DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

[zoogs]

I think there’s a Pretty Freakin’ Huge distinction between Steele’s work and the probable Russia state intelligence op that was the DJT Jr story. So if we can’t see that, them good job Trump double true team. But then let’s get to a place where we can.

[Danny Bateman]

That's another thing I forgot to post in my blurb that I felt like teeing off on:

 

"Both sides are the same."

I get so tired of this. I lean left, you all know that. I don't spend much time ranting about them, but I'd gladly agree with anybody who suggested the Democrats have some very real issues they need to iron out as a group right now. I don't particularly mind discussing them, either.

 

But the "both sides are the same" stuff drives me nuts. They're absolutely NOT the same. It seems to me to be almost reflexive sometimes for folks to try to implicate both sides equally because we're all upset at how the system in Washington is clearly broken right now.

But they're definitively not the same. Paying to gather research to use on an opponent isn't the same as asking a hostile government to deliver it.

 

Look at the way the ACA was passed vs. the way they attempted to repeal it. For all their sanctimonious complaining about how the ACA was rammed through "without any input", Republicans did the same and 10x worse when trying to get rid of it. They're the ones who chose to craft their plans in back rooms with lobbyists. They're the ones who tried to block the CBO from scoring anything. They're the ones who foisted it upon their colleagues & told them there would be a vote in an hour. They're the ones who filibustered and wouldn't take questions about their own bill. They're the ones who threw a reception in the rose garden with laughing and clapping and camaraderie at the prospect of kicking 20+M people off their health insurance.

 

They're the ones who tried to neuter the OGE so they couldn't enforce ethics laws IMMEDIATELY after gaining control of Congress.

 

They're the ones who decided a Supreme Court seat could be sat on for 6+ months despite a nominee waiting for a hearing.

 

They're the ones who just voted yesterday to block class action lawsuits against banks who rip people off.

 

They're the ones who build $25,000 soundproof barriers and require 24/7 security as heads of the EPA. You tell me why a guy notoriously cozy with lobbyists, who's sued his own organization more than a dozen times, needs a soundproof booth.

 

They're the ones who blow taxpayer dollars on nakedly partisan, vile fishing expeditions in attempt to try to drag their enemies through the mud.

 

They're the ones who rush to the fore when another mass shooting happens to urge unity, and magically disappear as soon as it's time to take any kind of action.

 

I could go on, but I'll spare you. But Democrats nominated Hillary! They've got a guy on trial for corruption! Bernie is a whacko socialist that's gained control of the party!

These complaints notwithstanding, how could anyone compare these two groups and say they're equally culpable? It seems like a lazy way to take a swipe at both sides. I get that there are things to be dissatisfied with both parties, but the notion that both parties are somehow equally dysfunctional, malevolent & self-serving bugs the hell out of me.

 

Not that anyone here was doing that in particular; I'm just kind of ranting in general.

 

 

[RedDenver]

28 minutes ago, zoogs said:

I think there’s a Pretty Freakin’ Huge distinction between Steele’s work and the probable Russia state intelligence op that was the DJT Jr story. So if we can’t see that, them good job Trump double true team. But then let’s get to a place where we can.

If getting dirt on your opponent from a foreign entity is illegal, then both should be investigated, even if the size and scope of the two cases isn't the same. I'm not even disagreeing with you, but the fact that they're not the same doesn't mean we should ignore one in favor of pursuing the other. It's not like we don't have the resources to investigate both.

 

@dudeguyy I agree with your general premise that these things aren't equally culpable, but they don't have to be for us to want to find out the truth. My position would be more along the lines of more transparency and more fact-finding. If one side is really way worse than the other, the facts will bear that out. But let's also not pretend that the Dems are saints just because they're less corrupt/awful than the other team.

[QMany]

 

Wording could be better here. Painter is "Prof. of law at the University of MN, was chief White House ethics lawyer for Pres. George W. Bush from '05 to '07. Currently serves as vice chairman of CREW."

[BigRedBuster]

47 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

"Both sides are the same."

 

Wait a minute.  I have made it clear (or have attempted to) that I don't equate the two.  

14 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

And, before I’m accused of it, I’m not demonstrating whataboutism. 

 

The  two are not related issues. 

 

 

This would be the same as saying....well... PSU's problems with Sandusky were so bad that we shouldn't even think about investigating Ol' Miss's issues.

 

Just because one is so bad, doesn't mean the other shouldn't be investigated and found out what really went on.

[TGHusker]

I don't think anyone said they are equal.  And bringing the Dem issue to light isn't a retaliation for all of the repub issues.   We have to remember that it was a Republican primary

opponent who opened the door on investigating Trump (I've heard several speculate it was Jeb - which would make sense). The DNC and Clinton campaign picked it up after the primaries. Also makes sense of the handoff as the Bushes were outspoken critics of Trump from the beginning and are friends wt Clinton.

 

My take: Having this discussion a year after the election tells me how broken our system is.  Our system allowed the 2 worse possible candidates to rise to the top. Trump and Hillary are both corrupt but in different ways and different reasons.   That doesn't mean their issues are equal.   We have in the WH the worse possible person leading this country and I agree wt Sen Flake, he is morally corrupting this nation with his boorish behavior.  If proven true, the Mueller investigation could very well show that his actions as a candidate were illegal.  My concern as I noted in my rant above was that, with this Hillary/DNC sideshow now going on, we may not get to the bottom of the Mueller investigation.  The Hillary/DNC sideshow also serves the purpose of discrediting Mueller and Comey as well.

 

Dude you failed to add the following to your soap box post above - so I thought I'd loan you a couple:

Edited October 26, 2017 by TGHusker

[RedDenver]

38 minutes ago, QMany said:

 

That's a really important distinction that I was not aware of.

[Landlord]

4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

This foreign agent wrote a dossier that accused Trump of doing some pretty disgusting things, released it to members of the press to be published and nothing in it has ever been verified nor is it probably able to be verified.  But...the Dems loved it being released anyway.  

 

 

I think you're wrong there. 

 

Former Los Angeles Times Moscow correspondent Robert Gillette wrote in an op-ed in the Concord Monitor that the dossier has had at least one of its main factual assertions verified. On January 6, 2017, the Director of National Intelligence released a report assessing "with high confidence" that Russia's combined cyber and propaganda operation was directed personally by Vladimir Putin, with the aim of harming Hillary Clinton's candidacy and helping Trump.[56] Gillette wrote: "Steele's dossier, paraphrasing multiple sources, reported precisely the same conclusion, in greater detail, six months earlier, in a memo dated June 20."

 

...

 

On February 10, 2017, CNN reported that some communications between "senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals" described in the dossier had been corroborated by multiple U.S. officials. Sources told CNN that some conversations had been "intercepted during routine intelligence gathering", but refused to reveal the content of conversations, or specify which communications were detailed in the dossier. CNN was unable to confirm whether conversations were related to Trump. U.S. officials said the corroboration gave "US intelligence and law enforcement 'greater confidence' in the credibility of some aspects of the dossier as they continue to actively investigate its contents".

 

...

 

According to Business Insider, the dossier alleges that "the Trump campaign agreed to minimize US opposition to Russia's incursions into Ukraine".[64] In July 2016, the Republican National Convention made changes to the Republican Party's platform on Ukraine: initially they proposed providing "lethal weapons" to Ukraine, but the line was changed to "appropriate assistance". J. D. Gordon, who was one of Trump's national security advisers during the campaign, said that he had advocated for changing language because that reflected what Trump had said.

[zoogs]

"In some ways the theory of alt-collusion mirrors the propaganda methods used by Putin himself. ... The accusation is preposterous, but that doesn’t matter. The purpose is to create an offsetting accusation against the accuser, so that the average bystander can only puzzle at the spectacle of two sides making the same allegation against each other.

 

"This method can work if you have enough mouthpieces who are sufficiently devoid of skepticism or intellectual self-respect to be willing to spread your obviously absurd message. A key fact that Trump has discovered, and which has enabled his takeover of the Republican Party, is that this is a resource the American right has in abundant supply."

 

Emphasis mine. Good summary here.

[Danny Bateman]

@RedDenver @BigRedBuster I agree with your push for transparency and openness. A lot of folks criticized the Obama administration for that, and while I supported the majority of their actions, I can't disagree too much. They could've been a lot more open and honest about things rather than trying to pull levers behind closed doors. It's always frustrating to watch politicians scramble to try to cover their own tales instead of just being honest when they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. That said, Trump's administration has been much worse in this regard, IMO. 

 

I'm fine with investigations. I just don't trust the Congressional Republicans carrying them out. If we could get a truly impartial third party (i.e., a Mueller or other non-partisan figure), I'm all for doing actual fact finding. 

I don't think Dems are saints at all. I'd much rather be discussing ways they could improve their party & appeal to more people in terms of actually creating a better government. I just have a hierarchy of concerns right now and Trump/GOP are at the top of the list because they're so far off the rails. I view the Dems as the party of sanity, albeit with their own flaws.

 

I'll kick around a list of how you guys view the pros/cons of each party though, if you guys want. I'd be interested in seeing how you view things.

 

@TGHusker Hopefully they won't use these new investigations as a way to try to slander Comey or Mueller. I mean, the White House has shown no reservations in trying to discredit them & throw them under the bus, but I'd hope at least some in the GOP would have some scruples. Comey was a registered Republican not that long ago for cripe's sakes. Another subject you're broaching is actual nomination/election reforms to try to arrive at better candidates, which is something I've been looking into lately. I've got some ideas but I'm still learning.

 

Thanks for the dropped emojis man

 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

12 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

That said, Trump's administration has been much worse in this regard, IMO. 

Not sure who you think is saying anything different on this board.

[Danny Bateman]

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Not sure who you think is saying anything different on this board.

 

Just stating the obvious, I guess.

[TGHusker]

27 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

@RedDenver @BigRedBuster I agree with your push for transparency and openness. A lot of folks criticized the Obama administration for that, and while I supported the majority of their actions, I can't disagree too much. They could've been a lot more open and honest about things rather than trying to pull levers behind closed doors. It's always frustrating to watch politicians scramble to try to cover their own tales instead of just being honest when they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. That said, Trump's administration has been much worse in this regard, IMO. 

 

I'm fine with investigations. I just don't trust the Congressional Republicans carrying them out. If we could get a truly impartial third party (i.e., a Mueller or other non-partisan figure), I'm all for doing actual fact finding. 

I don't think Dems are saints at all. I'd much rather be discussing ways they could improve their party & appeal to more people in terms of actually creating a better government. I just have a hierarchy of concerns right now and Trump/GOP are at the top of the list because they're so far off the rails. I view the Dems as the party of sanity, albeit with their own flaws.

 

I'll kick around a list of how you guys view the pros/cons of each party though, if you guys want. I'd be interested in seeing how you view things.

 

@TGHusker Hopefully they won't use these new investigations as a way to try to slander Comey or Mueller. I mean, the White House has shown no reservations in trying to discredit them & throw them under the bus, but I'd hope at least some in the GOP would have some scruples. Comey was a registered Republican not that long ago for cripe's sakes. Another subject you're broaching is actual nomination/election reforms to try to arrive at better candidates, which is something I've been looking into lately. I've got some ideas but I'm still learning.

 

Thanks for the dropped emojis man

 

 

 

Dude, maybe you can start a thread on the bolded red above

Regarding the  Green Bold - yes I believe that will be one of the goals of the investigations.

 

 

Some Initial thoughts and rambling - as a recovering republican I don't recognize today's republican party nor its willingness to elect someone like Trump. It has greatly fallen from the decency of Ronald Reagan to Trump.  

The Repub party is a much different than the party I'm use to defending in years past.  Or perhaps I have come to realize that perhaps the Republican party had presented an illusion of what they wanted me to see and support but were different behind the scenes for the past many years. As you know, I am a Reagan Republican - and Reagan would be considered to be a moderate in today's party.   The party has lurched much to the right in recent years - put not to a true constitutional conservative direction, and wt Trump it has lurched into another direction that I really can't put my finger on - they aren't constitutional conservative, they aren't libertarian, they aren't moderate in the sense that we'd consider a moderate Dem or Repub - trying to balance the social needs with tax policies and spending priories.   The Contract wt Amer repubs I though had vision and I could relate to them however they weren't the best on execution and messaging.  Today's repubs don't seem to have the same values - they seemed to be bought and paid for my special interest groups as never before.   Trump and friends are trying to remake the party into a nationalistic party of some kind - it attracts some unsavory people.

 

[RedDenver]

8 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Some Initial thoughts and rambling - as a recovering republican I don't recognize today's republican party nor its willingness to elect someone like Trump. It has greatly fallen from the decency of Ronald Reagan to Trump.  

The Repub party is a much different than the party I'm use to defending in years past.  Or perhaps I have come to realize that perhaps the Republican party had presented an illusion of what they wanted me to see and support but were different behind the scenes for the past many years. As you know, I am a Reagan Republican - and Reagan would be considered to be a moderate in today's party.   The party has lurched much to the right in recent years - put not to a true constitutional conservative direction, and wt Trump it has lurched into another direction that I really can't put my finger on - they aren't constitutional conservative, they aren't libertarian, they aren't moderate in the sense that we'd consider a moderate Dem or Repub - trying to balance the social needs with tax policies and spending priories.   The Contract wt Amer repubs I though had vision and I could relate to them however they weren't the best on execution and messaging.  Today's repubs don't seem to have the same values - they seemed to be bought and paid for my special interest groups as never before.   Trump and friends are trying to remake the party into a nationalistic party of some kind - it attracts some unsavory people.

 

Reagan would be the furthest left Repub (maybe even be a Dem) in today's politics. Barack Obama has stated that his politics would have made him a Repub in the 1980's.

 

The best description I've got for the Trump version of the Repubs is Nationalism with tinges of Fascism. They're about seizing and maintaining power, everything else is secondary including ideologies and governing.

[TGHusker]

7 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Reagan would be the furthest left Repub (maybe even be a Dem) in today's politics. Barack Obama has stated that his politics would have made him a Repub in the 1980's.

 

The best description I've got for the Trump version of the Repubs is Nationalism with tinges of Fascism. They're about seizing and maintaining power, everything else is secondary including ideologies and governing.

I think you nailed it Red on both accounts.