a number of
his colleagues were happy he did it. That way they could tell their
constituents they had voted for repeal without facing a backlash from
those who wanted to keep Obamacare. It would not surprise me at all if
that deal was made behind closed doors before the vote was even taken.

Post by d***@gmail.com
The problem is always the Republicans who live in blue or purple
districts. The Democrats have the same problem - Democrats who live in red
or purple districts. Those type of legislators often do not rubber stamp
their party's efforts as a matter of political survival.

Most Republicans and Democrats in Congress stand for the same thing.
Reelection. The ones who take "principled" stands are the ones who
represent safe red or blue districts/states. I would bet few have the
courage to actually cast a vote that they judged would jeopardize their
chances for reelection. I think most go to Washington with noble
intentions but once they get there seem more interested in keeping their
seats than doing anything worthwhile with them. I always get a kick out of
the non-incumbent candidates who run ads saying they are going to do this
or that if they are elected. As if any back bencher is going to have the
power to get anything done on their own.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that we're getting a sense of where this investigation is headed, the
outrage has begun and now, all of a sudden, it's the "Mueller crime
family" as Sean Hannity put it.

Post by bigdog
His indictments have so far been of Russians who will never see the inside
of an American courtroom or for Trump associates for alleged crimes having
nothing to do with what he was appointed to investigate.
I see no evidence of that.
I see no evidence anybody in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians
to tip the election but that is the impression Mueller is creating.

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's not his fault that each new
revelation looks worse and worse for those in the Trump orbit.

Not a single one has provided evidence of Trump campaign collusion with
the Russians.

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's not
his fault that Trump keeps Tweeting and bringing the subject to the
forefront - because Mueller sure isn't talking about it. Besides, I don't
see Trump's name on any ballots.

The Democrats are trying to make this all about Trump hoping the backlash
against him will give them control of the House and maybe even the Senate
although the latter is a longshot.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Giuliani keeps talking about "getting this doggone thing over with"; yet,
I don't see how that can happen without, at least, interviewing Trump. And
Trump is the one dragging this out because I'm sure Mueller would be
willing to interview him YESTERDAY.

Any attorney worth is salt would be advising his client not to speak to
someone investigating him.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trying to dictate what the Special
Council can and cannot ask him is not the way investigations work. Trump
feigns willingness to be interviewed but is clearly reluctant to do so. He
strikes me as conspicuously defensive about this whole thing. It's the way
a person acts when they have something to hide.

If I were in Trump's shoes I wouldn't be cooperating with someone
investigating me. Nothing positive can come from that.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Innocent people are usually eager to tell their side of the story.

Nonsense. Even innocent people who are wise enough to consult with an
attorney will be advised to exercise their right to remain silent.

Sure, once it gets in the courtroom, it is often best not to testify. It's
rare that somebody who is truly innocent doesn't testify.

It's best not to talk even before it gets to court. Ask Martha Stewart.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Attorneys will advise ALL clients to remain silent prior to court
proceedings, whether innocent or guilty.

Yes they will and with good reason.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump likes to talk, however. He seldom let's the slightest criticism go
unaddressed, even when it is in his best interest to just let it go - like
most presidents have done.

I'm sure it drives his lawyers up a wall but as long as he refuses
Mueller's request for an interview, there probably is no harm in it.

Post by d***@gmail.com
You're an umpire, right? So am I. It's a hobby I love. One of the
weaknesses I see in many umpires is their inability to let things go. They
feel they have to address every bit of criticism, whether it comes from a
coach or a fan. They have rabbit ears and hear everything and react to it.
They simply cannot tolerate any criticism. Trump reminds me of one of
those type of umpires. He always has to prove that he's right. He's always
got to strike back. He always has to be a gun to fist fight.

That's always a fine line an umpire has to walk between being overly
aggressive and being too weak. Having worked professional, college and
high school baseball for almost 40 years, I can tell you that the line is
different at each level. What works at one level won't work at another. At
the pro level you have to stand your ground or you get run over. College
baseball you don't need to be quite as hard nosed but you still have to be
firm and business like and remember that the players and coaches are not
your friends even if they at times act friendly. I've found that the easy
going guys are the ones who seem to have the most success at the high
school level.

I've only done high school and college, but never professional. I agree
with everything you've said. You always umpire to the level of play. But I
think you understand my point. It's a weak umpire who has thin skin and
cannot make the distinction between "letting things go" and "shutting that
shit down."

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Yet, on this collusion issue, all he seems to be able to say are, "Witch
hunt!" and "There was no collusion." (but if there WAS collusion, it would
not be illegal. LOL)

I'll believe there was conclusion when I see some concrete evidence of it.
So far I have seen none.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I find it impossible to believe that Trump, who exercises virtually no
discipline or consistency in a host of matters, can only find a few
phrases that he repeats like a mantra when it comes with this one
issue.

Whatever you may think of his act, and it is an act, it has worked pretty
well for him up to now so why would he change?

Oh, no doubt - but only with Republicans.

It played well with the white blue collar voters as well, many of whom
were Democrats. In fact, Trump has shook up many of the traditional
coalitions in both parties. It will be interesting to see if these
realignments become permanent.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump is getting a bigger piece
of a shrinking pie. A majority of those who identify as a Republican buy
into everything Trump is telling them - including to ignore what they hear
and see from the press. They have totally bought into his Stalinist "the
press is the enemy of the people" narrative - although they exclude
FoxNews from that moniker for some curious reason.

I know Fox is a propaganda mill as well even though I agree with much of
what they are pushing. Trump has friends among some of the on air people
but as a whole, Fox doesn't like Trump any more than MSNBC or CNN. Fox is
aligned with the Republican establishment and Jeb Bush was their guy.
Trump derailed him. Karl Rove is as vocal a critic of Trump as anyone at
MSNBC or CNN.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
Why
help someone who is trying to prosecute you?

First, you are operating with the possibly false premise that Mueller
wants to prosecute Trump instead of simply getting to the facts. I think
Mueller understands that this will be his legacy and getting to the bottom
of the matter, wherever that may take him, is going to be how his legacy
will be defined.

If he reaches the end of his investigation and announces that he could
find no evidence of collusion with the Russians by any American he is
going to be seen as a failure especially by the people who have been his
allies in the past. They expect him to collect some scalps and one way or
another I'm betting he will try to do that.

That's an unjustifiably cynical view.

Cynical, yes. We'll see if it is unjustified.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I think Mueller is expected to get
to the bottom of the matter. The fact that he has run across individuals
who have committed other crimes is simply the result of people in Trump's
orbit getting caught in the crosshairs. Manafort and Cohen would probably
have been fine if they had never entered that orbit.

Probably so.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
At least Bill Clinton, for the most part, continued to run the country and
seldom commented about the ongoing Starr investigation. Trump can't let it
go for a single day.

I can think of better role models than Bill Clinton.

Well, I can certainly think of better role models as well - but I was
comparing one president under investigation by a Special Counsel to
another president who was under investigation by a Special Counsel. Apples
to apples. I wasn't hunting for a role model. I'm not sure why you framed
it that way because that wasn't my point.

You seemed to be presenting Bill Clinton as an example of how a President
under investigation should conduct himself. That seems to be the
definition of a role model.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
A person exercising their
constitutional right is not evidence that person is guilty of anything. A
perfect example is Martha Stewart. The only crime she was convicted of was
what she told the investigators. Had she clammed up, she would never have
gone to jail.

You're right about Martha Stewart. But, ultimately, she DID lie to
investigators. It wasn't an accidental lie, by the way. It was a
calculated lie. He was considering not even prosecuting her because of her
fame. It came in the it's-not-worth-it category. But once she lied, his
hands were tied. She probably could have gotten off with a fine - pocket
change to her. But she lied.
To me, it seems pretty easy to tell the truth. Apparently, this is going
to be big challenge for Trump.
I think there's much more going on than dismissing this as Trump simply
asserting his right not to make a statement and how that right is quite
routinely asserted. I think it's much more about Trump having a tendency
to ramble aimlessly, engage in hyperbole and to be lose with the facts -
let alone flat out LYING. Trump is a defense attorney's nightmare. You
can't shut him up. You can't direct him. And he thinks he's smarter than
the lawyers and investigators.

Which is exactly why he is being advised not to talk to Mueller.

Well, it makes perfect sense from a purely legal perspective. I'm not so
sure that works out so well politically - a president refusing to talk
with the special investigator on a matter that, to most reasonable people,
seems worth investigating.

Trump's enemies will continue to vilify him and his supporters will
understand why he wouldn't want to talk to Mueller. I don't see any
political fallout.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
We'll see.

Yes we will. The question is will we see before the midterm elections. I'm
betting we won't.

How can you be so sure that Mueller reaching a conclusion BEFORE midterm
elections would be either a good or bad thing for Trump?

I'm not sure of anything. We're both engaging in speculation.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Doesn't it depend
what the conclusion is? If Mueller comes to a scathing conclusion about
Russian involvement by Trump and many of his closest advisers, do you
think that would be a good thing to come out prior to November? Yet, if he
finds no finding of collusion among Trump or any members in his campaign
prior to November - that WOULD be a good thing for Republicans. So, there
is no way of knowing whether it would be "good" or "bad" until you know
what the Special Counsel finds - right?

That's why I am taking a wait and see attitude. That doesn't mean I can't
speculate about what is going on. You and I are looking at the same tea
leaves but reading them quite differently.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I don't pretend to know what it will be - but I have a sense where it's
heading. You seem to know that Mueller has found nothing. I don't know
what he's found because he's not talking, tweeting or going on daily
rants.

I have consistently said I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think that
indicates I know anything. Unlike our friends who argue for JFK
assassination conspiracies, I know what I know and I know what I am
speculating about. Is it possible Mueller is going to have the goods on
Trump? Of course it is. I'm just not going to believe it until I see it.
Do I know Mueller is refusing to show his cards for political reasons. Of
course I don't. That is just my suspicion.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It's also an abuse of power to use the investigation to try to influence
the midterms which is what I suspect this is all about. As long as they
don't show their cards, they create the illusion they have evidence of
collusion by the Trump campaign. You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

What makes you think Robert Mueller is trying to affect mid-term
elections?

For one he was appointed as US Attorney by the Clintons and those jobs are
political plums usually given out as rewards to loyal associates. They
serve at the pleasure of the President which is why most of them are fired
when there is a change of administration. It is absurd to think Mueller
isn't highly partisan.

I don't recall any of this partisan outrage when he was first appointed,
even by the ardent pro-Trump Republicans. There was an immediate
consensus, on both sides of the aisle, that Robert Mueller is a
straight-shooter who can be trusted to conduct a fair investigation. This
even wasn't a narrative on FoxNews at the time.

There seems to be a mindset among establishment Republicans that it is
best not to rock the boat lest they be portrayed as obstructionists by the
Democrats and their media friends. It's the same wishy-washy attitude that
led them to cave time and again on budget deals. The irony is it buys them
nothing with the media who still vilify them. The Republicans were the
minority party in the Congress for so long that I think that mind set
carries over to this day. Even though they are now the majority party they
don't act like it. It's one of the reasons I am no longer a Republican.

I don't think any of the Republicans, whether considered an establishment
Republican or a Trump Republican (which really means being populist), is
particularly shy about blocking Democratic efforts. They're quite aware
that they have the majority in the both the House and Senate, having a
president with an "R" by his name, and having a majority of a conservative
justices on the bench in the Supreme Court provides a unique opportunity
to advance whatever agenda they want. I'm sure the Democrats would (and
have!) done the same thing.

Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer both announced they would have done the same
thing if a Supreme Court vacancy had come up in the last year of either
Bush Presidency. I believe both where Chairman of he Senate Judiciary
Committee at the time and both had the power to block any Bush appointee
from making it out of their committee.

What? Tell me which Republicans the blocked and why.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
In fact, it's amazing they have been unable to accomplish much more.

Recovery Act? Obamacare?

Post by bigdog
It gets back to what I said about them not knowing how to act like the
majority party. If they really believe the things they say they do, they
seem afraid to actually do it for fear of being vilified by the Democrats
and the media. A perfect example is Obamacare. They were more than willing
to pass one repeal/replace bill after another knowing full well Obama
would veto them all and there would be no actual consequences. Once they
had a president who was willing to actually sign one of their bills, they
got cold feet. Since McCain was a short timer, he took the bullet for the
team by casting the deciding vote against repeal but I'm sure a number of
his colleagues were happy he did it. That way they could tell their
constituents they had voted for repeal without facing a backlash from
those who wanted to keep Obamacare. It would not surprise me at all if
that deal was made behind closed doors before the vote was even taken.

Maybe you're not old enough to remember the Tea Party, funded by the JBS
founder Koch brothers. Obama got major things passed when the Democrats
had control of Congreess in the first 2 years. Then the Nazis rallied and
overtook the COngress so Obama couldn't get anything passed and had to do
everything by executive order.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
The problem is always the Republicans who live in blue or purple
districts. The Democrats have the same problem - Democrats who live in red
or purple districts. Those type of legislators often do not rubber stamp
their party's efforts as a matter of political survival.

Most Republicans and Democrats in Congress stand for the same thing.

False. Some get sick of it and don't run again.

Post by bigdog
Reelection. The ones who take "principled" stands are the ones who
represent safe red or blue districts/states. I would bet few have the
courage to actually cast a vote that they judged would jeopardize their
chances for reelection. I think most go to Washington with noble
intentions but once they get there seem more interested in keeping their
seats than doing anything worthwhile with them. I always get a kick out of
the non-incumbent candidates who run ads saying they are going to do this
or that if they are elected. As if any back bencher is going to have the
power to get anything done on their own.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that we're getting a sense of where this investigation is headed, the
outrage has begun and now, all of a sudden, it's the "Mueller crime
family" as Sean Hannity put it.

Post by bigdog
His indictments have so far been of Russians who will never see the inside
of an American courtroom or for Trump associates for alleged crimes having
nothing to do with what he was appointed to investigate.
I see no evidence of that.
I see no evidence anybody in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians
to tip the election but that is the impression Mueller is creating.

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's not his fault that each new
revelation looks worse and worse for those in the Trump orbit.

Not a single one has provided evidence of Trump campaign collusion with
the Russians.

Post by d***@gmail.com
It's not
his fault that Trump keeps Tweeting and bringing the subject to the
forefront - because Mueller sure isn't talking about it. Besides, I don't
see Trump's name on any ballots.

The Democrats are trying to make this all about Trump hoping the backlash
against him will give them control of the House and maybe even the Senate
although the latter is a longshot.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Giuliani keeps talking about "getting this doggone thing over with"; yet,
I don't see how that can happen without, at least, interviewing Trump. And
Trump is the one dragging this out because I'm sure Mueller would be
willing to interview him YESTERDAY.

Any attorney worth is salt would be advising his client not to speak to
someone investigating him.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trying to dictate what the Special
Council can and cannot ask him is not the way investigations work. Trump
feigns willingness to be interviewed but is clearly reluctant to do so. He
strikes me as conspicuously defensive about this whole thing. It's the way
a person acts when they have something to hide.

If I were in Trump's shoes I wouldn't be cooperating with someone
investigating me. Nothing positive can come from that.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Innocent people are usually eager to tell their side of the story.

Nonsense. Even innocent people who are wise enough to consult with an
attorney will be advised to exercise their right to remain silent.

Sure, once it gets in the courtroom, it is often best not to testify. It's
rare that somebody who is truly innocent doesn't testify.

It's best not to talk even before it gets to court. Ask Martha Stewart.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Attorneys will advise ALL clients to remain silent prior to court
proceedings, whether innocent or guilty.

Yes they will and with good reason.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump likes to talk, however. He seldom let's the slightest criticism go
unaddressed, even when it is in his best interest to just let it go - like
most presidents have done.

I'm sure it drives his lawyers up a wall but as long as he refuses
Mueller's request for an interview, there probably is no harm in it.

Post by d***@gmail.com
You're an umpire, right? So am I. It's a hobby I love. One of the
weaknesses I see in many umpires is their inability to let things go. They
feel they have to address every bit of criticism, whether it comes from a
coach or a fan. They have rabbit ears and hear everything and react to it.
They simply cannot tolerate any criticism. Trump reminds me of one of
those type of umpires. He always has to prove that he's right. He's always
got to strike back. He always has to be a gun to fist fight.

That's always a fine line an umpire has to walk between being overly
aggressive and being too weak. Having worked professional, college and
high school baseball for almost 40 years, I can tell you that the line is
different at each level. What works at one level won't work at another. At
the pro level you have to stand your ground or you get run over. College
baseball you don't need to be quite as hard nosed but you still have to be
firm and business like and remember that the players and coaches are not
your friends even if they at times act friendly. I've found that the easy
going guys are the ones who seem to have the most success at the high
school level.

I've only done high school and college, but never professional. I agree
with everything you've said. You always umpire to the level of play. But I
think you understand my point. It's a weak umpire who has thin skin and
cannot make the distinction between "letting things go" and "shutting that
shit down."

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
Yet, on this collusion issue, all he seems to be able to say are, "Witch
hunt!" and "There was no collusion." (but if there WAS collusion, it would
not be illegal. LOL)

I'll believe there was conclusion when I see some concrete evidence of it.
So far I have seen none.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I find it impossible to believe that Trump, who exercises virtually no
discipline or consistency in a host of matters, can only find a few
phrases that he repeats like a mantra when it comes with this one
issue.

Whatever you may think of his act, and it is an act, it has worked pretty
well for him up to now so why would he change?

Oh, no doubt - but only with Republicans.

It played well with the white blue collar voters as well, many of whom
were Democrats. In fact, Trump has shook up many of the traditional
coalitions in both parties. It will be interesting to see if these
realignments become permanent.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump is getting a bigger piece
of a shrinking pie. A majority of those who identify as a Republican buy
into everything Trump is telling them - including to ignore what they hear
and see from the press. They have totally bought into his Stalinist "the
press is the enemy of the people" narrative - although they exclude
FoxNews from that moniker for some curious reason.

I know Fox is a propaganda mill as well even though I agree with much of
what they are pushing. Trump has friends among some of the on air people
but as a whole, Fox doesn't like Trump any more than MSNBC or CNN. Fox is
aligned with the Republican establishment and Jeb Bush was their guy.
Trump derailed him. Karl Rove is as vocal a critic of Trump as anyone at
MSNBC or CNN.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
Why
help someone who is trying to prosecute you?

First, you are operating with the possibly false premise that Mueller
wants to prosecute Trump instead of simply getting to the facts. I think
Mueller understands that this will be his legacy and getting to the bottom
of the matter, wherever that may take him, is going to be how his legacy
will be defined.

If he reaches the end of his investigation and announces that he could
find no evidence of collusion with the Russians by any American he is
going to be seen as a failure especially by the people who have been his
allies in the past. They expect him to collect some scalps and one way or
another I'm betting he will try to do that.

That's an unjustifiably cynical view.

Cynical, yes. We'll see if it is unjustified.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I think Mueller is expected to get
to the bottom of the matter. The fact that he has run across individuals
who have committed other crimes is simply the result of people in Trump's
orbit getting caught in the crosshairs. Manafort and Cohen would probably
have been fine if they had never entered that orbit.

Probably so.

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
At least Bill Clinton, for the most part, continued to run the country and
seldom commented about the ongoing Starr investigation. Trump can't let it
go for a single day.

I can think of better role models than Bill Clinton.

Well, I can certainly think of better role models as well - but I was
comparing one president under investigation by a Special Counsel to
another president who was under investigation by a Special Counsel. Apples
to apples. I wasn't hunting for a role model. I'm not sure why you framed
it that way because that wasn't my point.

You seemed to be presenting Bill Clinton as an example of how a President
under investigation should conduct himself. That seems to be the
definition of a role model.

No, silly.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
A person exercising their
constitutional right is not evidence that person is guilty of anything. A
perfect example is Martha Stewart. The only crime she was convicted of was
what she told the investigators. Had she clammed up, she would never have
gone to jail.

You're right about Martha Stewart. But, ultimately, she DID lie to
investigators. It wasn't an accidental lie, by the way. It was a
calculated lie. He was considering not even prosecuting her because of her
fame. It came in the it's-not-worth-it category. But once she lied, his
hands were tied. She probably could have gotten off with a fine - pocket
change to her. But she lied.
To me, it seems pretty easy to tell the truth. Apparently, this is going
to be big challenge for Trump.
I think there's much more going on than dismissing this as Trump simply
asserting his right not to make a statement and how that right is quite
routinely asserted. I think it's much more about Trump having a tendency
to ramble aimlessly, engage in hyperbole and to be lose with the facts -
let alone flat out LYING. Trump is a defense attorney's nightmare. You
can't shut him up. You can't direct him. And he thinks he's smarter than
the lawyers and investigators.

Which is exactly why he is being advised not to talk to Mueller.

Well, it makes perfect sense from a purely legal perspective. I'm not so
sure that works out so well politically - a president refusing to talk
with the special investigator on a matter that, to most reasonable people,
seems worth investigating.

Trump's enemies will continue to vilify him and his supporters will
understand why he wouldn't want to talk to Mueller. I don't see any
political fallout.

Mueller knows he will have to subpoena Trump, but he's trying to be fare
for the sake of appearances.

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog

Post by d***@gmail.com
We'll see.

Yes we will. The question is will we see before the midterm elections. I'm
betting we won't.

How can you be so sure that Mueller reaching a conclusion BEFORE midterm
elections would be either a good or bad thing for Trump?

I'm not sure of anything. We're both engaging in speculation.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Doesn't it depend
what the conclusion is? If Mueller comes to a scathing conclusion about
Russian involvement by Trump and many of his closest advisers, do you
think that would be a good thing to come out prior to November? Yet, if he
finds no finding of collusion among Trump or any members in his campaign
prior to November - that WOULD be a good thing for Republicans. So, there
is no way of knowing whether it would be "good" or "bad" until you know
what the Special Counsel finds - right?

That's why I am taking a wait and see attitude. That doesn't mean I can't
speculate about what is going on. You and I are looking at the same tea
leaves but reading them quite differently.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I don't pretend to know what it will be - but I have a sense where it's
heading. You seem to know that Mueller has found nothing. I don't know
what he's found because he's not talking, tweeting or going on daily
rants.

I have consistently said I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think that

But you never look so how can you see?

Post by bigdog
indicates I know anything. Unlike our friends who argue for JFK
assassination conspiracies, I know what I know and I know what I am
speculating about. Is it possible Mueller is going to have the goods on
Trump? Of course it is. I'm just not going to believe it until I see it.
Do I know Mueller is refusing to show his cards for political reasons. Of
course I don't. That is just my suspicion.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It's also an abuse of power to use the investigation to try to influence
the midterms which is what I suspect this is all about. As long as they
don't show their cards, they create the illusion they have evidence of
collusion by the Trump campaign. You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

What makes you think Robert Mueller is trying to affect mid-term
elections? I see no evidence of that. It's not his fault that each new

As far as I know, none of the subjects of his probe are running in the
primaries or mid-terms.

Post by d***@gmail.com
revelation looks worse and worse for those in the Trump orbit. It's not

Every time Trump speaks or Tweets he inciminates himself.

Post by d***@gmail.com
his fault that Trump keeps Tweeting and bringing the subject to the
forefront - because Mueller sure isn't talking about it. Besides, I don't
see Trump's name on any ballots.
Giuliani keeps talking about "getting this doggone thing over with"; yet,

What HE means is dropped.

Post by d***@gmail.com
I don't see how that can happen without, at least, interviewing Trump. And
Trump is the one dragging this out because I'm sure Mueller would be
willing to interview him YESTERDAY. Trying to dictate what the Special
Council can and cannot ask him is not the way investigations work. Trump
feigns willingness to be interviewed but is clearly reluctant to do so. He
strikes me as conspicuously defensive about this whole thing. It's the way
a person acts when they have something to hide. Innocent people are
usually eager to tell their side of the story.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by bigdog
It's also an abuse of power to use the investigation to try to influence
the midterms which is what I suspect this is all about. As long as they
don't show their cards, they create the illusion they have evidence of
collusion by the Trump campaign. You don't have to influence that many
voters to tip an election one way or the other.

What makes you think Robert Mueller is trying to affect mid-term
elections? I see no evidence of that. It's not his fault that each new
revelation looks worse and worse for those in the Trump orbit. It's not
his fault that Trump keeps Tweeting and bringing the subject to the
forefront - because Mueller sure isn't talking about it. Besides, I don't
see Trump's name on any ballots.

Trump routinely uses swear words that we are not allowed to repear here.

Post by d***@gmail.com
Giuliani keeps talking about "getting this doggone thing over with"; yet,
I don't see how that can happen without, at least, interviewing Trump. And
Trump is the one dragging this out because I'm sure Mueller would be
willing to interview him YESTERDAY. Trying to dictate what the Special
Council can and cannot ask him is not the way investigations work. Trump
feigns willingness to be interviewed but is clearly reluctant to do so. He
strikes me as conspicuously defensive about this whole thing. It's the way
a person acts when they have something to hide. Innocent people are
usually eager to tell their side of the story.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they???ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won???t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that???s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that

Well, there's your answer. Anyone who opposes Fascism. Must hate Trump.

Post by bigdog
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't

OK, you can force Trump out, but then Pence takes over.

Post by bigdog
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they???ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won???t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that???s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that

So you're against resisting Fascism?

Post by bigdog
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't

I don't see how street protests would do it, but go head and have some
fun.

Post by bigdog
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope

Who? Maybe the author knows that the electoral process doesn't work, as
the 2016 election proved.

Post by bigdog
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

[Jason Burke]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they???ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won???t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that???s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that

So you're against resisting Fascism?

Post by bigdog
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't

I don't see how street protests would do it, but go head and have some fun.

Post by bigdog
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope

Who? Maybe the author knows that the electoral process doesn't work, as
the 2016 election proved.

Post by bigdog
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Damn idiots 240 years ago.
Had no idea what they were doing.
I'm glad we have Anthony Anthony to straighten all of this out to us.

[bigdog]

Post by Jason Burke

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they???ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won???t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that???s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that

So you're against resisting Fascism?

Post by bigdog
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't

I don't see how street protests would do it, but go head and have some fun.

Post by bigdog
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope

Who? Maybe the author knows that the electoral process doesn't work, as
the 2016 election proved.

Post by bigdog
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Damn idiots 240 years ago.
Had no idea what they were doing.
I'm glad we have Anthony Anthony to straighten all of this out to us.

Damn founding fathers invented the electoral college just so they could
jam Trump up our noses. The electoral process didn't work in 2016 because
it didn't yield the outcome Marsh desired.

[Jason Burke]

Post by bigdog

Post by Jason Burke

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they???ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won???t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that???s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that

So you're against resisting Fascism?

Post by bigdog
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't

I don't see how street protests would do it, but go head and have some fun.

Post by bigdog
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope

Who? Maybe the author knows that the electoral process doesn't work, as
the 2016 election proved.

Post by bigdog
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Damn idiots 240 years ago.
Had no idea what they were doing.
I'm glad we have Anthony Anthony to straighten all of this out to us.

Damn founding fathers invented the electoral college just so they could
jam Trump up our noses. The electoral process didn't work in 2016 because
it didn't yield the outcome Marsh desired.

I'm just wondering how long Anthony Anthony can hold his breath while
jumping up and down and complaining.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by Jason Burke

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they???ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won???t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that???s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that

So you're against resisting Fascism?

Post by bigdog
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't

I don't see how street protests would do it, but go head and have some fun.

Post by bigdog
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope

Who? Maybe the author knows that the electoral process doesn't work, as
the 2016 election proved.

Post by bigdog
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Damn idiots 240 years ago.
Had no idea what they were doing.
I'm glad we have Anthony Anthony to straighten all of this out to us.

Damn founding fathers invented the electoral college just so they could
jam Trump up our noses. The electoral process didn't work in 2016 because
it didn't yield the outcome Marsh desired.

I wanted Bernie. Hillary was the lesser of the 2 evils.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Jason Burke

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog
I just read across an article by some kook who also thinks
gerrymandering
"Look around, and ask yourself: what are these dirtbags willing to do to
stay in power? The answer is obvious: anything. How did they achieve power
in the first place? By cheating: gerrymandering, fraud, hacking,
disenfranchisement, etc. Now they???ve been there for nearly two
years. The Democrats won the 2016 election by three million votes, and
look at where we are; do you really think 2018 is going to be any better?
(And I won???t get into how ineffective the Democratic leadership
has been; that???s a whole other can of worms.)"
The article is by a Perry Hoberman, a USC professor and spokesperson for a
far left wacko organization call Resist Fascism. He is advocating that

So you're against resisting Fascism?

Post by bigdog
Democrats bypass the electoral process and take to the streets to force
the Trump/Pence administration out of office. It's no wonder he doesn't

I don't see how street protests would do it, but go head and have some fun.

Post by bigdog
want to use the electoral process to achieve his goals since he doesn't
even understand how it works. You can read the whole article here. I hope

Who? Maybe the author knows that the electoral process doesn't work,
as the 2016 election proved.

Post by bigdog
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/20/you-cant-vote-out-fascism-you-have-to-drive-it-from-power/

Damn idiots 240 years ago.
Had no idea what they were doing.
I'm glad we have Anthony Anthony to straighten all of this out to us.

It SOUNDED like a good idea at the time. So did Socialism.