Sunday, December 3, 2017

A party of aspirations

There used to be a trick question on the Virginia bar exam: Is there an absolute defense against a charge of attempted statutory rape?

The answer is, yes, ignorance of the target's age is an absolute defense, although that is not, in Virginia, a defense against a charge of statutory rape.

(Off my topic here, but curiously pertinent to current concerns is that attempted statutory rape is the charge being made against Roy Moore, the Alabama moralist. He is vehemently suspect but that is not a charge that prosecutors ever bring.)

So, did the Trump campaign collude with the Russians to turn the 2016 election?

Trump says no. The evidence is not public that it did so successfully.

On the other hand, it is beyond dispute that the Trump campaign attempted collusion.

55 comments:

  1. In the meantime, they rape truth every day. It was mightly funny the WH press refering to Flynn as a 'former Obama administration official'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Political discourse is breaking down and it's every man for himself. As a reader of history, it reminds me of Britain from the 1690s.

    ReplyDelete
  3. On the other hand, it is beyond dispute that the Trump campaign attempted collusion.

    Nonsense.

    Unless, of course, you can accomplish two tasks:

    1. Identify in what manners the Trump election campaign could have engaged in a quid pro quo that would have changed the election's outcome.

    2. Within the Constitutional constraints, explain exactly what the anyone in the Trump administration did that was illegal, or even unethical. Compare and contrast with Donna Brazile, or Journolist.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Don't take Harry's word, Skipper, better to take the word inside Trump's circle instead:

    ---
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/russia-mcfarland-flynn-trump-emails.html

    On Dec. 29, a transition adviser to Mr. Trump, K. T. McFarland, wrote in an email to a colleague that sanctions announced hours before by the Obama administration in retaliation for Russian election meddling were aimed at discrediting Mr. Trump's victory. The sanctions could also make it much harder for Mr. Trump to ease tensions with Russia, "which has just thrown the U.S.A. election to him," she wrote in the emails obtained by The Times.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was thinking of the meeting in Trump Tower in June. What happened in December was a constitutional outrage and probably a crime, but the election was over by then. The attempt to subvert the election was the initial crime.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Clovis:

    Why did you leave out the following para?

    It is not clear whether Ms. McFarland was saying she believed that the election had in fact been thrown. A White House lawyer said on Friday that she meant only that the Democrats were portraying it that way.

    I have yet to hear from anyone, especially Harry, exactly what the Russians did that had any material effect on the election.

    [Harry:] What happened in December was a constitutional outrage and probably a crime, but the election was over by then.

    Funny about how you have buckets of slime, but no specifics. Exactly how what happened in December was a Constitutional outrage?

    Perhaps you need to take a hint.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Even if proven beyond doubt, Harry, you will still need to suck it up: given Republican majority in both houses, there will never be an impeachment, and a criminal case looks to be almost impossible against a sitting President, if I believe what your legal scholars are writing about it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Skipper,

    ---
    Why did you leave out the following para?
    ---
    Maybe because I believed you could read it yourself?

    To the extent I could see up to now, Skipper, the best explanation for the facts on the table is, people inside Trump's circle were aware (or at least under the impression) they were participating in some extent of collusion.

    You can't explain Flynn's behavior otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  9. [Clovis:] Maybe because I believed you could read it yourself?


    I have an idea: if you are going to cite something relevant to the point, how about citing all the relevant things? Otherwise, one might think you were just cherry picking.

    To the extent I could see up to now, Skipper, the best explanation for the facts on the table is, people inside Trump's circle were aware (or at least under the impression) they were participating in some extent of collusion.


    Please take some time to learn the legal meaning of "collusion".

    And, having done so, enlighten us as to what relevance it has to the period following the election. Bonus points for including the discipline meted out to a news anchor for failing to note the difference (and that is putting it charitably).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Clovis, it is a long haul but not necessarily hopeless. We have Don Jr's admission and documentation that he tried to collude with a foreign state to throw the election. It matters not at all whether that crime was perfected. And everybody who participated is guilty of conspiracy.

    In the Vietnam War era, conspiracy charges were in bad odor because they were used to silence dissent (and juries refused to convict); but in the Trump campaign crime that is not an issue.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Skipper,

    ---
    I have an idea: if you are going to cite something relevant to the point, how about citing all the relevant things?
    ---
    I did, we just disagree on what is relevant. Also, contrary to you, I place a bonus on conciseness.


    ---
    Please take some time to learn the legal meaning of "collusion".
    ---
    Not necessary. I am not trying anyone in a court of law, but in a court of political opinions. Were I in your place (a US citizen), collusion -- in whatever layman understanding of the word -- with Russia would be enough to want them out.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Skipper,

    To complete the point, collusion itself, no matter if successful or not, should be seen in this context:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/opinion/trump-putin-destruction-democracy.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. [Clovis:] To complete the point, collusion itself, no matter if successful or not, should be seen in this context:

    I didn't need anymore convincing that the NYT OpEd page is a continuing assault on reason and logic, but thanks, anyway.

    Back to collusion. You keep using that word as if you know what it means. But that's understandable. Neither does the NYT. NB: read the comments, which are typically slavish tongue baths for any progressive opinion. The authors get positively shellacked.

    The left, in its ongoing temper tantrum at having lost the election, is pushing this "collusion" thing without ever coming to terms with what it means.

    Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

    So, what exactly did the Trump campaign do in secret cooperation before the election that attempted to change the outcome of the election?

    After more than a year of frantic searching, here is the evidence:

    [crickets]

    Of course, the meaning of "collusion" isn't attached at the hip to the Russians. Donna Brazile as a CNN journalist colluded with the DNC. The DNC colluded to keep Sanders from getting the nomination. In the 2008 election, journalists (google "journolist", note the spelling) colluded to get Obama elected. In the runup to the 2012 election, the IRS colluded to suppress conservative groups.

    Those are actual examples of collusion.

    In contrast, frothing at the mouth leftists are stuck with trying to make a crime out of perfectly routine interactions that all incoming administration transition teams have with foreign government. Worse, they are attempting to criminalize free speech.

    But I guess to the left that's a feature, not a bug.

    Also, contrary to you, I place a bonus on conciseness.

    Which seems to routinely come at the expense of bonuses on coherence, consistency, or completeness.

    Let's be Snotty! It's a game the entire internet can play!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Skipper,

    ---
    Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

    So, what exactly did the Trump campaign do in secret cooperation before the election that attempted to change the outcome of the election?
    ---
    Backdoor interactions with the Ruskies through Paul Manafort, and even front doors interactions through Trump Jr.

    They expected to get dirt on Clinton, in exchange for possible policy changes in future.

    You sure know all that, and discard it due to your own political preferences.

    Two further points:

    1) I do not think Mueller will be able to prove it all to the satisfaction of a court of law, but the evidence shown up to now is enough to my political taste - there again, were I a US citizen, I would see it all as simply wrong.

    2) All of your examples of possible collusion - taking them at face value - have a very fundamental difference to the one at hand now: they are about internal actors, not an external enemy.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Skipper,

    ---
    Which seems to routinely come at the expense of bonuses on coherence, consistency, or completeness.
    ---

    As the Stones used to say, you can't always get what you want. Completeness is too high a goal for a comment section in a blog. As for consistency and coherence, I defy you to show my errors on that front.

    ReplyDelete
  16. [Clovis:] Backdoor interactions with the Ruskies through Paul Manafort, and even front doors interactions through Trump Jr.

    They expected to get dirt on Clinton, in exchange for possible policy changes in future.


    Here is the first place where you misunderstand the term. Let's assume, for the moment, that Trump Jr. was, indeed, hoping to get dirt on Hillary! from the Russians.

    There is nothing even remotely illegal about that, even if there was some quid pro quo, so long as quid itself isn't illegal.

    Collusion is not a crime unless it is conducted in pursuance of illegal activity. (Never mind there is nothing illegal about something that didn't happen.)

    That has nothing to do with my political preferences, it is the law.

    And that goes for anything Manafort might have done in that regard.

    2) All of your examples of possible collusion - taking them at face value - have a very fundamental difference to the one at hand now: they are about internal actors, not an external enemy.

    That is a distinction without legal difference.

    As it happens, the DNC, almost certainly through violations of campaign finance laws, paid $5M to Fusion GPS for the "Golden" Dossier. Which was then supplied to US intelligence agencies as a pretext for unmasking conversations involving US citizens who were part of the incoming Trump administration.

    Having unmasked those people, Flynn among them, those intelligence agencies were then spying on US citizen engaged in completely legal political activity.

    All based upon a complete bodge job of nonsense purchased from a foreign national.

    Now, please tell me again who the enemy is.

    ReplyDelete
  17. [Hey Skipper:] Which seems to routinely come at the expense of bonuses on coherence, consistency, or completeness.

    [Clovis:] Completeness is too high a goal for a comment section in a blog. As for consistency and coherence, I defy you to show my errors on that front.


    The entire thread on anti-Muslim comments, for a starter. Or here, where you make an assertion, then never bothered to address its fundamental flaw.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Skipper,


    ---
    There is nothing even remotely illegal about that, even if there was some quid pro quo, so long as quid itself isn't illegal.
    ---
    I made it clear I was not taking the legal aspect of it. What they did should be offensive as a matter of principle. It should be reason enough to not vote for them, or as of now, to impeach him.

    And the quid itself would be viewed, in former times, as high treason.


    ---
    As it happens, the DNC, almost certainly through violations of campaign finance laws, paid $5M to Fusion GPS for the "Golden" Dossier.
    ---
    Almost certainly? So prove it.

    ---
    All based upon a complete bodge job of nonsense purchased from a foreign national.
    ---
    As dossiers go, this one was actually pretty good - it has far more corroborated items than otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Skipper,

    ---
    The entire thread on anti-Muslim comments, for a starter. Or here, where you make an assertion, then never bothered to address its fundamental flaw.
    ---
    You give me as reference a thread with 208 comments, and I am supposed to know which one you are talking about? Excellent example of you asking of others what you don't deliver yourself - thanks.

    As for the anti-Muslim thread, I believe I consistently and coherently expressed my views. You just happen to not agree with them. The fact you do not agree with them is possible exactly because I made them consistently clear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. [Clovis:]Also, contrary to you, I place a bonus on conciseness.

      [Hey Skipper:] Let's be Snotty! It's a game the entire internet can play!


      Let's leave it at this: your comment was snotty and off topic, so you got snotty as a rejoinder.

      Delete
    2. ... bonus on conciseness.

      (Not being at all snotty here, btw) Your English is really good, and that phrase was easily understandable; however, in this case "... an emphasis on concision." would be better.

      Delete
    3. As for the anti-Muslim thread, I believe I consistently and coherently expressed my views. You just happen to not agree with them.

      No, you didn't, because you never tried to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate anti-Muslim views.

      Delete
    4. ---
      in this case "... an emphasis on concision." would be better.
      ---
      Thank you very much, I did stop to think how to write that, and I am happy to see a better alternative.


      ---
      you never tried to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate anti-Muslim views.
      ---
      See, you think I am being snotty when talking about concision, but it is in good Faith, for you often look to ignore our limitations of space and time for such arguments. I could write a long piece about what I see as legitimate and illegitimate anti-Muslim views, but it was way easier to point out a particular case I believe to be illegitimate (i.e. some of your phrases then), and leave at that.

      Delete
  20. Skipper,

    And there is nothing unusual about this, nothing at all:

    https://theintercept.com/2017/12/04/trump-white-house-weighing-plans-for-private-spies-to-counter-deep-state-enemies/

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. [Hey Skipper:] As it happens, the DNC, almost certainly through violations of campaign finance laws, paid $5M to Fusion GPS for the "Golden" Dossier.

    [Clovis:] Almost certainly? So prove it.


    Clinton Campaign and Democratic Party Helped Pay for Russia Trump Dossier The Clinton campaign, through the DNC colluded — as in paid — a foreign agent with Russian ties, then handed it to the FBI, which then used it as a pretext to conduct domestic surveillance, despite the dossier being so full of holes as to make swiss cheese jealous.

    This is the same FBI that recently demoted a lead investigator in the Mueller probe for gross political bias. The same investigator who changed wording in the report on Hillary! emails to make what was obviously a crime not a crime.

    And, as a bonus, the fact-void that constituted the NYT's reporting at the time.

    Proof enough for you?

    Perhaps it is worth wondering if there was collusion between the Clinton campaign, DNC, and FBI. And, considering all the leaking of classified information, the MSM as well.

    As dossiers go, this one was actually pretty good - it has far more corroborated items than otherwise.

    It is a hatchet job.

    ReplyDelete
  23. [Clovis:] I made it clear I was not taking the legal aspect of it. What they did should be offensive as a matter of principle. It should be reason enough to not vote for them, or as of now, to impeach him.

    What, exactly, did the Trump campaign, or transition team, do that constitutes collusion? What, exactly, did the Trump trade for whatever it is you are calling collusion? You, so far, are proposing a quid pro quo that lacks both quid and quo.

    Keep in mind that collusion is a concept that doesn't require Russians lurking about for it to exist. Which does rather require explaining actual instances of collusion between journalists and the DNC, the DNC and foreign agents, the IRS and the Obama administration, and the Obama administration and the FBI.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Skipper,

    ---
    [Clovis:] Almost certainly? So prove it.
    ---
    Sorry, maybe it is my fault for being too concise, but I meant "prove it" as to the part you state "almost certainly through violations of campaign finance laws".

    If paying up for oppo research is forbidden, no campaign in a hundred years followed the law.

    I will mention, though you certainly know, how Fusion GPS just kept, with the DNC money, doing the same job they were already doing for Republican clients, who initiated the dossier work.


    ---
    It is a hatchet job.
    ---
    No, it is not. Your link is from January, please update yourself. Various previous points that were used against the dossier (person X denies ever being to point Y with person Z) have been proved otherwise since.

    You should also consider that, if the dossier is so bad, why Putin had to kill a few of his own high-ranking agents after the dossier went public? (I ask you pardon for the lack of links - really in a hurry now - but I hope you read about it before).


    ReplyDelete
  25. Skipper,

    ---
    What, exactly, did the Trump campaign, or transition team, do that constitutes collusion? What, exactly, did the Trump trade for whatever it is you are calling collusion?
    ---
    I answered before: policy changes.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-pushed-to-drop-russia-sanctionseven-after-firing-michael-flynn?via=twitter_page

    As for quid and quo:

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/07/politics/previously-undisclosed-emails-after-trump-tower-meeting/index.html?sr=twCNN120717previously-undisclosed-emails-after-trump-tower-meeting0359PMVODtop


    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/trump-europe-russia-travel-281134



    Letting aside whatever happened during the campaign, there is still the fact he fired Comey after reportedly asking him to drop investigating Flynn.

    Please, Skipper, try to imagne, for a minute, Obama firing Comey two years ago, after asking him to drop investigating the Clinton emails thing - and be honest enough to tell me: wouldn't you want Obama out for that fact alone?

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. [Clovis:] I will mention, though you certainly know, how Fusion GPS just kept, with the DNC money, doing the same job they were already doing for Republican clients, who initiated the dossier work.

    Not true. Republican clients were paying for oppo research. The DNC extended that to hiring a foreign agent, who collated concocted nonsense from some Russian sources. The DNC, without any fact checking at all, provided that to the FBI, which in turn used it as a means to justify FISA warrants against Americans on Trump's staff.

    No, it is not. Your link is from January, please update yourself. Various previous points that were used against the dossier (person X denies ever being to point Y with person Z) have been proved otherwise since.

    Not that I've found, so help me out with some links.

    You should also consider that, if the dossier is so bad, why Putin had to kill a few of his own high-ranking agents after the dossier went public?

    I'll take your word for it, since Putin has a certain rep for having people killed. But what makes you think those agents had anything to do with the dossier, or even if they did, getting whacked was for something else entirely?

    I answered before: policy changes.

    That fails on two counts. First, it is entirely legitimate for an incoming administration to announce forthcoming policy changes. Second, and even more egregious, in what way does putting more energy on the market help Russia?

    Their fundamental problem is that Russia is essentially a resource extraction economy. Just as tanking energy prices are driving Venezuela to the wall, they are a huge problem for Russia. Remember, one of Trump's campaign promises was to remove restrictions from US energy production, exactly opposite from Hillary, and bound to make energy cheaper than it otherwise would have been.

    As for your second link, not only is there no quid, there is even less quo.

    Then there is the lead para from your last link:

    Congressional investigators are scrutinizing trips to Europe taken last year by several associates of President Donald Trump, amid concern they may have met with Kremlin-linked operatives as part of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.

    Not only has there been absolutely no evidence of a quid pro quo — which, considering the torrent of leaked classified information, should be astonishing by now — the evidence for Russian interference is even scarcer.

    They were responsible for some fake news and disruptive memes on Facebook? Really? Is that it? Anyone care to hazard a guess as to how the election would have been different absent that stuff?

    The Russians must be absolutely beside themselves, because for an absolutely trivial amount of money, they have kept us in a self-destructive frenzy driven by people who refuse to accept the election's outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  29. [Clovis:] Letting aside whatever happened during the campaign, there is still the fact he fired Comey after reportedly asking him to drop investigating Flynn.

    And? Firing Comey was a perfectly legitimate exercise of executive authority within the executive branch.

    Please, Skipper, try to imagne, for a minute, Obama firing Comey two years ago, after asking him to drop investigating the Clinton emails thing - and be honest enough to tell me: wouldn't you want Obama out for that fact alone?

    Imperfect analogy. Trump didn't ask Comey to drop the Russia investigation, he asked Comey to leave Flynn alone. Entirely different.

    Also, considering the extremely dodgy circumstances surrounding the email investigation — Hillary destroyed over 30,000 pieces of evidence and got away with it, and that's just for starters — Trump had significant cause to believe that Comey was not likely to conduct a fair investigation into this Russian nonsense.

    But leave that aside. During the email investigation, AG Lynch had a compromising conversation with Bill Clinton that she didn't have the sense to avoid (presuming she wanted to), nor the integrity to reveal. That is a much closer analogy. Would I have wanted Obama out for firing Lynch? No.

    Even sticking with your analogy, though, had Comey given cause to Obama that he was playing for the other side, and Obama fired him, I'd find that no more worthy of criticism than Trump doing the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Skipper,

    ---
    And? Firing Comey was a perfectly legitimate exercise of executive authority within the executive branch.
    ---

    And that's a perfect example of using legalese to avoid moral questions.

    I will stop the discussion right here. You crossed a threshold I won't bother to relate to. I have enough corrupt people down here if I wanted to go down to that level.

    ReplyDelete
  31. [Clovis:] And that's a perfect example of using legalese to avoid moral questions.

    Which might be true if that was the end of my answer.

    But it wasn't. Not by a long shot. Why didn't you notice this?

    Also, considering the extremely dodgy circumstances surrounding the email investigation — Hillary destroyed over 30,000 pieces of evidence and got away with it, and that's just for starters — Trump had significant cause to believe that Comey was not likely to conduct a fair investigation into this Russian nonsense.

    Because it isn't relevant?

    ReplyDelete
  32. [Clovis:] You crossed a threshold I won't bother to relate to.

    Perhaps you should re-address that.

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  34. [Hey Skipper:] The entire thread on anti-Muslim comments, for a starter. Or here, where you make an assertion, then never bothered to address its fundamental flaw.

    I shall bookmark this thread.

    The issue at hand is purported collusion, which requires an illegal which for what. Your proof for even one of those elements, never mind all of them?

    Nothing. Not a darn thing. Yet you cling to the notion, nonetheless.

    Which makes me suspect that hatred has derailed your thought processes nearly as much as Harry's.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Skipper,

    Comey is a honest man. Maybe honest to a fault.

    He saw himself in the position of addressing a dishonest powerful ex-SoS, and did his best to make a juice out of those lemons. He went beyond his role at that, because he knew about the Tarmac meeting and tried his best to thwart any possible collusion between DoJ and the Clintons.

    Only to have it used against him by Roseinstein, when Trump needed an oficial excuse to dismiss him - then went to betray his own farce by his mouth incontinence.

    Now, Comey's actions were no small thing. There are good chances it impacted the election, way more than anything the Ruskies did.

    Whatever you think about Hillary, that her email thing were a crime is controversial enough to grant the assumption that Comey did his best, honest work. In the end, Hillary's actions, if not against the law, were against the *spirit of the law*.

    Now, Trump's actions - firing Comey after not getting from him whatever he wanted - though perfectly constitutional, are another simple example of an action against the spirit of any healthy, honest Republic.

    That you have a moral radar to implicate Hillary, and yet to let go of Trump on what are, IMHO, worst actions, simply tells me your heart is corrupted. You are just like the people you hate.

    I am drowning on a country and society of corrupted hearts and souls. To try to sit down and explain why you are accepting and supporting corruption is, to me, something like a bunch of Somali starved children having to explain to you what is hunger. I just don't have the stomach for that anymore. You go on, and keep contributing to the downfall of your formerly great Republic. Hopefully, you will be alive to see the end result.

    ReplyDelete
  36. [Clovis:] He saw himself in the position of addressing a dishonest powerful ex-SoS, and did his best to make a juice out of those lemons. He went beyond his role at that, because he knew about the Tarmac meeting and tried his best to thwart any possible collusion between DoJ and the Clintons.

    No, he didn't. That tarmac meeting didn't become public until an enterprising Arizona journalist made it public.

    Only to have it used against him by Roseinstein, when Trump needed an oficial excuse to dismiss him - then went to betray his own farce by his mouth incontinence.

    I am no admirer of Trumps logorrhoea, but here he was on point:

    "And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won,” he continued, adding: “This was an excuse for having lost an election.”

    Six and a half months later, this Russian thing is nothing but slander and corrupt journalism.

    And that is just the last week.

    Now, Comey's actions were no small thing. There are good chances it impacted the election, way more than anything the Ruskies did.

    Wrong again. Hillary's actions are the critical problem here. Her decision to grossly violate FOIA and security laws — and lie about it every step of the way — by putting official emails on her own server are what put Comey between the devil and the deep blue sea. In that regard, he can't be blamed.

    But the conduct of the investigation was a horror show, and having people with blatant political sympathies running it made it even worse.

    As for "anything the Russkies did", well, what was that, exactly? Buying a few ads, and planting some nonsense stories in the morass known as Facebook? Really? That's it?

    That you have a moral radar to implicate Hillary, and yet to let go of Trump on what are, IMHO, worst actions, simply tells me your heart is corrupted. You are just like the people you hate.

    This is where you go off the rails. There are actual things Hillary did that would have landed anyone else in prison for a long time. It is astonishing you compare those with, well, what? What, exactly, did Trump do that was worse? What law did he violate? This steaming heap of an investigation, riddled with illegal leaks, a pathetically stupid dossier used to pervert FISA law and major media outlets routinely shitting themselves has yielded exactly nothing.

    Maybe, just maybe, it is time to conclude that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.

    Had Republicans organized this kind of loathsome exercise over Obama's birth certificate, I would have hated that just as much.

    But they didn't.

    You go on, and keep contributing to the downfall of your formerly great Republic. Hopefully, you will be alive to see the end result.

    Standing by for actual facts, of which you have supplied none.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Around a year ago I cautioned Harry about his, and progressives', mindless Trump hatred.

    Why?

    Because if he ever actually did anything horrible, they would have long since shot their credibility.

    And that is exactly the pot they have put themselves in. Hysterical charges, laughable in their implausibility, combined with journalists who are continually posing the dilemma of whether they are more biased or incompetent, have rendered themselves irrelevant, because most of the country no longer believes anything they say.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Skipper,


    ---
    I am no admirer of Trumps logorrhoea, but here he was on point:
    ---
    It doesn't matter what Trump thinks about the Russia investigation. He will say that either it being true or not.

    What is important is that an investigation should follow due process and not be hindered by the very people it is aimed at. I mean, it is so basic, should I really point that out here?

    ---
    [Clovis] Now, Comey's actions were no small thing. There are good chances it impacted the election, way more than anything the Ruskies did.

    [Skipper] Wrong again
    ---
    Look to the graphs.


    ---
    There are actual things Hillary did that would have landed anyone else in prison for a long time. It is astonishing you compare those with, well, what? What, exactly, did Trump do that was worse? What law did he violate?
    ---

    There are actual things Trump did - like blackmailing an FBI director - that would land anyone else in prison.

    Like Hillary, he gets away from that for two reasons: (i) it is not a crime by the Law Codes, because your laws give quite some room to what a President, and a SoS Secretary at that, can do. And (ii), both enjoy the support of a considerable number of people whose partisanship trumps their morals.


    ---
    Standing by for actual facts, of which you have supplied none.
    ---
    I did. Nor your, nor Trump himself, are disputing the facts on Comey's dismissal. I am making a moral argument, not a criminal one at that.

    Of course, what I judge to be moral is absolutely irrelevant to you, but then, we can finish the topic, for that's my main point at that.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Expecting morality in high places is naive. That was the subtext of Kennedy/Sorenson's 'Profiles in Courage,' that it's rare enough to make a slim book.

    Yet different mindsets have their own moralities/immoralities. Growing up in the South we all knew that the preachers preaching about sex were perverts of one sort or another, and so we see that all the 'family values' politicians are sex perverts. On the left, it was the limousine liberals who wouldn't send their children to integrated public schools (Carter excepted, the only man of conspicuously high morals elected president since Lincoln))

    ReplyDelete
  40. I expect no moral in high places, Harry. I expected more from Skipper, though, because his judgment of Clinton implies he knows better.

    ReplyDelete
  41. As for anything the Ruskies did:

    https://meduza.io/en/news/2017/12/11/jailed-russian-hacker-says-the-fsb-coordinated-his-cyber-attacks-on-hillary-clinton-and-the-dnc

    ReplyDelete
  42. That, in itself, does nothing to implicate Trump. It provides the grounding for attempts at collusion and stealing elections.

    It is self-condemnatory of Trump to deny the ground state. He's hiding something

    ReplyDelete
  43. [Clovis:] What is important is that an investigation should follow due process and not be hindered by the very people it is aimed at. I mean, it is so basic, should I really point that out here?

    Of course the investigation should follow due process. Which, and I hope this doesn't come as surprise, does not include rampant leaks, and fact free allegations from a Congressman who is barred from discussing classified material. Due process does not include spying on Americans based upon that steaming heap of merde referred to as the Golden Dossier, and it certainly shouldn't include prosecuting people for process crimes (i.e., Gen Flynn was charged with lying to the FBI, even though nothing he lied about was in the least criminal.).

    And then there is the nature of the investigation itself. There is absolutely no theory as to what form the supposed collusion took, nor even any evidence at all that there was any form of collusion with the Russians in the first place.

    If this investigation was actually adhering to due process, it would have wrapped up long ago, instead of this continual assault via investigatorial and journalistic malpractice.

    Look to the graphs.

    Stop blaming Comey for the consequences of Hillary's corrupt practices.

    There are actual things Trump did - like blackmailing an FBI director - that would land anyone else in prison.

    What the heck are you talking about.

    I did. Nor your, nor Trump himself, are disputing the facts on Comey's dismissal. I am making a moral argument, not a criminal one at that.

    No, your argument is empty. Comey had serious shortcomings, which have continued under Mueller. Did you hear of the re-assignment of a principal in the investigation?

    Moreover, Comey's dismissal hasn't impeded the investigation.

    As for anything the Ruskies did:

    Aside from having absolutely nothing to do with Trump, do you know how the DNC was hacked?

    [Harry:] It is self-condemnatory of Trump to deny the ground state. He's hiding something

    In other words, the only way of satisfying you is for Trump to prove a negative.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Skipper,

    ---
    What the heck are you talking about.
    ---
    What the heck you don't get about Trump asking Comey to let Flynn go, and firing him a few weeks later on false excuses?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Skipper,

    ---
    No, your argument is empty. Comey had serious shortcomings, which have continued under Mueller. Did you hear of the re-assignment of a principal in the investigation?
    ---

    Your link is behind a paywall.

    The re-assignment of the investigator only proves that Mueller is more serious and careful about his job than anyone on Team Trump.

    Every possible little (and often meaningless) detail about Clinton, DNC, Fusion, Comey and Mueller gets a lot of scrutiny from you - none of the wild behavior of Trump & Co gets the same treatment. How curious.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Skipper,

    ---
    process crimes (i.e., Gen Flynn was charged with lying to the FBI, even though nothing he lied about was in the least criminal.).
    ---

    More interesting than misleading the FBI is, he thought necessary to lie to Pence:

    "The White House's chief lawyer told President Donald Trump in January he believed then-national security adviser Michael Flynn had misled the FBI and lied to Vice President Mike Pence and should be fired, a source familiar with the matter said Monday. [...]

    A week later, McGahn was provided a transcript of what Flynn and Kislyak discussed and the conclusion was that it was inconsistent with what Pence said publicly he had been told by the national security adviser.

    Despite McGahn's recommendation that Trump fire Flynn, the retired lieutenant general was kept on. Flynn was forced out in mid-February after news outlets reported about Yates' warning to McGahn."

    A curious person would ask why, but at some points you get suddenly very incurious. An even more curious person would ask why Trump not only kept the General for a while, but also saw fit to ask the FBI Director to let Flynn go. That level of curiosity, though, looks forbidden to you - unless we change names and party in this matter.

    Flynn also had other shady things going on, like his possible illegal participation in a plan to deliver a cleric dissident to Erdogan. I suppose his plea deal includes more than we know.

    ReplyDelete
  47. [Clovis:] The re-assignment of the investigator only proves that Mueller is more serious and careful about his job than anyone on Team Trump.

    Oh really?

    From today's Best of the Web, which is behind a pay wall, so I'm going to be at risk of copyright infringement.

    Is animus toward President Donald Trump a prerequisite for landing a job with special counsel Robert Mueller ? Recent revelations in Washington also raise again the question of what former President Barack Obama knew about the decisions of his FBI Director James Comey to exonerate Hillary Clinton and investigate Mr. Trump in 2016.

    The Wall Street Journal reports:

    A top FBI agent and an FBI lawyer, who were involved in the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email arrangement and the probe into Russian electoral meddling, exchanged texts disparaging then-candidate Donald Trump, including calling him an “idiot” and a “menace,” according to copies of the messages the Justice Department provided Congress.

    Peter Strzok, 47 years old, was one of the highest-ranking agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He was removed from his post with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling this past summer after a Justice Department watchdog launched an inquiry into the texts.
    The messages between Mr. Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page include one in which Ms. Page tells him in August 2016: “Maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.”

    The New York Times reports on another 2016 text:

    On July 27, Ms. Page wrote, “She just has to win now. I’m not going to lie, I got a flash of nervousness yesterday about Trump.” That text message was sent after the Clinton investigation had been closed. Days later, the F.B.I. began investigating possible coordination between Russian officials and the Trump campaign.

    Recently the Journal’s Kim Strassel noted the stone wall
    [DOJ, FBI, and Mr. Mueller new about those texts for months, and deliberately kept their existence from Congress] against congressional oversight that has been constructed by Mr. Mueller, his Department of Justice colleagues, and Mr. Mueller’s deputies, many of whom have demonstrated their political opposition to the President.

    ReplyDelete
  48. But wait, there's more:

    A co-founder of the opposition research firm Fusion GPS acknowledged in a new court document that his company hired the wife of a senior Justice Department official to help investigate then-candidate Donald Trump last year.

    The confirmation from Glenn Simpson came in a signed declaration filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., and provided a fuller picture of the nature of Nellie Ohr’s work – after Fox News first reported on her connection to Fusion GPS.

    Her husband, Bruce Ohr, was demoted at the DOJ last week for concealing his meetings with the same company, which commissioned the anti-Trump “dossier” containing salacious allegations about the now-president.

    The question of whether a powerful federal agency was politicized is not limited to the Department of Justice. This week Politico published an interview with former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell in which he reconsiders his 2016 decision to break tradition among intelligence community alums and endorse Hillary Clinton. According to Politico:

    Morell acknowledges that he and other spy-world critics of the president failed to fully “think through” the negative backlash generated by their going political. “There was a significant downside,” Morell said in the interview.
    Mr. Trump does not have to be paranoid to believe that the indigenous creatures of the Beltway swamp are out to get him. A number of them have put it in writing. This column can only imagine what the two political lawyers Ms. Page and Mr. Strzok said about Mr. Trump when they weren’t creating electronic records of their conversations.

    Glenn Reynolds is wondering what if any role the two may have had in turning the surveillance powers of the federal government against the campaign of the man they loathed. Mr. Reynolds is particularly interested in requests made to the federal Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. He writes on his Instapundit website:


    SO I JUST HAD AN INTERESTING EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S PRESS OFFICE:

    Me: I’m hearing from a source that Lisa Page was involved in approving Peter Strzok’s warrant requests to the FISC and possibly elsewhere. Can you confirm or deny if this was the case? And please tell me what her job title and function are in your office. Thanks.

    Them (via spokesman Joshua Stueve): Lisa Page, who was an attorney on detail to the Special Counsel’s office, returned to the FBI’s Office of the General Counsel in mid-July.

    Me again: Thank you but that doesn’t answer my question. What role did Lisa Page have in the handling of warrant applications, and in particular those involving Peter Strzok?

    Them again: I’ll decline to comment further.


    Mr. Trump’s lawyers want a new special counsel to investigate the investigators. The better path is the constitutional one. The existing special counsel should resign, given numerous documented conflicts of interest, and let the President direct federal law enforcement as the law demands. If voters don’t like his execution of the laws, they can fire him and hire a replacement in 2020.

    In the meantime, law enforcement working for the duly-elected leadership of the country should examine how our government came to direct the surveillance powers of the United States against the party out of power.
    [Emphasis added]

    This "investigation" has long since turned into a grotesque farce.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Farce? I beg to disagree. Every line you read between Strzok and Page were delivered by the DoJ. They identified the conflict of interest and dealt with it. Due process is a beautiful thing, isn't it?

    The farce is you whining against the ones following due process, to deflect from the ones who trumping it.

    ReplyDelete
  50. You clearly don't know the meaning of due process -- Strzok should have recused himself from the outset. And you conveniently neglect the horror show that is Fusion GPS and the laughable dossier.

    As for Flynn, I have no idea why he didn't inform Pence of the meetings. Nor, for that matter, why he talked to the FBI at all, instead of telling them to piss off. The result is he pleads guilty to a process crime (which shouldn't be a crime at all) to avoid having the FBI bankrupt him over absolutely nothing illegal.

    After reviewing this thread, I notice a glaring absence: any evidence whatsoever that a crime actually occurred. Which, in free countries, is a pre-requisite for a criminal investigation.

    And as if the investigation didn't already stink to high-heaven, there's more stinking to be done.

    This from the same National Review that hates Trump.

    ReplyDelete