In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 31 2017 03:52 Jockmcplop wrote: I don't understand how the Trump team think they can spin this in such a way that it doesn't look bad for him. He hired a fucking criminal as his campaign manager. Aren't presidents supposed to have good judgement?
It's not just Trump that was fooled. Manafort was well-known in political circles nationally, and he was a major figure in the republican party. A lot of people worked with him, including Tony Podesta. You need to look beyond Trump and consider the magnitude of how all of this potentially affects the political establishment.
Yeah its bad for everyone. If this is draining the swamp I'm all up for it. I hope both sides are shown to be what they are (in the more elite circles, anyway). As far as the Dem elite go, I'm sure there's dirt on them for years and if there is I hope this investigation brings it all out.
The fact is, though, a president is only as good as the people he surrounds himself with. Trump is going to be shown to have made consistently terrible decisions.
Lots of things that Trump does is to uniquely piss off the people opposing to him.
The country is split ideologically, some people would think what Trump is doing is absolutely brilliant, others would be like "This person doesn't fit into MY definition of a president, so I don't like him."
That's not why people don't like Trump.
If your employee rarely showed up, stole from you when they did show up, and sexually harassed everyone in the office you wouldn't say that the issue was that the employee doesn't fit into your definition of an employee.
Trump is really, really bad at being President. By anyone's definition. The man hasn't managed to achieve a single part of his legislative agenda, despite controlling all three branches of government, and he can barely utter a coherent sentence.
But the question is that are all those accusations true or are they just smokes and mirror that people are forced to believe due to political correctness.
This goes back to how the press was lying that trump raped people and how he is sexist and how no way Hillary was going to win.
And they are a lot of people that believes in that narrative. Lots of people belong to one hard end of the spectrum that uses absolutism words like "by anyone's definition."
It is important to have nuanced stance instead of going to the far end.
Let's examine the accusation of Trump not achieving his legislative agenda.
Is there a wall yet? Is the Obamacare repeal done yet? Is tax reform done yet?
Yeah but have you seen how much he has pissed off the left?
On October 31 2017 04:17 brian wrote: [quote] Knowing this, why is it you think Trump was fooled and not just a willing (but maybe even reluctantly) participant?
I'm not ruling out that he was a willing participant. I just think that it's more likely that he was fooled.
eh, honestly? fingers crossed. i feel real naive saying it though. we definitely have different opinions on what’s likely here.
if Hil-dog got elected you have to wonder- would this still have even come out? You have to imagine there would still have been an investigation at the very least. But would there have been a special counsel appointee? I assume not- would her AG need to recuse? and then to that end, would there be as strong a push for ‘the truth’
This’ll be the one part of this investigation that i’ll avoid thinking on too much. How much of this is fact finding and how much is finding the right people to take the fall and will we know between the two by the time we’re done here? because to get even as far as Flynn and Manafort have speaks to, i think, a larger problem here.
i feel like a conspiracy theorist now.
For all I know, Trump is as dirty as everyone else. It really wouldn't surprise me. And yeah, I feel you on the conspiracy theorist sentiment. But it's becoming increasingly clear that all of this is a lot more complicated than "Trump colluded Russians." I'm sure Putin is laughing his ass off over how the US is pretzeling itself over all of this.
Really not sure how Putin's conspiracy being uncovered and the people he conspired with being arrested is a good thing for Putin but whatever, I'm sure you'll not be willing to elaborate on your suggestion that by investigating all this and cleaning up politics we're somehow playing into his hands.
I think it goes something along the lines of ridiculing the US, both DEMs and REPs based on this
That only works if you assume that exposing corruption on both sides of the political spectrum somehow weakens the US.
If corruption in American politics is bad for the US and good for America's rivals then cleaning up that corruption is good for the US and bad for America's rivals.
Comparing it to a hypothetical world where there is no corruption and saying that the chaos of cleaning up the corruption still makes it a relative win for Putin doesn't make sense. That's like losing a soccer match 3-1 but insisting that the goal you scored still makes it kind of a win compared to a hypothetical 10-0 defeat.
The fact of corruption has already been established. From that starting point the US addressing the corruption is bad for Putin.
You are operating under an imaginary assumption that somehow this will be greeted as corruption from both sides. I am saying that if Mueller came out with definitive proof that Russia was outright meddling in the elections and Donald Trump himself was personally giving orders to the Russian agents and they have him on video doing this that a large segment (30%) of the population would say its fake and doenst exist and there would be "news" outlets to feed that stupidity.
In that world the act of cleaning up the corruption only fuels the division and makes America weaker. As long as there is stuff being talked about that can divide us Putin is coming out ahead and you are naive if you think this will not end up as a division along party lines.
You're batshit insane if you think 30% of the population would deny video showing Trump giving orders to actual Russian spies. This president has really done a number on your base incredulity.
30% is probably way too high considering that rougly 50% (or something along those lines?) didn't even vote and those will for the most certainly believe stuff both ways if there's videotapes. Be it of Hillary eating babies in her basement or Trump being a James Bond villain.
That being said... if he changes it to "30% of the people who voted Trump" (which is a big change of the innitial statement) I'd probably agree
That's still 19 million people. Granted, it's much less absurd than 97million, but you're making some pretty wild assertions from left wing looneyville too. That's more than ten of our US states combined.
Isn't 19 million about the audience for Hannity's radio show? Still a little high, but 9-10 million is totally plausible. People don't realize how small the number of people it really takes to make the GOP primaries competitive.
On October 31 2017 04:10 xDaunt wrote: [quote] It's not just Trump that was fooled. Manafort was well-known in political circles nationally, and he was a major figure in the republican party. A lot of people worked with him, including Tony Podesta. You need to look beyond Trump and consider the magnitude of how all of this potentially affects the political establishment.
Knowing this, why is it you think Trump was fooled and not just a willing (but maybe even reluctantly) participant?
I'm not ruling out that he was a willing participant. I just think that it's more likely that he was fooled.
eh, honestly? fingers crossed. i feel real naive saying it though. we definitely have different opinions on what’s likely here.
if Hil-dog got elected you have to wonder- would this still have even come out? You have to imagine there would still have been an investigation at the very least. But would there have been a special counsel appointee? I assume not- would her AG need to recuse? and then to that end, would there be as strong a push for ‘the truth’
This’ll be the one part of this investigation that i’ll avoid thinking on too much. How much of this is fact finding and how much is finding the right people to take the fall and will we know between the two by the time we’re done here? because to get even as far as Flynn and Manafort have speaks to, i think, a larger problem here.
i feel like a conspiracy theorist now.
For all I know, Trump is as dirty as everyone else. It really wouldn't surprise me. And yeah, I feel you on the conspiracy theorist sentiment. But it's becoming increasingly clear that all of this is a lot more complicated than "Trump colluded Russians." I'm sure Putin is laughing his ass off over how the US is pretzeling itself over all of this.
Really not sure how Putin's conspiracy being uncovered and the people he conspired with being arrested is a good thing for Putin but whatever, I'm sure you'll not be willing to elaborate on your suggestion that by investigating all this and cleaning up politics we're somehow playing into his hands.
I think it goes something along the lines of ridiculing the US, both DEMs and REPs based on this
That only works if you assume that exposing corruption on both sides of the political spectrum somehow weakens the US.
If corruption in American politics is bad for the US and good for America's rivals then cleaning up that corruption is good for the US and bad for America's rivals.
Comparing it to a hypothetical world where there is no corruption and saying that the chaos of cleaning up the corruption still makes it a relative win for Putin doesn't make sense. That's like losing a soccer match 3-1 but insisting that the goal you scored still makes it kind of a win compared to a hypothetical 10-0 defeat.
The fact of corruption has already been established. From that starting point the US addressing the corruption is bad for Putin.
You are operating under an imaginary assumption that somehow this will be greeted as corruption from both sides. I am saying that if Mueller came out with definitive proof that Russia was outright meddling in the elections and Donald Trump himself was personally giving orders to the Russian agents and they have him on video doing this that a large segment (30%) of the population would say its fake and doenst exist and there would be "news" outlets to feed that stupidity.
In that world the act of cleaning up the corruption only fuels the division and makes America weaker. As long as there is stuff being talked about that can divide us Putin is coming out ahead and you are naive if you think this will not end up as a division along party lines.
You're batshit insane if you think 30% of the population would deny video showing Trump giving orders to actual Russian spies. This president has really done a number on your base incredulity.
On October 31 2017 06:21 Nevuk wrote: Isn't 19 million about the audience for Hannity's radio show? Still a little high, but 9-10 million is totally plausible. People don't realize how small the number of people it really takes to make the GOP primaries competitive.
Hannity may be a bit of a dunce, but he's not dishonest.
On October 31 2017 06:21 Nevuk wrote: Isn't 19 million about the audience for Hannity's radio show? Still a little high, but 9-10 million is totally plausible. People don't realize how small the number of people it really takes to make the GOP primaries competitive.
You get first prize in cable news network if you can get in the 3-4 million range. Hannity's been like 3.3mil. Rachel's beat him this month with 2.7 mil to 2.6mil. But you're totally in believable numbers if you're going 9-10mil.
On October 31 2017 06:21 Nevuk wrote: Isn't 19 million about the audience for Hannity's radio show? Still a little high, but 9-10 million is totally plausible. People don't realize how small the number of people it really takes to make the GOP primaries competitive.
You get first prize in cable news network if you can get in the 3-4 million range. Hannity's been like 3.3mil. Rachel's beat him this month with 2.7 mil to 2.6mil. But you're totally in believable numbers if you're going 9-10mil.
For all that people complain about Fox News, it barely has 10% of the audience of conservative radio. I believe Hannity's show has an audience of 18-20 million, with Limbaugh being like 10-11.
I came to the 9-10 million because I doubt more than 50% of diehard listeners would believe whatever the host is saying without question.
On October 31 2017 06:21 Nevuk wrote: Isn't 19 million about the audience for Hannity's radio show? Still a little high, but 9-10 million is totally plausible. People don't realize how small the number of people it really takes to make the GOP primaries competitive.
Hannity may be a bit of a dunce, but he's not dishonest.
Hannity strikes me as the most likely of the big conservative names to repeat a talking point if Trump wants him to. Whether Trump would try it or not is a different question.
So far only Pat Robertson is trying this path :
On “The 700 Club” this morning, televangelist Pat Robertson reacted to the news that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort had been indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller as part of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election by calling on President Trump to issue a blanket pardon of everyone who might be implicated in the probe and to then shut down the investigation entirely.
Robertson absurdly claimed that Mueller’s investigation has been inexorably “tainted” by the fact that the Clinton campaign and DNC reportedly helped to fund an opposition research dossier during the campaign that alleged connections between the Trump campaign and Russia, insisting that any indictments that result from the Mueller’s investigation must therefore be dismissed and the investigation quashed.
Trump “can grant a pardon to everybody involved in this thing if he wants to,” Robertson said. “This whole thing has got to be shut down … He has every right to shut Mueller down and say, ‘You have gone as far as you need to and I have instructed my Justice Department to close you down.'”
“He can grant a blanket pardon for everybody involved in everything and say, ‘I pardon them all, it’s all over, case closed,'” Robertson continued. “I think that is what he needs to do … He’s got to shut this thing down, he’s just got to.”
Rumor mill is that Papadoulos was wearing a wire during the last 3 months. He was secretly arrested in July and weird exculpatory leaks started coming out of the Whitehouse shortly after then in August. Papa may have tipped off the Whitehouse that he was arrested and then they started making moves and talking in front of him.
'proactive cooperator'
EDIT: and yeah, Manafort is proper fucked. Lying to the FBI is what got Patreaus in so much shit. Manafort has only one thing to offer to get the FBI off his back ...
On October 31 2017 06:21 Nevuk wrote: Isn't 19 million about the audience for Hannity's radio show? Still a little high, but 9-10 million is totally plausible. People don't realize how small the number of people it really takes to make the GOP primaries competitive.
You get first prize in cable news network if you can get in the 3-4 million range. Hannity's been like 3.3mil. Rachel's beat him this month with 2.7 mil to 2.6mil. But you're totally in believable numbers if you're going 9-10mil.
For all that people complain about Fox News, it barely has 10% of the audience of conservative radio. I believe Hannity's show has an audience of 18-20 million, with Limbaugh being like 10-11.
Yeah, you're close. 18 would be adding his cable and radio shows together. Adreme's unhinged doomsday would mean five times of Hannity's audience are the kind of true believers that would controvert video evidence.
On October 31 2017 03:52 Jockmcplop wrote: I don't understand how the Trump team think they can spin this in such a way that it doesn't look bad for him. He hired a fucking criminal as his campaign manager. Aren't presidents supposed to have good judgement?
It's not just Trump that was fooled. Manafort was well-known in political circles nationally, and he was a major figure in the republican party. A lot of people worked with him, including Tony Podesta. You need to look beyond Trump and consider the magnitude of how all of this potentially affects the political establishment.
Yeah its bad for everyone. If this is draining the swamp I'm all up for it. I hope both sides are shown to be what they are (in the more elite circles, anyway). As far as the Dem elite go, I'm sure there's dirt on them for years and if there is I hope this investigation brings it all out.
The fact is, though, a president is only as good as the people he surrounds himself with. Trump is going to be shown to have made consistently terrible decisions.
Lots of things that Trump does is to uniquely piss off the people opposing to him.
The country is split ideologically, some people would think what Trump is doing is absolutely brilliant, others would be like "This person doesn't fit into MY definition of a president, so I don't like him."
That's not why people don't like Trump.
If your employee rarely showed up, stole from you when they did show up, and sexually harassed everyone in the office you wouldn't say that the issue was that the employee doesn't fit into your definition of an employee.
Trump is really, really bad at being President. By anyone's definition. The man hasn't managed to achieve a single part of his legislative agenda, despite controlling all three branches of government, and he can barely utter a coherent sentence.
But the question is that are all those accusations true or are they just smokes and mirror that people are forced to believe due to political correctness.
This goes back to how the press was lying that trump raped people and how he is sexist and how no way Hillary was going to win.
And they are a lot of people that believes in that narrative. Lots of people belong to one hard end of the spectrum that uses absolutism words like "by anyone's definition."
It is important to have nuanced stance instead of going to the far end.
Let's examine the accusation of Trump not achieving his legislative agenda.
Is there a wall yet? Is the Obamacare repeal done yet? Is tax reform done yet?
If you follow these things correctly, you know that that some of these things happened and others are in progress.
On October 31 2017 07:04 Wulfey_LA wrote: Rumor mill is that Papadoulos was wearing a wire during the last 3 months. He was secretly arrested in July and weird exculpatory leaks started coming out of the Whitehouse shortly after then in August. Papa may have tipped off the Whitehouse that he was arrested and then they started making moves and talking in front of him.
EDIT: and yeah, Manafort is proper fucked. Lying to the FBI is what got Patreaus in so much shit. Manafort has only one thing to offer to get the FBI off his back ...
The Papadopoulos guy does sound like a much better leverage point than Manafort. I'm still skeptical this ends with big prison time for anyone. A year or two is the most I expect. I'd be genuinely surprised if anyone actually served more than a few years. So basically everything everyone did, none of it will be as bad (in the eyes of the law) as having an ounce of crack.
On October 31 2017 07:17 Mohdoo wrote: If I ever follow in manafort's footsteps, I'll stash stuff somewhere other than my house
Ideally you would not keep any records other then in your head. But you gotta keep some blackmail around to stop other conspirators from screwing you over.
On October 31 2017 03:52 Jockmcplop wrote: I don't understand how the Trump team think they can spin this in such a way that it doesn't look bad for him. He hired a fucking criminal as his campaign manager. Aren't presidents supposed to have good judgement?
It's not just Trump that was fooled. Manafort was well-known in political circles nationally, and he was a major figure in the republican party. A lot of people worked with him, including Tony Podesta. You need to look beyond Trump and consider the magnitude of how all of this potentially affects the political establishment.
Yeah its bad for everyone. If this is draining the swamp I'm all up for it. I hope both sides are shown to be what they are (in the more elite circles, anyway). As far as the Dem elite go, I'm sure there's dirt on them for years and if there is I hope this investigation brings it all out.
The fact is, though, a president is only as good as the people he surrounds himself with. Trump is going to be shown to have made consistently terrible decisions.
Lots of things that Trump does is to uniquely piss off the people opposing to him.
The country is split ideologically, some people would think what Trump is doing is absolutely brilliant, others would be like "This person doesn't fit into MY definition of a president, so I don't like him."
That's not why people don't like Trump.
If your employee rarely showed up, stole from you when they did show up, and sexually harassed everyone in the office you wouldn't say that the issue was that the employee doesn't fit into your definition of an employee.
Trump is really, really bad at being President. By anyone's definition. The man hasn't managed to achieve a single part of his legislative agenda, despite controlling all three branches of government, and he can barely utter a coherent sentence.
But the question is that are all those accusations true or are they just smokes and mirror that people are forced to believe due to political correctness.
This goes back to how the press was lying that trump raped people and how he is sexist and how no way Hillary was going to win.
And they are a lot of people that believes in that narrative. Lots of people belong to one hard end of the spectrum that uses absolutism words like "by anyone's definition."
It is important to have nuanced stance instead of going to the far end.
Let's examine the accusation of Trump not achieving his legislative agenda.
Is there a wall yet? Is the Obamacare repeal done yet? Is tax reform done yet?
If you follow these things correctly, you know that that some of these things happened and others are in progress.
Which of these have happened? They are all "in progress" with 0 progress being made.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bob-muellers-sideshow-1509402576 The Wall Street Journal continues to embarrass itself. I find it deeply saddening to see a paper that I have always respected to be publishing constant, utter bullshit on Mueller and Russia. It's even signed a bunch of its recent articles "The Editorial Board".
And yesterday it had an article from the editorial board saying that Mueller was compromised and had to be fired. Just really disgraceful to the paper's reputation.
On October 31 2017 07:04 Wulfey_LA wrote: Rumor mill is that Papadoulos was wearing a wire during the last 3 months. He was secretly arrested in July and weird exculpatory leaks started coming out of the Whitehouse shortly after then in August. Papa may have tipped off the Whitehouse that he was arrested and then they started making moves and talking in front of him.
EDIT: and yeah, Manafort is proper fucked. Lying to the FBI is what got Patreaus in so much shit. Manafort has only one thing to offer to get the FBI off his back ...
The Papadopoulos guy does sound like a much better leverage point than Manafort. I'm still skeptical this ends with big prison time for anyone. A year or two is the most I expect. I'd be genuinely surprised if anyone actually served more than a few years. So basically everything everyone did, none of it will be as bad (in the eyes of the law) as having an ounce of crack.
Now, it is surely a terrible thing to take money, under the guise of “political consulting,” from an unsavory Ukranian political faction that is doing the Kremlin’s bidding. But it is not a violation of American law to do so. The violations occur when, as outlined above, there is a lack of compliance with various disclosure requirements. Mueller seems to acknowledge this: The money-laundering count does not allege that it was illegal for Manafort and Gates to be paid by the Ukrainian faction. It is alleged, rather, that they moved the money around to promote a scheme to function as unregistered foreign agents, and specifically to avoid the registration requirement.
That seems like a stretch. To be sure, the relevant money-laundering statute includes in its definition of “specified unlawful activity” “any violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.” (See Section 1956(c)(2)(7)(D) of Title 18, U.S. Code.) But the prosecution still has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the money was the proceeds of unlawful activity in the first place. Moreover, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Manafort and Gates (a) knew the money was the proceeds of illegal activity and (b) transported the money the way they did with the specific intent of avoiding having to register as foreign agents. This count will thus fail if there is any doubt that the Ukrainian money was illegal under American law, that Manafort and Gates knew it was illegal, that they knew the work they were doing required them to register as foreign agents, or that it was their intention to promote a failure-to-register violation.
Even from Paul Manafort’s perspective, there may be less to this indictment than meets the eye — it’s not so much a serious allegation of “conspiracy against the United States” as a dubious case of disclosure violations and money movement that would never have been brought had he not drawn attention to himself by temporarily joining the Trump campaign.
The point that he's making here is very nuanced and not something that would be readily understood outside of the legal world. But basically what he's saying is that Mueller is going to have a very difficult time proving his case against Manafort (and this would apply to Podesta and Mercury LLC as well) if there's nothing inherently illegal about the work that they did for the Ukraine. To skirt this problem, Mueller has framed the claim in terms of a civil conspiracy to avoid regulatory reporting requirements. The point -- or "the stretch," if you will -- is that it is not going to be particularly compelling to explain to the jury that the grand plot here was merely to avoid reporting requirements. More importantly, this may be the type of defect that could result in dismissal of the heaviest-hitting charges on motion by the defendant.
I don't understand this area of law well enough to really assess the merits, but it seems like McCarthy has a point. The allegations in this particular indictment may be overblown.
On October 31 2017 07:04 Wulfey_LA wrote: Rumor mill is that Papadoulos was wearing a wire during the last 3 months. He was secretly arrested in July and weird exculpatory leaks started coming out of the Whitehouse shortly after then in August. Papa may have tipped off the Whitehouse that he was arrested and then they started making moves and talking in front of him.
EDIT: and yeah, Manafort is proper fucked. Lying to the FBI is what got Patreaus in so much shit. Manafort has only one thing to offer to get the FBI off his back ...
The Papadopoulos guy does sound like a much better leverage point than Manafort. I'm still skeptical this ends with big prison time for anyone. A year or two is the most I expect. I'd be genuinely surprised if anyone actually served more than a few years. So basically everything everyone did, none of it will be as bad (in the eyes of the law) as having an ounce of crack.
Now, it is surely a terrible thing to take money, under the guise of “political consulting,” from an unsavory Ukranian political faction that is doing the Kremlin’s bidding. But it is not a violation of American law to do so. The violations occur when, as outlined above, there is a lack of compliance with various disclosure requirements. Mueller seems to acknowledge this: The money-laundering count does not allege that it was illegal for Manafort and Gates to be paid by the Ukrainian faction. It is alleged, rather, that they moved the money around to promote a scheme to function as unregistered foreign agents, and specifically to avoid the registration requirement.
That seems like a stretch. To be sure, the relevant money-laundering statute includes in its definition of “specified unlawful activity” “any violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.” (See Section 1956(c)(2)(7)(D) of Title 18, U.S. Code.) But the prosecution still has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the money was the proceeds of unlawful activity in the first place. Moreover, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Manafort and Gates (a) knew the money was the proceeds of illegal activity and (b) transported the money the way they did with the specific intent of avoiding having to register as foreign agents. This count will thus fail if there is any doubt that the Ukrainian money was illegal under American law, that Manafort and Gates knew it was illegal, that they knew the work they were doing required them to register as foreign agents, or that it was their intention to promote a failure-to-register violation.
Even from Paul Manafort’s perspective, there may be less to this indictment than meets the eye — it’s not so much a serious allegation of “conspiracy against the United States” as a dubious case of disclosure violations and money movement that would never have been brought had he not drawn attention to himself by temporarily joining the Trump campaign.
The point that he's making here is very nuanced and not something that would be readily understood outside of the legal world. But basically what he's saying is that Mueller is going to have a very difficult time proving his case against Manafort (and this would apply to Podesta and Mercury LLC as well) if there's nothing inherently illegal about the work that they did for the Ukraine. To skirt this problem, Mueller has framed the claim in terms of a civil conspiracy to avoid regulatory reporting requirements. The point -- or "the stretch," if you will -- is that it is not going to be particularly compelling to explain to the jury that the grand plot here was merely to avoid reporting requirements. More importantly, this may be the type of defect that could result in dismissal of the heaviest-hitting charges on motion by the defendant.
I don't understand this area of law well enough to really assess the merits, but it seems like McCarthy has a point. The allegations in this particular indictment may be overblown.
iiuc it also would set up a dangerous (for K street) precedent if Mueller was able to successfully prosecute Manafort. That what he's accused of happens a lot on both sides of the aisle with a variety of countries and others could be wrapped up the same way if there was proper motivation.
We'll have some insight if we see a spike in registrations. Though Podesta stepping down gives us some. Meaning now there are supposedly no Podestas influencing the "Podesta Group". I can't help but laugh at some of this.
On October 31 2017 04:10 xDaunt wrote: [quote] It's not just Trump that was fooled. Manafort was well-known in political circles nationally, and he was a major figure in the republican party. A lot of people worked with him, including Tony Podesta. You need to look beyond Trump and consider the magnitude of how all of this potentially affects the political establishment.
Knowing this, why is it you think Trump was fooled and not just a willing (but maybe even reluctantly) participant?
I'm not ruling out that he was a willing participant. I just think that it's more likely that he was fooled.
eh, honestly? fingers crossed. i feel real naive saying it though. we definitely have different opinions on what’s likely here.
if Hil-dog got elected you have to wonder- would this still have even come out? You have to imagine there would still have been an investigation at the very least. But would there have been a special counsel appointee? I assume not- would her AG need to recuse? and then to that end, would there be as strong a push for ‘the truth’
This’ll be the one part of this investigation that i’ll avoid thinking on too much. How much of this is fact finding and how much is finding the right people to take the fall and will we know between the two by the time we’re done here? because to get even as far as Flynn and Manafort have speaks to, i think, a larger problem here.
i feel like a conspiracy theorist now.
For all I know, Trump is as dirty as everyone else. It really wouldn't surprise me. And yeah, I feel you on the conspiracy theorist sentiment. But it's becoming increasingly clear that all of this is a lot more complicated than "Trump colluded Russians." I'm sure Putin is laughing his ass off over how the US is pretzeling itself over all of this.
Really not sure how Putin's conspiracy being uncovered and the people he conspired with being arrested is a good thing for Putin but whatever, I'm sure you'll not be willing to elaborate on your suggestion that by investigating all this and cleaning up politics we're somehow playing into his hands.
I think it goes something along the lines of ridiculing the US, both DEMs and REPs based on this
That only works if you assume that exposing corruption on both sides of the political spectrum somehow weakens the US.
If corruption in American politics is bad for the US and good for America's rivals then cleaning up that corruption is good for the US and bad for America's rivals.
Comparing it to a hypothetical world where there is no corruption and saying that the chaos of cleaning up the corruption still makes it a relative win for Putin doesn't make sense. That's like losing a soccer match 3-1 but insisting that the goal you scored still makes it kind of a win compared to a hypothetical 10-0 defeat.
The fact of corruption has already been established. From that starting point the US addressing the corruption is bad for Putin.
You are operating under an imaginary assumption that somehow this will be greeted as corruption from both sides. I am saying that if Mueller came out with definitive proof that Russia was outright meddling in the elections and Donald Trump himself was personally giving orders to the Russian agents and they have him on video doing this that a large segment (30%) of the population would say its fake and doenst exist and there would be "news" outlets to feed that stupidity.
In that world the act of cleaning up the corruption only fuels the division and makes America weaker. As long as there is stuff being talked about that can divide us Putin is coming out ahead and you are naive if you think this will not end up as a division along party lines.
You're batshit insane if you think 30% of the population would deny video showing Trump giving orders to actual Russian spies. This president has really done a number on your base incredulity.
I'm not so blind as to think that's unique to the right. If the situations were reversed I would say 15-20% of the country are left enough that they would deny the reality of anything a president from the Democratic party would do. There is a large swath of people who do not want to accept a reality that is not privy to there worldview. They seek out the facts they want and deny the reality of those they do not. If they could find a single reason to doubt the validity of iron clad proof they would because that is easier than admitting maybe you were wrong and your worldview needs adjusting because it is always easier to blame others then to look within.
Watching this... woman on MSNBC, ex-Rep Nan Hayworth, banging her head against the proverbial wall to convince herself that Trump is innocent because... Hillary is guilty.
The fucking extent to which these minds are just bricked in denial. I don't know how we'll ever move on.
They think law is "fair and balanced". Because Trump is a traitor, that means we need Hillary to be a traitor. Sorry, reality just don't fucking work that way.
EPT
