Trump's Russian Collusion

[jhu72]

Have you ever met a Trumpfan? Do they "gratuitously slap" libs? Or call the media "fake news". Or make fun of "drive by voters"? They make fun of "libs" 24/7. Pot, meet kettle.

I have met many Trumpfans...we employ a ton of them (and btw, they are nice guys and ladies!). To the extent they 'make fun' of liberals (they'd rather fish, hunt, or play catch with their kids), they mostly make fun of a lack of common sense. Machinists and technicians need to understand basic math like speeds and feeds, imperial to metric, and fractions to decimals, and of course geometric dimensioning and tolerancing. That takes common sense. And common sense isn't as common as we'd like to think. Hence it has real value.

Ad hominem attacks from the politics-obsessed are simply another way of saying "I'm an important guy and it's OK for me to call someone names". It's not okay.

So in other words, yes, you've heard them make fun of libs, use the phrase "fake news", and generally act condescending towards "stupid liberals."

Pot meet kettle.

Not what I said. I have heard them make fun of a 'lack of common sense'.

Generally these people have no bile; they tend to laugh off stuff mostly. The corollary to that is when we read Internet comments full of bile and outright hatred for the other side, which I'm seeing a dangerous trend of by the left (and by "left" I do not mean all Democrats, which I am no longer a member of; but a significant % of the Dems and growing fast).

The people I know who voted for Trump (admittedly only my colleagues...this is not some massive Pew poll) would be the first to jump-start your car on a cold day or winch your vehicle out of a ditch if you got in trouble. They wouldn't even ask your party identification! (the same is true for most people in America...for some reason, the Internet strokes hysteria).

Me personally, I think people in person can be much less insane than their Internet commentary. To the extent I blame any one news outlet, MSNBC seems like a cauldron of hypocrisy and hatred, a horrible combo. And before you say Fox, Fox at least invites the Left onto its programs and has rational debates (not to mention some anchors who are frankly Democrats...'both sides' doesn't even happen any more at MSNBC). CNN tries to keep some opposing voices, which I appreciate (not to mention I think Jake Tapper is an eminently fair journalist).

^^ total bloviation

MSNBC invites right wing guests all the time. MSNBC has numerous real conservatives as contributors and even hosts.

Here you go sport:

[Typical Lax Dad]

(b) US politicians and CIA agents who tried usurp a duly elected POTUS?[/i]

Did they lie? Or fabricate evidence on Trump?

Then what are you talking about? This is about Trump's behavior. You're implying that our public servants should serve a fascist leader who is above the law.

You do understand that if you follow what you're saying here, Nixon would have finished his term without incident. FBI "usurped a duly elected POTUS". You remember that, yes?

Or Clinton....

[Typical Lax Dad]

It mostly sounds like the author thinks it is a set up.

Matt Taibbi is a brilliant author, not beholden to any party. This article is so great. If anyone does not know the story of Thomas Drake, do yourself a favor and go read about him. Americans should always be on the side of whistleblowers...just make sure they are whistleblowers and not partisans.

Yep. This is an orchestrated set up, just like Blasey-Ford was a whistleblower on Kavanaugh. Where's Avenatti's whistleblower ?

Disgruntled partisan govt employees using the whistleblower program to sabotage policy differences.

Who orchestrated the text message exchange and the Trump transcript?

They are what they are. Impeach Trump for them or STFU.

Rough scrimmages or something this past weekend? Foul....

Not at all. This is all just a media food fight. A waste of time & emotion.
Trump's admitting what he's doing, so call the question.
Vote to start impeachment proceedings, let both sides present their case, then vote & answer to their voters.
Then move on.

Are you not supposed to have an inquiry and an investigation to develop the basis.....

[Trinity]

https://www.dispatch.com/news/20191007/ ... aine-china

Sen Rob Portman (R) says Trump’s wrong to seek help from Ukraine and China. He must not read Rolling Stone.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.dispatch.com/news/20191007/ ... aine-china

Sen Rob Portman (R) says Trump’s wrong to seek help from Ukraine and China. He must not read Rolling Stone.

He is part of the frame up.

[ggait]

Portman goes with lame excuse #4 -- Trump did it, there was a quid pro quo, it was bad. But not impeachable. Joins Tucker Carlson, Rich Lowrey and (maybe) Mitt Romney.

Unexplained, though, is why isn't using govt resources for your personal political goals an impeachable offense?

Impeachment is for “the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” Hamilton in Federalist #65. Impeachment isn't for all crimes -- it was reserved for disloyal, self-dealing offenses. Hence the phrase "treason, bribery or other [i.e. similar] high crimes and misdemeanors."

Hard to see how lying about a blowie fits this category of offenses. Hard to see how using U.S. foreign policy and taxpayer funds to squeeze an ally for oppo research is not exactly what the Framers were targeting.

While lame excuse #4 is a much better excuse than lame excuse #1 (it was a joke to own the libs say Rubio and Chris Christie), it still doesn't make any sense. Unless you go with the Merrick Garland codicil -- we are allowed to forget about the Constitution (when it helps my party) once we get close to an election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... e-excuses/

[HooDat]

(b) US politicians and CIA agents who tried usurp a duly elected POTUS?[/i]

Did they lie? Or fabricate evidence on Trump?

Then what are you talking about? This is about Trump's behavior. You're implying that our public servants should serve a fascist leader who is above the law.

You do understand that if you follow what you're saying here, Nixon would have finished his term without incident. FBI "usurped a duly elected POTUS". You remember that, yes?

I am not saying any of that. I am pointing out how the politics will end up getting "spun". The election messaging from the GOP side will be (and in fact already is) just what I said.

Just because I can see something happening right in front of my eyes does not mean I think it is the right thing...

Of course Trump should be held accountable for what he did. If he broke laws, he should go to jail. If he offended the voters he will not get re-elected. So short of actual convict-able laws being broken, it will come down to the voters. And THAT discussion is being tee'd up to be framed as the Dems saying he is a blend of Hitler and Stalin; and the GOP saying he's a schmuck, but he's not one of "them" - one of the power elite 0.1% - even though he OBVIOUSLY is.....

[Typical Lax Dad]

Portman goes with lame excuse #4 -- Trump did it, there was a quid pro quo, it was bad. But not impeachable. Joins Tucker Carlson, Rich Lowrey and (maybe) Mitt Romney.

Unexplained, though, is why isn't using govt resources for your personal political goals an impeachable offense?

Impeachment is for “the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” Hamilton in Federalist #65. Impeachment isn't for all crimes -- it was reserved for disloyal, self-dealing offenses. Hence the phrase "treason, bribery or other [i.e. similar] high crimes and misdemeanors."

Hard to see how lying about a blowie fits this category of offenses. Hard to see how using U.S. foreign policy and taxpayer funds to squeeze an ally for oppo research is not exactly what the Framers were targeting.

While lame excuse #4 is a much better excuse than lame excuse #1 (it was a joke to own the libs say Rubio and Chris Christie), it still doesn't make any sense. Unless you go with the Merrick Garland codicil -- we are allowed to forget about the Constitution (when it helps my party) once we get close to an election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... e-excuses/

In drawing up articles of impeachment, the House has placed little emphasis on criminal conduct.[1] Less than one-third of the articles that the House have adopted have explicitly charged the violation of a criminal statute or used the word "criminal" or "crime" to describe the conduct alleged.[1] Officials have been impeached and removed for drunkenness, biased decision-making, or inducing parties to enter financial transactions, none of which is specifically criminal.[1]

Part of the frame up.....

[a fan]

I am not saying any of that. I am pointing out how the politics will end up getting "spun". The election messaging from the GOP side will be (and in fact already is) just what I said.

Ah, got it. I misunderstood.

The problem is, obviously, if he's not impeached, the next POTUS has a green light to attack his political enemies by any means he/she deems necessary.

[old salt]

It mostly sounds like the author thinks it is a set up.

Matt Taibbi is a brilliant author, not beholden to any party. This article is so great. If anyone does not know the story of Thomas Drake, do yourself a favor and go read about him. Americans should always be on the side of whistleblowers...just make sure they are whistleblowers and not partisans.

Yep. This is an orchestrated set up, just like Blasey-Ford was a whistleblower on Kavanaugh. Where's Avenatti's whistleblower ?

Disgruntled partisan govt employees using the whistleblower program to sabotage policy differences.

Who orchestrated the text message exchange and the Trump transcript?

They are what they are. Impeach Trump for them or STFU.

Rough scrimmages or something this past weekend? Foul....

Not at all. This is all just a media food fight. A waste of time & emotion.
Trump's admitting what he's doing, so call the question.
Vote to start impeachment proceedings, let both sides present their case, then vote & answer to their voters.
Then move on.

Are you not supposed to have an inquiry and an investigation to develop the basis.....

So vote to start a formal impeachment inquiry. Let both sides issue subpoenas, call witnesses, gather evidence & present their case.
Why delay any longer ? The election clock is ticking.

[Typical Lax Dad]

It mostly sounds like the author thinks it is a set up.

Matt Taibbi is a brilliant author, not beholden to any party. This article is so great. If anyone does not know the story of Thomas Drake, do yourself a favor and go read about him. Americans should always be on the side of whistleblowers...just make sure they are whistleblowers and not partisans.

Yep. This is an orchestrated set up, just like Blasey-Ford was a whistleblower on Kavanaugh. Where's Avenatti's whistleblower ?

Disgruntled partisan govt employees using the whistleblower program to sabotage policy differences.

Who orchestrated the text message exchange and the Trump transcript?

They are what they are. Impeach Trump for them or STFU.

Rough scrimmages or something this past weekend? Foul....

Not at all. This is all just a media food fight. A waste of time & emotion.
Trump's admitting what he's doing, so call the question.
Vote to start impeachment proceedings, let both sides present their case, then vote & answer to their voters.
Then move on.

Are you not supposed to have an inquiry and an investigation to develop the basis.....

So vote to start a formal impeachment inquiry. Let both sides issue subpoenas, call witnesses, gather evidence & present their case.
Why delay any longer ? The election clock is ticking.

Let's wait until after the election to take a vote.... like we do with SCJ....

[HooDat]

I am not saying any of that. I am pointing out how the politics will end up getting "spun". The election messaging from the GOP side will be (and in fact already is) just what I said.

Ah, got it. I misunderstood.

The problem is, obviously, if he's not impeached, the next POTUS has a green light to attack his political enemies by any means he/she deems necessary.

well, if he is not impeached but gets trounced in the 2020's, then maybe not so much. Politicians like to keep power.

But nothing has happened yet to change my mind on his chances for re-election - based on the current lay of the field, I think he has a very good shot at winning again.

[Peter Brown]

Hard to see how lying about a blowie fits this category of offenses.

I don't disagree, however might I suggest you not make any false statements, even by merely denying guilt, when asked by any federal agent about any matter including the weather? Because as is our national wont to criminalize every act under God, that will get you up to 5 years (18 U.S.C. § 1001).

The insidiousness of the federal criminal code is that most Americans can no longer distinguish what is fair and nuanced, because nothing is anymore. Trump trading aid for dirt on Joe arguably is less of a crime in the federal criminal code than Clinton lying to a federal agent who's asking if Monica did the deed.

Don't even start me on whether the parents who cheated the system for SAT scores deserve time....

[HooDat]

So vote to start a formal impeachment inquiry. Let both sides issue subpoenas, call witnesses, gather evidence & present their case.
Why delay any longer ? The election clock is ticking.

we are all cynical enough to know the answer to this question. It is because they know they won't succeed. The specter of impeachment is worth far more to them politically than actual impeachment by the house. Ideal timing would be to ramp up the actual hearings next summer.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So vote to start a formal impeachment inquiry. Let both sides issue subpoenas, call witnesses, gather evidence & present their case.
Why delay any longer ? The election clock is ticking.

we are all cynical enough to know the answer to this question. It is because they know they won't succeed. The specter of impeachment is worth far more to them politically than actual impeachment by the house. Ideal timing would be to ramp up the actual hearings next summer.

Like the specter of Joe and Hunter Biden being corrupt..... coming from Donald Trump no less......

[3rdPersonPlural]

The optimal result is that the Senate gets to vote on impeachment 'too late' for a primary. Like July 2020. Then Pence becomes the Presidential candidate?

[Peter Brown]

I have never once heard a rational debate on Hannity or Rush, and I tune in to both weekly. Not once. And both of those anchors call Dems/Libs. an enemy to democracy.

I don't watch nor listen to either. But I guess I was thinking more of Tucker Carlson, who has liberal guests on often.

And to the extent that the debate is about something serious, those debates are civil. The Rutger Bregman interview dissolved because (among other things) Rutger is in essence an adherent of hardcore communism: 15 hour workweek, 95% tax rates, etc... Rutger wants listeners to conflate a Netflix, which didn't pay "income taxes" (but which did pay tens of millions in payroll and use taxes), with every business owner who does pay high income tax rates. Rutger is purposely deceptive, as most are, when calling for high taxes because since the 1950's, we have eliminated many tax deductions; raising taxes to pay for even more government, seems a good way to 'venezuelize' our economy and social fabric.

I'd score that interview as one where Carlson let it all out. He probably should have. His interviews with Greenwald and other Dems are educational imo.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I have never once heard a rational debate on Hannity or Rush, and I tune in to both weekly. Not once. And both of those anchors call Dems/Libs. an enemy to democracy.

I don't watch nor listen to either. But I guess I was thinking more of Tucker Carlson, who has liberal guests on often.

And to the extent that the debate is about something serious, those debates are civil. The Rutger Bregman interview dissolved because (among other things) Rutger is in essence an adherent of hardcore communism: 15 hour workweek, 95% tax rates, etc... Rutger wants listeners to conflate a Netflix, which didn't pay "income taxes" (but which did pay tens of millions in payroll and use taxes), with every business owner who does pay high income tax rates. Rutger is purposely deceptive, as most are, when calling for high taxes because since the 1950's, we have eliminated many tax deductions; raising taxes to pay for even more government, seems a good way to 'venezuelize' our economy and social fabric.

I'd score that interview as one where Carlson let it all out. He probably should have. His interviews with Greenwald and other Dems are educational imo.

Because Tucker thought he had someone to bash the "elites".

[ggait]

I don't disagree, however might I suggest you not make any false statements, even by merely denying guilt, when asked by any federal agent about any matter including the weather? Because as is our national wont to criminalize every act under God, that will get you up to 5 years (18 U.S.C. § 1001).

Not really equivalent imho.

Impeachment wasn't intended to be primarily about the president doing criminal stuff. That pesky DOJ OLC opinion (i.e., sitting president can't be prosecuted for federal crimes) is a very recent phenomenon. The assumption, until recently, was that a president would be prosecuted for any crime he committed while in office.

Impeachment was really intended for misuse/abuse of the public office/public trust. Trump's misdeeds seem obviously that -- using the public levers for personal political advantage. Which is in the same zone as bribery (specifically called out in the impeachment clause), right?

Clinton's misdeeds probably were much more clearly crimes (i.e. perjury) than Trump's Uke shake-down, but much less clearly impeachable as abuse of the powers of the office.

[Peter Brown]

I don't disagree, however might I suggest you not make any false statements, even by merely denying guilt, when asked by any federal agent about any matter including the weather? Because as is our national wont to criminalize every act under God, that will get you up to 5 years (18 U.S.C. § 1001).

Not really equivalent imho.

Impeachment wasn't intended to be primarily about the president doing criminal stuff. That pesky DOJ OLC opinion (i.e., sitting president can't be prosecuted for federal crimes) is a very recent phenomenon. The assumption, until recently, was that a president would be prosecuted for any crime he committed while in office.

Impeachment was really intended for misuse/abuse of the public office/public trust. Trump's misdeeds seem obviously that -- using the public levers for personal political advantage. Which is in the same zone as bribery (specifically called out in the impeachment clause), right?

Clinton's misdeeds probably were much more clearly crimes (i.e. perjury) than Trump's Uke shake-down, but much less clearly impeachable as abuse of the powers of the office.

Actually, your post makes sense and has me thinking about it differently. Thank you.