Straight Dope Message Board

[John DiFool]

Originally Posted by Evil Economist

I see about 6 words in that message that Trump couldn't even spell.

He couldn't spell FBI if you spotted him the F and the B. 2551

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Chimera

Art Buchwald's 1973 article of handy excuses for Nixon voters.

We've already heard about half of their modern equivalents. We'll hear the other half if proper indictments are made against Trump.

"Chappaquiddick" was the "Benghazi" of it's time, eh! 2552

[running coach]

Originally Posted by John DiFool

He couldn't spell FBI if you spotted him the F and the B.

Actually, he could. He's all about the "I". 2553

[ganthet]

Originally Posted by GrandWino

No expectation that anybody will be extradited but it's a big public signal from Mueller that the 'Russher thing" isn't a hoax.

The other thing that makes the indictments mean something to those who are named is that it will likely limit their travel options for the indefinite future to avoid being arrested and extradited to the U.S. by a country that isn't in thrall to Russia. 2554

[Aspenglow]

Originally Posted by ganthet

The other thing that makes the indictments mean something to those who are named is that it will likely limit their travel options for the indefinite future to avoid being arrested and extradited to the U.S. by a country that isn't in thrall to Russia.

Oh, and one other little thing they did: Irrevocably tie the Russian campaign to the Trump campaign. Unknown campaign officials were in touch with Russians, perhaps unwittingly in these indictments. But there will be more indictments, and we'll see if Trump's campaign officials remain unwitting -- or otherwise. 2555

[El_Kabong]

Originally Posted by Aspenglow

Oh, and one other little thing they did: Irrevocably tie the Russian campaign to the Trump campaign. Unknown campaign officials were in touch with Russians, perhaps unwittingly in these indictments. But there will be more indictments, and we'll see if Trump's campaign officials remain unwitting -- or otherwise.

And a new term is born: from this day forward, members of Team Trump will be forever known as Unwits. 2556

[Aspenglow]

Originally Posted by El_Kabong

And a new term is born: from this day forward, members of Team Trump will be forever known as Unwits.

Yer killin' me. I like it!

This is interesting, to see which way the dominoes are falling:

Reactions to Russian Indictments (Reuters) 2557

[Blank Slate]

“He said he didn’t meddle — I asked him again,” Mr. Trump told reporters traveling with him aboard Air Force One as he flew to Hanoi for more meetings. “You can only ask so many times. I just asked him again. He said he absolutely did not meddle in our election. He did not do what they are saying he did.”

- Our Stable Genuis.

Lying or incompetent? Either way, he has absolutely no business being in the oval office. 2558

[Chimera]

I feel sorry for those 13. They're likely to experience a rash of car accidents and suicides. 2559

[JohnT]

Death comes at you fast. 2560

[digs]

Originally Posted by Aspenglow

But there will be more indictments, and we'll see if Trump's campaign officials remain unwitting...

Ooh, maybe we can get them to turn on each other. And the ones to sing first get put in the Witless Protection Program. 2561

[ThelmaLou]

Originally Posted by Aspenglow

Yer killin' me. I like it!

This is interesting, to see which way the dominoes are falling:

Reactions to Russian Indictments (Reuters)

From that Reuters link:

“We have known that Russians meddled in the election, but these indictments detail the extent of the subterfuge. These Russians engaged in a sinister and systematic attack on our political system. It was a conspiracy to subvert the process, and take aim at democracy itself. Today’s announcement underscores why we need to follow the facts and work to protect the integrity of future elections.”

- House Speaker Paul Ryan in a statement

Does this remind anyone else of these lines from Casablanca:

Captain Renault (to Rick): I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! [a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]

Croupier: Your winnings, sir.

Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.

....

2562

[Aspenglow]

Originally Posted by digs

Ooh, maybe we can get them to turn on each other. And the ones to sing first get put in the Witless Protection Program.

Someone should probably tell them they're already in it. Along with most of their remaining supporters.

Originally Posted by ThelmaLou

From that Reuters link: Does this remind anyone else of these lines from Casablanca:

LOL, that one jumped out at me, too.

I hear Ryan's just marking time till the end of the year, when there awaits him a career with a big fat salary heading up the Heritage Foundation for the Kochs.

'Scooz me while I go swallow my gorge. 2563

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Aspenglow

Yer killin' me. I like it!

This is interesting, to see which way the dominoes are falling:

Reactions to Russian Indictments (Reuters)

- Republican Representative Devin Nunes in a statement

“I‘m glad the administration is acting, based on the ongoing work of the special counsel, to hold Russia accountable.

Of course it is Acting!!! /s

https://vimeo.com/15476780

Master Thespian: "Oh! Baudelaire! You fooled me!"
Baudelaire: "Acting!!" 2564

[Chisquirrel]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

If you don't understand things, you can always refrain from commenting.

This from the guy dropping his stupidity all over every thread relating to Mueller and his investigation? 2565

[SlackerInc]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

(Earlier in that article it says that the Russians also liked Sanders - perhaps they wanted to build a connection to Sanders people.)

Fascinating that the guy who literally honeymooned in the Soviet Union was supported by Putin, a KGB colonel at the time and someone who has said the fall of the USSR was a tragedy. I hope Mueller is looking into that honeymoon to see who Bernie met with. Is Sanders a real life Manchurian Candidate? 2566

[HMS Irruncible]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

"Chappaquiddick" was the "Benghazi" of it's time, eh!

More like the Juanita Broderick of its time. More than meets the eye, and more important than believed, but also entirely a case of 'whataboutism'. You're not off the hook for doing a bad thing if someone else did some other, different bad thing. 2567

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Aspenglow

That's the important takeaway from these indictments, for sure.

It's Mueller's way of warning Americans that this is not a hoax, this really happened, it continues to happen and our intelligence agencies have the proof of it.

It's an extremely detailed speaking indictment that lays out the true situation for those in this country who care to know: The things we need to watch for; the breadth and depth of the intrusion; the reality of the threat and steps we must take to beat back further interference.

It also brings pressure to bear on Congress to start taking the threats seriously. It shows Devin Nunes for the traitorous chump he is. Congress must choose: Protect Trump, or protect the nation.

It highlights exactly how disinterested Trump himself is in protecting anything but his own miserable hide.

Lastly, it takes some heat off Rosenstein, Wray and the FBI.

All in a good day's work.

All of this makes sense. The thing that struck me was “these indictments mean that Trump can’t fire Mueller.”

With this level of documented evidence and formal accusation of another country acting against the US, Trump taking action against Mueller, the person overseeing that work, could not be looked at as anything other than obstruction and treason given all of Trump’s actions and statements to date. I am not trying to be cute or hyperbolic - I believe I am speaking to extremely likely consequences.

With this additional leverage, Mueller can continue moving in his methodical way. Folks are discussing how slow he is moving - I disagree; I assume he is planning his timing.

In terms of timing: when will Mueller start dropping the bigger bombshells? I would argue that he will target right before or immediately after the midterm elections. Going afterwards makes a lot of sense - see how many seats the Dems take over and how likely it might be that any politically-driven impeachment process might be supported in Congress. 2568

[Fiveyearlurker]

Still no sanctions though, huh? Curious that. 2569

[GreysonCarlisle]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

Still no sanctions though, huh? Curious that.

They're coming. Really. If you can't trust Mnuchin, who can you trust? 2570

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by jsc1953

Argument A: it might get Trump to stop yammering that Russia meddling is "fake news" and "Vlad said he didn't do it and I believe him." Those statements now (as if there was any doubt) make Trump look stupid, naive, disingenuous or a lying traitorous pig...take your choice.

Argument B: Today's indictments are about the Russian social media disinformation efforts. They're not about delivering stolen e-mail to the Trump campaign. That shoe is still waiting to drop.

make Trump look stupid, naive, disingenuous or a lying traitorous pig...take your choice

Let's see...

Stupid, yes.
Lying, yes
Traitorous, yes.
Pig? I won't insult hogs that way. They didn't do anything. 2571

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Aspenglow

T...Congress must choose: Protect Trump, or protect the nation.

They've already chosen. Isn't obvious? 2572

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by GrandWino

No need to be really. Trump was briefed on Russian shenanigans before he took office and has denied them ever since. His tweets about this being a hoax were (obviously) lies.

A lot of the shenanigans were going on in HIS building in New York. How could he NOT know. 2573

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Death comes at you fast.

Not always, sometimes it is slow, in order to send a message to others. 2574

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Aspenglow

Yer killin' me. I like it!

This is interesting, to see which way the dominoes are falling:

Reactions to Russian Indictments (Reuters)

Heh.

“What we learned was astonishing. We learned that the Russian were also organizing for Bernie Sanders. We learned that in late November 2016 they then turned their efforts to be against President Trump, that their goal was to sow discord and chaos, not to promote a certain candidate, and that no Americans were involved in this plot ... Democrats deceived this country and they were caught today.”

- Republican National Committee spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany to Fox News 2575

[GreysonCarlisle]

Maybe Russia, but Dems are still worse, claims Gidley:

"There are two groups that have created chaos more than the Russians and that’s the Democrats and the mainstream media,” Gidley said.

"[They] continued to push this lie on the American people for more than a year, and frankly Americans should be outraged by that," he added.

-The Hill 2576

[Chimera]

Ah, the 'They're doing it too' and 'No, it's them that's doing it' arguments, or rather, distractions. 2577

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible

More like the Juanita Broderick of its time. More than meets the eye, and more important than believed, but also entirely a case of 'whataboutism'. You're not off the hook for doing a bad thing if someone else did some other, different bad thing.

Investigate them BOTH.

Not a problem. 2578

[BeenJammin]

Aaaaaaand it's official - Newsflash: Russians meddled in U.S. election!

Wonder how much these "Results and Outcomes" cost taxpayers?

Now we return to your regularly scheduled Liberal-Democrat circle jerk... 2579

[bobot]

Originally Posted by BeenJammin

...
Wonder how much these "Results and Outcomes" cost taxpayers?

...

Nowhere near as much as the election results did. But glad to hear that it is now being accepted that the interference did truly happen. Baby steps. 2580

[Blank Slate]

Originally Posted by BeenJammin

Aaaaaaand it's official - Newsflash: Russians meddled in U.S. election!

Wonder how much these "Results and Outcomes" cost taxpayers?

Now we return to your regularly scheduled Liberal-Democrat circle jerk...

This dickhead thinks it's over. Lol. 2581

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Blank Slate

This dickhead thinks it's over. Lol.

Like hell, it's over. He must be one of those "great patriotic flag wavers" who don't care about Putin fucking with us, don't care about collusion and treason, don't care about anything as long as their side wins.



Also...

Fuck the dollar (soon to be rubles?) cost. I'm more interested in the cost in terms of national security (how many secrets did Trump share with Putin that we DON'T know about and how 'bout them sanctions), trust (lack of it) in our government (full of Republican traitors), and a traitor rogue president who doesn't even deserve to lick the shit off the White House toilets. 2582

[Aspenglow]

Originally Posted by WordMan

All of this makes sense. The thing that struck me was “these indictments mean that Trump can’t fire Mueller.”

With this level of documented evidence and formal accusation of another country acting against the US, Trump taking action against Mueller, the person overseeing that work, could not be looked at as anything other than obstruction and treason given all of Trump’s actions and statements to date. I am not trying to be cute or hyperbolic - I believe I am speaking to extremely likely consequences.

With this additional leverage, Mueller can continue moving in his methodical way. Folks are discussing how slow he is moving - I disagree; I assume he is planning his timing.

In terms of timing: when will Mueller start dropping the bigger bombshells? I would argue that he will target right before or immediately after the midterm elections. Going afterwards makes a lot of sense - see how many seats the Dems take over and how likely it might be that any politically-driven impeachment process might be supported in Congress.

Just my opinion, but I think we'll see bigger bombshells sooner than right around the mid-terms. Here's why:

First, it takes time for the information itself and the import of that information to percolate through the collective consciousness of the country. If he starts 6 months ahead, voters will have enough time to grasp the magnitude.

Second, I think he has a lot to work with. A very lot. Mueller can start dropping bombshells in March or April and relentlessly continue dropping new ones all the way through the mid-terms and beyond. It will create an unavoidable drumbeat of staggering criminal conduct on the part of Trump and his cronies. Mueller will control the narrative. Notice that the impact of the Nunes memo has disappeared like a fart in a whirlwind.

The Special Counsel just released his own "memo." He has laid his foundation: Criminal conduct on the part of a foreign power did occur, extensively, in the 2016 election. Going forward, any conspiracy, cooperation or collusion (pick your 'c' word) knowingly participated in by any American citizen means that they, too, participated in a criminal activity. There will be no more talk of hoaxes -- and eventually, no way for Trump to deny his involvement as The Reveal progresses, even before any report is submitted to Congress. Throughout all this, we know we can count on Trump to continue to act guilty.

Third, all this evidence of criminal conduct is going to ratchet up pressure on the Republican Congress. In a weird way, despite the fact that they've been traitorous fuckers for a year and a half starting with Mitch McConnell's and Paul Ryan's refusals to join President Obama's entreaty to alert the public about Russian election interference in a bi-partisan way back in September 2016, Mueller's indictments give cover to congressional Republicans to now finally acknowledge the reality of the situation, even against Fox "News" propaganda and Trump's base. If they don't, it just gets worse and worse for them in the mid-terms. Accordingly, Congress will either do a hasty about face and vote for impeachment ahead of the mid-terms, or they'll be slaughtered in the mid-terms. Mueller means for this to end in impeachment, then criminal charges and conviction of Trump.

Fourth, by revealing the criminal activity sooner rather than later, state officials will hopefully be galvanized to harden their election systems in an effort to prevent worse hacking than occurred in 2016. Despite repeated statements by the Trump "administration" that there is no evidence of actual hacking into voting systems, that's not true. There was limited penetration into some systems. And of course, you can't find what you never looked for. One of the easiest and best steps that can be quickly taken in all districts is to add paper ballots to all systems. The sooner people accept the reality of the Russian interference, the sooner they'll take concrete steps to protect our voting systems.

I believe Mueller has his timing for all this set out like a military campaign. There will soon be endless news about new indictments, arrests, arraignments, plea deals, trials and the full extent of the rot -- as is already evidenced by what is stated in the indictments document -- for a prolonged period of time.

It's also worth noting that Mueller's indictments support more of Christopher Steele's dossier, so they dial back criticism of the dossier-- and Mr. Steele himself -- as well. 2583

[Sam Stone]

Just what makes you people think that Trump is still being implicated? This was always a counter-intelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation of Trump.

I mean, I wouldn't surprise me at all if Trump were engaged in some kind of shady dealing, but where I come from we like to have actual evidence before assuming someone must be guilty. So far, we have a couple of underlings caught in perjury traps, and that's it. The 13 indictments that just came down had absolutely nothing to do with Trump, but you are acting like this is the big breakthrough you've been waiting for.

It seems to me that the preponderance of evidence is looking worse for the Clinton campaign, the FBI and the Obama DOJ, and better for Trump. You want Russian Collusion? How about building a dossier against a candidate, funded by the opposing candidate, by paying anonymous Russian officials for 'dirt' on said candidate? Because that's what Clinton did. How is that not 10x worse than merely accepting a meeting from someone claiming to have unsolicited dirt?

You want government malfeasance? How about using that dossier to get a warrant to spy on an American, without disclosing to the court that it was funded by the opposing campaign? How about using a news article as a secondary source to get the warrant, when you knew the article was based on the same dossier but did not disclose that to the court?

Then there is the questionable unmasking of the names being surveilled by Susan Rice and Samantha Power, Obama's last-minute order that made the results of the surveillance much more widely available within the government, etc.

I mean, as long as the criteria for guilt is smoke and not hard evidence, I see a lot of smoke rising from the Democratic side of things. 2584

[Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by SteveG1

Like hell, it's over. He must be one of those "great patriotic flag wavers" who don't care about Putin fucking with us, don't care about collusion and treason, don't care about anything as long as their side wins.

Or a Russian troll. 2585

[JohnT]

Of course you see smoke, Sam. You voted for a traitorous pussy grabber and got to keep defending that shit.

But given the criteria is *not* smoke, but hard evidence:

Manafort: indicted
Papadopoulos: pled
Gates: pleading
Flynn: pled
Session: recused
Russians operating pro-trump election op: indicted X 13 2586

[SlackerInc]

Originally Posted by Skywatcher

Or a Russian troll.

That is of course possible, but I don’t think it’s good to start down that road without evidence because it too easily becomes a McCarthyist crutch to use against anyone who disagrees with you. 2587

[enipla]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Of course you see smoke, Sam. You voted for a traitorous pussy grabber and got to keep defending that shit.

But given the criteria is *not* smoke, but hard evidence:

Manafort: indicted
Papadopoulos: pled
Gates: pleading
Flynn: pled
Session: recused
Russians operating pro-trump election op: indicted X 13

Not to mention Obstruction of Justice which trump admitted to on national television. Shesss. I'd be embarrassed too if I voted for the moron trump. But sometimes, you just have to let it go. Ignore it, or admit how fucking wrong you where to help elect this asshole. 2588

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Of course you see smoke, Sam. You voted for a traitorous pussy grabber and got to keep defending that shit.

Since Sam is a Canadian, I doubt that he voted for Trump. 2589

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Just what makes you people think that Trump is still being implicated? This was always a counter-intelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation of Trump.

I mean, I wouldn't surprise me at all if Trump were engaged in some kind of shady dealing, but where I come from we like to have actual evidence before assuming someone must be guilty. So far, we have a couple of underlings caught in perjury traps, and that's it. The 13 indictments that just came down had absolutely nothing to do with Trump, but you are acting like this is the big breakthrough you've been waiting for.

It seems to me that the preponderance of evidence is looking worse for the Clinton campaign, the FBI and the Obama DOJ, and better for Trump. You want Russian Collusion? How about building a dossier against a candidate, funded by the opposing candidate, by paying anonymous Russian officials for 'dirt' on said candidate? Because that's what Clinton did. How is that not 10x worse than merely accepting a meeting from someone claiming to have unsolicited dirt?

You want government malfeasance? How about using that dossier to get a warrant to spy on an American, without disclosing to the court that it was funded by the opposing campaign? How about using a news article as a secondary source to get the warrant, when you knew the article was based on the same dossier but did not disclose that to the court?

Then there is the questionable unmasking of the names being surveilled by Susan Rice and Samantha Power, Obama's last-minute order that made the results of the surveillance much more widely available within the government, etc.

I mean, as long as the criteria for guilt is smoke and not hard evidence, I see a lot of smoke rising from the Democratic side of things.

You better believe they are also looking at hotels and real estate 'sales" and other types of money laundering too.

Trump and his buddies ARE criminals. It's just a matter of collecting enough evidence and presenting it.
All that other stuff you are dredging up is just bullshit and distraction.

They already have one hell of a case to pursue obstruction. The "masking unmasking" was a Republican lie. The shit about Clinton, at this point is just stupid and lazy.


Oh, and you "Trump patriots" make me want to puke. 2590

[Aspenglow]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Just what makes you people think that Trump is still being implicated? This was always a counter-intelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation of Trump.

I mean, I wouldn't surprise me at all if Trump were engaged in some kind of shady dealing, but where I come from we like to have actual evidence before assuming someone must be guilty. So far, we have a couple of underlings caught in perjury traps, and that's it. The 13 indictments that just came down had absolutely nothing to do with Trump, but you are acting like this is the big breakthrough you've been waiting for.

It seems to me that the preponderance of evidence is looking worse for the Clinton campaign, the FBI and the Obama DOJ, and better for Trump. You want Russian Collusion? How about building a dossier against a candidate, funded by the opposing candidate, by paying anonymous Russian officials for 'dirt' on said candidate? Because that's what Clinton did. How is that not 10x worse than merely accepting a meeting from someone claiming to have unsolicited dirt?

You want government malfeasance? How about using that dossier to get a warrant to spy on an American, without disclosing to the court that it was funded by the opposing campaign? How about using a news article as a secondary source to get the warrant, when you knew the article was based on the same dossier but did not disclose that to the court?

Then there is the questionable unmasking of the names being surveilled by Susan Rice and Samantha Power, Obama's last-minute order that made the results of the surveillance much more widely available within the government, etc.

I mean, as long as the criteria for guilt is smoke and not hard evidence, I see a lot of smoke rising from the Democratic side of things.

You are so sadly misinformed. Unusual to find a Fox "News" watcher from Canada, since Canada doesn't allow it as I recall, but obviously you can find Alex Jones and Breitbart without too much trouble.

Some facts:

The scary-sounding "unmasking" is routinely done by persons in government with appropriate security clearances to learn who the Americans are that are talking to foreign nationals adverse to our interests. Susan Rice and Samantha Power had such clearance (unlike 130 persons in the Trump "administration," apparently) to request that unmasking be done, so they could understand the context of the discussions. The individuals, Susan Rice and/or Samantha Power, have no authority to unmask, only make the request. Whether or not to unmask is decided by the agency that provided the report. Stop acting like this is something nefarious. It isn't.

There was no "building a dossier against a candidate, funded by the opposing candidate, by paying anonymous Russian officials for 'dirt' on said candidate."

No dossier could be "built" if the target of the investigation, Trump, had not built it. Fusion GPS told Steele to learn what he could about Trump's connections with Russia. He did. He made nothing up. He investigated. He reported. The dirt was there to find. You want to blame Steele for finding it, instead of the person who committed the criminal acts that were discovered. Don't you get that? There is absolutely nothing illegal or even immoral about the investigation undertaken by Steele on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

The contents of the dossier were not released until after the election and the Clinton campaign never used any information revealed in the dossier in the campaign. Therefore, the dossier could have no effect on the outcome of the election. Look this up to educate yourself on this point.

To accept a meeting with representatives of a foreign government for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election is not necessarily illegal, but taking them up on the offer, providing them with tools to accomplish the interference is and then using the fruits of their labor is. It's worse when the email advising you of the meeting makes it clear that the Russian government is working on your behalf to get you elected and is seeking your help to subvert said election. Sorry you don't understand the gravity of this.

TL, DR: The Clinton campaign learned of potential illegal activity, didn't use it for their own purposes and turned it over to the FBI for appropriate investigation. The FBI was already on the case before Steele. The Trump team accepted help offered illegally from a foreign government, used it to further their own goals and failed to report the subversion of our electoral process. See the difference? 2591

[Sam Stone]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Of course you see smoke, Sam. You voted for a traitorous pussy grabber and got to keep defending that shit.

But given the criteria is *not* smoke, but hard evidence:

Manafort: indicted
Papadopoulos: pled
Gates: pleading
Flynn: pled
Session: recused
Russians operating pro-trump election op: indicted X 13

Um, I did not vote for Trump, being Canadian and all. And if you would like my opinion of Trump, you won't find me saying a single nice thing about him now or in the past. Go search for anything nice I have said about him. I think he's a pretty horrible human being.

As for your 'hard evidence', none of the people above pled to anything involving Trump and Russian collusion. And it's looking like the FBI may have overreached with Flynn, and that case is being looked at again. Sessions recusing himself is not evidence of anything. So you've got a couple of guys who may have been dealing with Russians ver unrelated matters. Neither of them were indicted over anything having to do with Trump.

Yes, the Russians appear to have run an election disinformation campaign. It's pretty clear that their intent wasn't to elect Trump, but to just sow discord and confusion. They also supported Bernie Sanders, and immediately after the election they funded protests on both sides of the aisle - both pro-Trump and anti-Trump. That's what they do.

I have been calling out Russian meddling in western elections for decades. The Communist Party of the U.S.A was a Soviet-backed propaganda outfit. Organizations like 'Worker's World' received Russian funding to support anti-Bush election propaganda. Half the 'peace' protests and nuclear freeze protests that went on in the 80's and 90's had Soviet or Russian money behind them.

Of course, back then all that money was funneled exclusively through the Left, so the protestations of people like me generally fell on deaf ears. It seems Russian 'meddling' is only worth having the vapors over if there's a chance it might have helped the Republicans. 2592

[The Tooth]

Originally Posted by Aspenglow

You are so sadly misinformed. Unusual to find a Fox "News" watcher from Canada, since Canada doesn't allow it as I recall, but obviously you can find Alex Jones and Breitbart without too much trouble.

Fox News is allowed here. Any rules concerning truth in reporting only apply to Canadian channels, so Fox News has nothing to worry about. 2593

[SlackerInc]

Originally Posted by SteveG1

You better believe they are also looking at hotels and real estate 'sales" and other types of money laundering too.

Trump and his buddies ARE criminals. It's just a matter of collecting enough evidence and presenting it.
All that other stuff you are dredging up is just bullshit and distraction.

They already have one hell of a case to pursue obstruction. The "masking unmasking" was a Republican lie. The shit about Clinton, at this point is just stupid and lazy.


Oh, and you "Trump patriots" make me want to puke.

Let’s not put all our eggs in one basket. I wouldn’t bet on it, but it is not impossible for it to turn out to be true that Donald Trump has not personally committed any crime, or at least nothing we didn’t already know about at the time of his election (Trump University, for instance, or his admission that he groped women without permission). That would not change the fact that it was un-American for anyone to vote for him, based on the publicly available information at the time. We must not lose sight of this fact in our zeal to frogmarch him out of the WH!

ETA: I would not make this “un-American” charge about voting for any other major party presidential candidate of the past half century at least. 2594

[Aspenglow]

Originally Posted by The Tooth

Fox News is allowed here. Any rules concerning truth in reporting only apply to Canadian channels, so Fox News has nothing to worry about.

Thanks for putting me straight on that. I thought I'd read somewhere a few years ago there was a restriction on it in Canada, because of all the lies it propagated. Too bad; I had hoped we might follow your Canadian model here in the USA. 2595

[Aspenglow]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

Fascinating that the guy who literally honeymooned in the Soviet Union was supported by Putin, a KGB colonel at the time and someone who has said the fall of the USSR was a tragedy. I hope Mueller is looking into that honeymoon to see who Bernie met with. Is Sanders a real life Manchurian Candidate?

Can't let this pass. You really need to learn more about Bernie Sanders' "honeymoon" in the USSR, and what that was actually all about. It had nothing to do with an actual honeymoon. He was carrying out the duties of his office to which he had already committed.

Bloomberg's take. 2596

[Aspenglow]

I readily allow that nothing has yet proved Trump's direct involvement with Russians to subvert the election. But put it this way: You know how a terminally ill patient isn't dead, but you can look at them and see what's coming? It's like that. 2597

[ThelmaLou]

Originally Posted by Aspenglow

Can't let this pass. You really need to learn more about Bernie Sanders' "honeymoon" in the USSR, and what that was actually all about. It had nothing to do with an actual honeymoon. He was carrying out the duties of his office to which he had already committed.

Bloomberg's take.

Anyone who wasn't alive in 1988 should read the article at that link and familiarize themselves with recent history before mouthing off. The Soviet Union had broken up and for a brief "Russian Spring," that country was not our overt enemy.

...And in any case, most of his critics* seem to have forgotten that the Soviet Union at the time was hardly the place for an admirer of communism to find comfort.

Under Sanders, Burlington developed sister-city programs with places that reflected his sympathies, notably Puerta Cabezas, Nicaragua. That pairing was in keeping with Sanders' opposition to President Ronald Reagan's attempts to undermine the leftist Sandinista government. Sanders and the Burlington Board of Aldermen even wrote angry letters demanding that the president "stop killing the innocent people of Nicaragua."

Burlington also had a link-up with the city of Yaroslavl, in Russia. But as Sanders wrote in his 1998 political memoir, "Outsider in the White House," the motivations were quite different:

Like the Puerto Cabezas project, the sister-city program with Yaroslavl has been very successful. Each has different constituencies of support. Puerto Cabezas mostly attracted the energy of left-wing activists who were initially involved because of their support for the Sandinista Revolution and opposition to U.S. intervention in Central America. The Yaroslavl project received more broad-based backing, including from a number of business people in the city.

The Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev was opening to the world, no longer exactly an enemy of the U.S. and more an intriguing, unknown entity. In 1987, Gorbachev effectively signed the planned economy's death sentence, permitting so-called "cooperatives" -- essentially private companies that could produce and trade goods as freely as the tired and greedy bureaucracy allowed. Thus began the second stage of what Gorbachev called perestroika, or restructuring. It also included political reforms that attempted to shift the center of power from the Communist Party to the Soviets -- a system of representative government that handled the Soviet Union's housekeeping.

Soviet newspapers and magazines were beginning to publish documents and eyewitness accounts from the time of Stalin's purges. It was dawning on a large part of the Soviet people that their own Communist state, and not the West, was, and had long been, their biggest enemy.
...

*And those currently under age 35. 2598

[scr4]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

And it's looking like the FBI may have overreached with Flynn, and that case is being looked at again.

I guess I missed this. Could you point to a cite? 2599

[The Tooth]

Originally Posted by Aspenglow

Thanks for putting me straight on that. I thought I'd read somewhere a few years ago there was a restriction on it in Canada, because of all the lies it propagated. Too bad; I had hoped we might follow your Canadian model here in the USA.

If it makes you feel better I had to look that up. I didn't know it offhand because I never, ever, ever see Fox News here. But one can watch it if one must. 2600