I think if you’re not on “my side” at this point you’re on the wrong side. That’s my point. Anyone who can look at both sides of American politics and say “well both sides” at this point is mental.
Here's a thought. Maybe both sides are wrong. Maybe there are more than two sides.
Ask yourselves this question. Are there things the Democrats do that you think is not just wrong, but completely wrong? On that issue, do you think the Republicans are also completely wrong?
I think you'll find the majority of the American population disagree with both political parties on a number of things. Which suggests it's perfectly possible to not be on either of their sides, and yet not be wrong.
If you need to hear it one more time, here you go: I agree, the Republicans are wrong on many things, and wrong on this. Unfortunately, that does not by default make you right.
But we don't have the justification for the conclusions yet. How can we possibly reflect on what was apparently misinterpreted when we don't yet have explanations for those things?
The amount of smoke over the Trump/Russia connection is overwhelming, so if the fire is somewhere other than under Trump's fat ass then we need to understand where the fire actually is to be able to properly understand what's gone on.
I don't know how people will respond when all the facts are available, but you're willing to judge people for actions they haven't yet taken based on information we don't yet have and I'm not there yet. Like I said you're skipping the second act.
Here's a thought. Maybe both sides are wrong. Maybe there are more than two sides.
Ask yourselves this question. Are there things the Democrats do that you think is not just wrong, but completely wrong? On that issue, do you think the Republicans are also completely wrong?
I think you'll find the majority of the American population disagree with both political parties on a number of things. Which suggests it's perfectly possible to not be on either of their sides, and yet not be wrong.
If you need to hear it one more time, here you go: I agree, the Republicans are wrong on many things, and wrong on this. Unfortunately, that does not by default make you right.
This is not a discussion about how good or bad both parties are.
This is about Trumps crimes.
Financial and Treason.
The Democrats are are trying to get to the bottom of what he has done.
the Republicans are fighting to prevent that even though they have been briefed by government agencies that Trump is a danger to the United States.
In other news....Trump has kicked off again on Twitter. He’s ranting about “ no collusion” and “crooked Hilary and Angry Democrats, the Steele dossier was a “Con job” etc.
This is not a discussion about how good or bad both parties are.
This is about Trumps crimes.
Financial and Treason.
The Democrats are are trying to get to the bottom of what he has done.
the Republicans are fighting to prevent that even though they have been briefed by government agencies that Trump is a danger to the United States.
The discussion you're having is not the discussion I was having, nor the point I was responding to. If you don't want to listen to other people I'm not sure it's worth your time talking at them.
Let me clarify. The question of which side I am on, came directly from this:
However one side is clearly in the wrong. One side has clearly got massive issues and is xenophobic and willing to misbelieve facts on a massive scale.
You've taken it on a tangent and then told me the discussion was about something else. If you would like to have a discussion about something different then I suggest there are better ways to do it.
I am not on @Wumminator's side, and I am not on Trump's side. I think most people would agree the world is more complicated than that. Unfortunately the toxic political atmosphere makes it impossible to say such a thing without being attacked. I'm not sure why you believe that is helpful, nor why we're forced to keep having this circular argument. If you don't want to listen to my view then stop trying to enter into a discussion with me. I can assure you I'm as bored of saying it as people are of hearing it. But I'm forced to when people misrepresent what I say or believe.
A lot of democrats such as Adam Schiff were consistent throughout - claiming to have seen collusion through contacts (TT meeting et all) but uncertain if those interactions rose to the level of a criminal conspiracy with Mueller tasked to find out. Knowing this and without seeing the report I'm unsure how Mueller's subsequent determination is "bad for democrats".
The press have reported on the various developments throughout the last couple of years. To have ignored the story until they were certain there was a chargeable case at the end of it would have been journalistic malpractice.
It's fair to state certain media personalities spent far too much time on the story (Maddow chief amongst them) and that certain prominent democrats gave soundbites lacking proper context or caveats (Swalwell, Speier and others). It's also fair to state that many talking heads were wrong in their assumption the case would conclude with members of the Trump family going to jail though given the amount of lying and plea deals handed out it's understandable why many thought this.
It's unfair to place all who followed this story or commented in the relevant thread in the same bucket. Some people were way over their skis (anyone mentioning treason) but the majority were simply discussing a fascinating topic concerning the most bonkers campaign and administration in modern Presidential history.
If the report claims the Trump campaign was squeaky clean without a hint of a Russian then yeah, the report will be bad for the media and the dems but until it's actually released the only people in the wrong are those attempting to make judgements on it.
The discussion you're having is not the discussion I was having, nor the point I was responding to. If you don't want to listen to other people I'm not sure it's worth your time talking at them.
Let me clarify. The question of which side I am on, came directly from this:
You've taken it on a tangent and then told me the discussion was about something else. If you would like to have a discussion about something different then I suggest there are better ways to do it.
I am not on @Wumminator's side, and I am not on Trump's side. I think most people would agree the world is more complicated than that. Unfortunately the toxic political atmosphere makes it impossible to say such a thing without being attacked. I'm not sure why you believe that is helpful, nor why we're forced to keep having this circular argument. If you don't want to listen to my view then stop trying to enter into a discussion with me. I can assure you I'm as bored of saying it as people are of hearing it. But I'm forced to when people misrepresent what I say or believe.
If you didn’t comment on the months of speculation on the horrendous things that Trump has done, but then come in here and start accusing people against Trump of “doing exactly what the right wing has done” you’ve picked a side.
A lot of democrats such as Adam Schiff were consistent throughout - claiming to have seen collusion through contacts (TT meeting et all) but uncertain if those interactions rose to the level of a criminal conspiracy with Mueller tasked to find out. Knowing this and without seeing the report I'm unsure how Mueller's subsequent determination is "bad for democrats".
The press have reported on the various developments throughout the last couple of years. To have ignored the story until they were certain there was a chargeable case at the end of it would have been journalistic malpractice.
It's fair to state certain media personalities spent far too much time on the story (Maddow chief amongst them) and that certain prominent democrats gave soundbites lacking proper context or caveats (Swalwell, Speier and others). It's also fair to state that many talking heads were wrong in their assumption the case would conclude with members of the Trump family going to jail though given the amount of lying and plea deals handed out it's understandable why many thought this.
It's unfair to place all who followed this story or commented in the relevant thread in the same bucket. Some people were way over their skis (anyone mentioning treason) but the majority were simply discussing a fascinating topic concerning the most bonkers campaign and administration in modern Presidential history.
If the report claims the Trump campaign was squeaky clean without a hint of a Russian then yeah, the report will be bad for the media and the dems but until it's actually released the only people in the wrong are those attempting to make judgements on it.
If you didn’t comment on the months of speculation on the horrendous things that Trump has done, but then come in here and start accusing people against Trump of “doing exactly what the right wing has done” you’ve picked a side.
As far as I can tell Trump's a buffon, a lunatic and him being in such a powerful position presents a very real threat to American democratic institutions and society more generally. I despair at the fact so many people thought he was in any way capable of taking on such a responsibility and it saddens me even more that people continue to blindly defend plainly absurd decisions on his part.
Brilliant. Announces he's under investigation in the first two minutes, spends the next 5 explaining he isn't under investigation and talking about his theory on mind reading, and then spends the last 2 minutes explaining that expanding legal team is there purely in preparation for or response to an investigation.
I've gone past the stage of being dismayed by his stupidity but it makes me sad to think there are people out there that genuinely relate to that kind of behaviour, especially from someone in a position of authority.
In terms of the potential legal ramifications, this is a pretty decent summary. The essential point is that Trump Jr. may well get out of it, but it's extremely problematic for Kushner. He can't pretend he didn't know she was Russian because a) she spoke Russian and communicated through a translator and b) he was in the e-mail chain named "Russia - Clinton - private and confidential". He's signed a form and then amended it excluding this meeting both times, which is pretty clearly in violation of federal law.
Trump Jr. is only legally liable in terms of campaign financing and the people that lead that kind of legal prosecution typically don't do much about it. Kushner is liable for a lot more - the maximum sentence is 5 years in prison for simply being aware of and attending this meeting and not disclosing it. It's pretty much impossible to sweep that one under the rug. The question isn't whether anything will come out of this, but rather whether it will lead to anything much worse.
So Fox News have stooped to saying that if they investigate Trump long enough, they'll inevitably unearth something substantial. The line is "if you've been to Russia, you won't survive a forensic look into your finances". So he's undoubedly guilty...but that's ok, because the voters knew that already - they knew he wouldn't publish his taxes - and voted for him anyway. The FBI, DOJ and everyone else should just ignore it and let him get on with the job.
He's visibily flustered by the "threat" they're faced, in this case the threat of someone carrying out a thorough investigation of the most powerful person in the country in relation to their involvement with Russia. He's basically saying the threat to democracy is effective enforcement of law at the highest levels. He doesn't give a shit about America, he only cares about his America. I'm amazed this kind of thing exists in the mainstream media.
@SteveJ He's done a lot of terrifyingly inhumane things, but I'm not sure anything is worse than this. The reality of the story is awful but the fact he still manages to make it about himself, and embellishes it to make it even more crude and insult the injured man in the process, says so much about who he is.
I think it's fascinating personally. He's a living embodiment of the rejection of objective truth. The media portray it as him tearing down that pillar of modern society, but I think it's much more a case of him exposing the erosion of it in wider society. He himself rejects it but he also clearly recognises huge portions of the population do too. Exposing that is ultimately good for society I think. It hasn't quite led to a constructive discussion but I think it will.
I'm a proud "lefty" who thinks Trump has almost certainly broken multiple laws, and very possibly is influenced by Putin in a significant way. You can find plenty of evidence of that if you care to look, rather than decide to do whatever it is you're doing now.
It's so weird that you think I have something to run away from. I've already said in this thread, and to you directly, that I think he was involved in some kind of Russian "collusion" and that he, in my opinion, committed obstruction of justice. Unless I frame those statements in the sensationalist and conspiratorial terms you're comfortable with, you refuse to hear them. I'm not sure what you expect me to do about that. You're misunderstanding me because you're choosing not to listen.
again with the weird assumptions. No I have always acknowledged that the Russians interfered and I still believe the minor collusion that has been established among various members of the Trump campaign is a significant thing to uncover in American politics.
It's not a small claim to make. To say they attempted to influence the results is well founded. To say they decided the result requires a huge amount of evidence to substantiate it. You don't decide the election is illegitimate based on spurious evidence. That undermines everything.
A summary of the report was an established first step in the process, before he took that step. And he has already said the next step will be releasing a version of the full report, minus the grand jury testimony. He might be exaggerating that 2nd part but to come to the conclusion he's discredited himself already is so detached from reality, man. Just on the facts alone.
Yes I'd say it's highly likely that the report will contain damning evidence, given what we've seen take place in public, and what Barr has already said:
Why would the AG need to discuss "difficult issues" of law with the Office of Legal Counsel to determine whether to prosecute the president, if there wasn't substantive evidence? That's a Trump appointee telling you right there that he wasn't sure whether or not the president committed a crime, and he had to investigate it with the help of an organisation that "typically deal with legal issues of particular complexity and importance or about which two or more agencies are in disagreement", i.e. folks who deal with particularly tricky legal issues.
Even just on the Russian conspiracy, we have very little clue what this refers to:
Given that Kushner was considered a national security risk, Flynn was kicked out without much explanation, and the very limited detail we do have on Russian contacts, there's plenty of reason to suspect this alludes to something very serious. He provided absolutely zero detail on it because it was unrelated to whether or not Trump and co. committed a crime in doing so, but that doesn't mean they didn't fumble their incompetent asses into some shady shit.
They're from this thread, the Trump Russia thread, and the Trump thread. Here's one just from a couple of days ago, in this very thread, already addressing your broader point. Or here's a couple of ones talking specifically about Trump being a crook in his past life, or dodgy stuff he's done in his presidency:
That's amazing. So the reality is if there's enough political will for it, it won't be hard to take Trump out. It's amazing how we've got this far when reporting on his dodgy dealings has been so rigorous, by reputable news and legal sources, and given the context of who those deals have taken place with.
I reckon that 3rd point could be really key at some point. There's already a very curious financial link between the inaugural committee and Trump's family directly. The fact that the deputy chairman is this dude who was deeply involved in money laundering and fraud during exactly the same time when $26m - nearly 1/4 of the overall funds raised, and more money than was paid to any one company for Obama's much larger inauguration - went to this strange company...you have to think there's something there. The very fact this money went to that organisation requires some serious investigation itself. Now you've got a key player in that committee admitting to all this financial wrongdoing at exactly the same time...it absolutely has to be part of the wider investigation.
I reckon Mueller and co. will happily bide their time building the case given the fact the longer it goes on, the more the likes of Trump Jr. give away critical info. and Trump Snr. interferes and possibly obstructs the investigation. No point going all out as early as possible when all the Trump's do is make things worse for themselves. The fact their are lawyers shooting themselves in the foot is totally ridiculous though. What're they getting paid to do?!
That's one of the issues that comes with picking sides, in the way you're talking about. It compels you to attack people that aren't on your side, even if those attacks are predicated on baseless assumptions. "If someone really thinks Trump is a crook, they have to be on my side. Otherwise they're probably just lying about it to protect themselves." That's the kind of logic it helps fuel, and unfortunately, it's categorically untrue. Yet people keep doing it, and never apologising for when they've misrepresented that person's view, and assassinated their character in the process. That's tragic, IMO.
A lot of democrats such as Adam Schiff were consistent throughout - claiming to have seen collusion through contacts (TT meeting et all) but uncertain if those interactions rose to the level of a criminal conspiracy with Mueller tasked to find out. Knowing this and without seeing the report I'm unsure how Mueller's subsequent determination is "bad for democrats".
The press have reported on the various developments throughout the last couple of years. To have ignored the story until they were certain there was a chargeable case at the end of it would have been journalistic malpractice.
It's fair to state certain media personalities spent far too much time on the story (Maddow chief amongst them) and that certain prominent democrats gave soundbites lacking proper context or caveats (Swalwell, Speier and others). It's also fair to state that many talking heads were wrong in their assumption the case would conclude with members of the Trump family going to jail though given the amount of lying and plea deals handed out it's understandable why many thought this.
It's unfair to place all who followed this story or commented in the relevant thread in the same bucket. Some people were way over their skis (anyone mentioning treason) but the majority were simply discussing a fascinating topic concerning the most bonkers campaign and administration in modern Presidential history.
If the report claims the Trump campaign was squeaky clean without a hint of a Russian then yeah, the report will be bad for the media and the dems but until it's actually released the only people in the wrong are those attempting to make judgements on it.
My memory is that Schiff exaggerated the importance of some facts in the case, in a similar way way to how Republicans are now exaggerating the importance of this Barr memo by describing it as a complete exoneration of the president and a demonstration that it was a witch hunt all along. There's an kernel of truth in there, but it's being used as a political weapon. However without having read / listened to Schiff's comments throughout the investigation in a long time, maybe I'm wrong - maybe he did come out of it looking good. I'll have a browse through some of his previous comments over the next week or so, and if I come to the same conclusion I'll happily agree to it here. Otherwise I'll post the the things that I think Schiff said which don't look that great to me, and we can debate the substance of it. However there were a lot of democrats talking about it, not just Schiff, and I think their approach on the whole reflects badly on them. If they had all been as measured as Schiff then I probably would've felt differently.
I totally agree with you that they had to report the developments of the case, albeit I think there was far too much time spent on it when time could have been better spent elsewhere. I don't blame journalists for that, it's just a function of the commercial model they exist in, but I do think it had negative consequences. I think there was some excellent journalism done as part of it too. However I think there was some very bad demonstrations of journalism in there also, and maybe I'm wrong to, but I expect journalists to do their job to much higher ethical standards than most other jobs - so when they fall below that high standard, that to me reflects badly on them. Its role as the fourth estate creates those high standards, in my mind. If we place that much importance on their role in dealing with social and political issues, then we need them to live up to that all the time. And on the occasions that they don't, I think it's justified that they face serious criticism for it. I think reasonable people can disagree on that.
I agree with you that everyone is not in that bucket. I think the majority of people that posted in the Trump Russia thread - the hundreds of posters - did not get carried away. However I think a significant portion of the most active contributors to that thread did. Again, I think reasonable people can disagree on this, and I don't think our views are as far apart as has been portrayed.
I think we can safely assume that this will be crafted to be as politically insignificant and imprecise as possible while the GOP keep the clock running to do as they want until they're forced to hand over the full report to Congress.
Barr says that he didn’t speak to Mueller (although he was asked) about reviewing his letter of the 24th March. Bit discourteous that! And who did ask Mueller then?
@Brwned what do you make of Barr and his summary now after his testimony this week?
It's pretty obvious he's putting Trump/the GOP above country. Given everything we know Trump and the GOP are, I'd say they're trying their absolute best to quash this in the most partisan of manners. It's gotta be horrendous if they're trying this hard.
To be released in tandem with the Trump rebuttal which will nicely fill in the color-coded blanks and inform us all about how everything was a big lie. Ridiculous.
Barr Cover up report...different from Mueller report. Barr report is just a DOJ propaganda.
WH report contradicting Mueller report will be fake news.
We will still need to see the Mueller report.
It wouldn't surprise me if they've made a big issue of not releasing it to maximise the 'i told you so' effect when it is released. And to deflect from current issues.
If there's feck all in it, it makes the dems look worse than if it was released when Mueller submitted it.
I will never cease to be amazed by how brazenly the GOP abuse political norms.
I genuinely can't understand how they live with themselves.
It's like if Maradonna had, after getting away with punching a ball, started catching and throwing the ball, running with it in his arms and the ref just saying play to the whistle. They've so thoroughly ignored the rules the other team has no idea what the game even is anymore.
I will never cease to be amazed by how brazenly the GOP abuse political norms.
I genuinely can't understand how they live with themselves.
It's like if Maradonna had, after getting away with punching a ball, started catching and throwing the ball, running with it in his arms and the ref just saying play to the whistle. They've so thoroughly ignored the rules the other team has no idea what the game even is anymore.
Yeah, pretty much this. Of course the second they lose the White House they'll immediately pivot back to calling out any tiny perceived infraction as the gravest assault on the constitution ever. Absolute cnuts.
Yeah, pretty much this. Of course the second they lose the White House they'll immediately pivot back to calling out any tiny perceived infraction as the gravest assault on the constitution ever. Absolute cnuts.
After they lose Congress and the WH, every Republican who enabled the criminal activity and treason must be held accountable.
It wont happen with a Corporate Democrat but only with Bernie.
I'm a proud "lefty" who thinks Trump has almost certainly broken multiple laws, and very possibly is influenced by Putin in a significant way. You can find plenty of evidence of that if you care to look, rather than decide to do whatever it is you're doing now.