Political Roundtable Part XXV

pancakes3 · Post #801 » by **pancakes3** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:15 am

1) Barr's letter pretty explicitly said that Mueller concluded definitively that the Russians intentionally and successfully interfered with the election, specifically through (a) hacking*, and (b) dezinformatsiya.

2) While Abramson is correct that the Mueller report did not cover the potential of Trump committing treason in negotiating a money-for-sanctions-relief scheme, that's was never within the scope of Mueller's investigative powers. It was explicitly limited to Russian interference with the election, which, again, was limited to leaking the DNC's information and spreading fake news on social media. Even if Mueller found evidence of a money-for-sanctions relief, he would have to spin it off to federal prosecutors for their individual cases like he did with Manafort and the Trump org. Seeing as how Mueller didn't do so, Abramson probably shouldn't be so quick to hang his hat on that particular gotcha.

3) Back to the actual report, it was always a stretch to prove collusion on dezinformatsiya - that's just something Russia did on their own. It'd be tough to prove active collusion on that front, short of an email from the IRA to Trump's campaign saying - "here's today's batch of memes you need to be tweeting." So really the collusion investigation was focused on hacking, specifically if Trump conspired, participated, or otherwise coordinated with Russia to get those emails.

4) If we take Barr at his word, and I'm going to do so for the purposes of this post, this means there was insufficient evidence that the Don Jr. meeting could be linked to the hacked DNC emails. Assumptively, there was also insufficient evidence to tie the instances where Trump publicly said he wants to see those emails and then those emails showing up on wikileaks.

5) The letter is also careful to avoid saying "no evidence" and instead stresses that "insufficient evidence" is insufficient to the degree of "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the criminal standard for conviction. Legal rule of thumb is that you've got to be 95-99% sure to get to beyond a reasonable doubt. Compare this with "preponderance of the evidence" for civil trials, where some would characterize as "more likely than not."

6) There's wiggle room here as to whether that's the standard that Barr should be viewing the evidence. On one hand, the DOJ doesn't bring cases it doesn't think it can win, so if Barr, again at his word, is looking at the report and doesn't think he can prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" then the DOJ won't bring the case. On the other hand, the report is severely lacking in key sources of information so I don't think Barr can really say in good faith that there's no case here. Key sources of information include: Trump deposition, Don Jr. deposition, etc.

7) Closg00 is right that both Mueller and Barr punted on obstruction. Mueller's report merely lays out all the different ways that Trump obstructed justice but does not make a recommendation on whether there is an obstruction charge. Barr hems and haws, and basically says in a very convoluted way that the DOJ won't bring obstruction charges because (a) prosecutors generally don't bring obstruction charges if they can't also prove the underlying crime, and as stated above, we don't think we can do so, (b) there's no existing law that compels us to bring obstruction charges if we can't prove the underlying crime, and (c) I don't think the evidence amounts to "beyond a reasonable doubt" anyway, so this should be enough reasons why we're not bringing charges. This is unsurprising, especially since these are the same arguments that Trump's lawyers and third party commentators (including Barr before being appointed) have been telling him for months and Trump has regularly trotted out on twitter.

8) So really all of this boils down to: did Trump ask for those emails, or did Russia just do it so they can sow discord in our election process? The answer, judging from the specific phrasing that Barr uses, is "well, it registers as at least a 'definite maybe' could even be a 'probably' colluded, but falls just short of 'definitely' so feel free to interpret this as a complete and unequivocal exoneration if you want."

Closing: To me, the sobering message of the investigation that I'm tearing my hair out over is this: we don't seem to care that Russia undeniably f*cked with our election. Even in a light most charitable to Trump, the events unfolded as such: Russia wanted to destabilize America, and ensure the more chaotic candidate won. They began spreading fake news to hurt the more stable candidate. They also decided to hack the emails of the stable candidate, the contents of which included important campaign strategies, voter demographics, etc., which the more chaotic candidate took and used to his advantage.

When presented with this information, the American public instead of turning their anger to Russia, decided to devolve into a morass of infighting. This is a big deal, and we are too partisan to take it seriously.

TGW · Post #802 » by **TGW** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:41 am

Read on Twitter

TGW · Post #803 » by **TGW** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:48 am

pancakes3 wrote:
Closing: To me, the sobering message of the investigation that I'm tearing my hair out over is this: we don't seem to care that Russia undeniably f*cked with our election. Even in a light most charitable to Trump, the events unfolded as such: Russia wanted to destabilize America, and ensure the more chaotic candidate won. They began spreading fake news to hurt the more stable candidate. They also decided to hack the emails of the stable candidate, the contents of which included important campaign strategies, voter demographics, etc., which the more chaotic candidate took and used to his advantage.

When presented with this information, the American public instead of turning their anger to Russia, decided to devolve into a morass of infighting. This is a big deal, and we are too partisan to take it seriously.

Or maybe...just maybe...they didn't want the candidate who wanted to start WWIII with them?

stilldropin20 · Post #804 » by **stilldropin20** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:55 am

pancakes3 wrote:1) Barr's letter pretty explicitly said that Mueller concluded definitively that the Russians intentionally and successfully interfered with the election, specifically through (a) hacking*, and (b) dezinformatsiya.

2) While Abramson is correct that the Mueller report did not cover the potential of Trump committing treason in negotiating a money-for-sanctions-relief scheme, that's was never within the scope of Mueller's investigative powers. It was explicitly limited to Russian interference with the election, which, again, was limited to leaking the DNC's information and spreading fake news on social media. Even if Mueller found evidence of a money-for-sanctions relief, he would have to spin it off to federal prosecutors for their individual cases like he did with Manafort and the Trump org. Seeing as how Mueller didn't do so, Abramson probably shouldn't be so quick to hang his hat on that particular gotcha.

3) Back to the actual report, it was always a stretch to prove collusion on dezinformatsiya - that's just something Russia did on their own. It'd be tough to prove active collusion on that front, short of an email from the IRA to Trump's campaign saying - "here's today's batch of memes you need to be tweeting." So really the collusion investigation was focused on hacking, specifically if Trump conspired, participated, or otherwise coordinated with Russia to get those emails.

4) If we take Barr at his word, and I'm going to do so for the purposes of this post, this means there was insufficient evidence that the Don Jr. meeting could be linked to the hacked DNC emails. Assumptively, there was also insufficient evidence to tie the instances where Trump publicly said he wants to see those emails and then those emails showing up on wikileaks.

5) The letter is also careful to avoid saying "no evidence" and instead stresses that "insufficient evidence" is insufficient to the degree of "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the criminal standard for conviction. Legal rule of thumb is that you've got to be 95-99% sure to get to beyond a reasonable doubt. Compare this with "preponderance of the evidence" for civil trials, where some would characterize as "more likely than not."

6) There's wiggle room here as to whether that's the standard that Barr should be viewing the evidence. On one hand, the DOJ doesn't bring cases it doesn't think it can win, so if Barr, again at his word, is looking at the report and doesn't think he can prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" then the DOJ won't bring the case. On the other hand, the report is severely lacking in key sources of information so I don't think Barr can really say in good faith that there's no case here. Key sources of information include: Trump deposition, Don Jr. deposition, etc.

7) Closg00 is right that both Mueller and Barr punted on obstruction. Mueller's report merely lays out all the different ways that Trump obstructed justice but does not make a recommendation on whether there is an obstruction charge. Barr hems and haws, and basically says in a very convoluted way that the DOJ won't bring obstruction charges because (a) prosecutors generally don't bring obstruction charges if they can't also prove the underlying crime, and as stated above, we don't think we can do so, (b) there's no existing law that compels us to bring obstruction charges if we can't prove the underlying crime, and (c) I don't think the evidence amounts to "beyond a reasonable doubt" anyway, so this should be enough reasons why we're not bringing charges. This is unsurprising, especially since these are the same arguments that Trump's lawyers and third party commentators (including Barr before being appointed) have been telling him for months and Trump has regularly trotted out on twitter.

8) So really all of this boils down to: did Trump ask for those emails, or did Russia just do it so they can sow discord in our election process? The answer, judging from the specific phrasing that Barr uses, is "well, it registers as at least a 'definite maybe' could even be a 'probably' colluded, but falls just short of 'definitely' so feel free to interpret this as a complete and unequivocal exoneration if you want."

Closing: To me, the sobering message of the investigation that I'm tearing my hair out over is this: we don't seem to care that Russia undeniably f*cked with our election. Even in a light most charitable to Trump, the events unfolded as such: Russia wanted to destabilize America, and ensure the more chaotic candidate won. They began spreading fake news to hurt the more stable candidate. They also decided to hack the emails of the stable candidate, the contents of which included important campaign strategies, voter demographics, etc., which the more chaotic candidate took and used to his advantage.

When presented with this information, the American public instead of turning their anger to Russia, decided to devolve into a morass of infighting. This is a big deal, and we are too partisan to take it seriously.

bruh, it was a whole 13 trolls in a russian basement and a whopping $50K in advertising spent on FB and Twitter in an election that saw over 50 million americans engage politically on social media with posts or likes or retweats and over $2 Billion spent on advertising.

Come the frick on!!

get over it. Hillary lost. fair and square. The Russian "meddling" amounted to a firecracker of noise 5 milles away from mount st helens expoloded.

and then lests not forget that russian trolls posted on social media to support all 3 of HRC, Bernie, and Trump at varios times and Bernie the most per Rosenstein over 1 year ago. I know. Everyone conveniently forgets about that.

"no votes were changed." <--per everyone that has weighed in.

and in fact your post speaks to how partisan we are all. so nothing that any russian troll posted on any sort of social media was going to change anyone's mind anyway.

^^^if you're decided to be honest with yourself. you know that. So in the end...everyone knew this investigation meant nothing. It was nothing more than a way to bludgeon Trump with fake leaks so as to damage him politically and make him fail as a president. AKA...nothing more than a means to take back power. Thats why Pointgod, clogs, and GTN wont let it go. and neither will any other partisan hack. truth is NOT the goal here. Bludgeoning trump to death is the goal. To kill off his political capital. make him fail as a president.

the real victims here is our trade deals. our border security. our economy...all of which translate into the american people as a whole have been suckered into nothing more than being divided and conquered in such a way that our government can not fully function for us in a positive way to honestly move the football forward in a substantive way.

I said this 2 years ago. I say it today. I voted for obama. twice. I never uttered a single word about his complete and collossal failure as a president until after he was gone. I didn't vote for Bush. Nor Clinton. and never said a bad word about either while in office. I dont believe in cutting off my nose to spite my face politics. No matter who is office, i want them to succeed. even if i completely disagree with their politics...i dont think my singular voice matter over that of the will of the american people. Once they have spoken. I accept their decisions. The cry bay whiny liberals should try the same. its ok to lose the game...even the battle...so long as you fight with dignity because you are not losing to actual enemies. You are losing to fellow americans...their win (even in your defeat) is your win too and you should instead be happy for them because in the end we are all suppose to be on the same damn team anyway. In this country, cousins, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives and best friends sometimes are liberals and conservatives. In every single family.

stilldropin20 · Post #805 » by **stilldropin20** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:27 am

TGW wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:
Closing: To me, the sobering message of the investigation that I'm tearing my hair out over is this: we don't seem to care that Russia undeniably f*cked with our election. Even in a light most charitable to Trump, the events unfolded as such: Russia wanted to destabilize America, and ensure the more chaotic candidate won. They began spreading fake news to hurt the more stable candidate. They also decided to hack the emails of the stable candidate, the contents of which included important campaign strategies, voter demographics, etc., which the more chaotic candidate took and used to his advantage.

When presented with this information, the American public instead of turning their anger to Russia, decided to devolve into a morass of infighting. This is a big deal, and we are too partisan to take it seriously.

Or maybe...just maybe...they didn't want the candidate who wanted to start WWIII with them?

it was 13 trolls in a basement. they spent $50K. i'd hardly call that "russia."

compared to the 50 million americans that engaged politically on social media and the over $2 Billion spent on advertising.

And the trolls supported all 3 of HRC, Bernie, and trump and almost simultaneously. so if by "f*cked" with our election pancakes means 1 singular fan in the last row at the superbowl was cheering for both teams...yeah...they really "f*cked" with us badly. :roll:

More like:

1. MSM lied about their polling.
2. MSM thought HRC would win
3. HRC and OBAMA thought HRC would win.
4. But then they got scared at the end so even obama went out and campaigned for her as did Bill and michelle.
5. trump out worked her.
6. she was sick and not any good camapigning anyway.
7. The DNC railroaded bernie which upset half the DNC base.
8. many bernie supporters like me sat at home or voted for Trump.
9. and instead of a mea culpa...the obama admin, the DNC, HRC, and Obama DOJ immediately blamed russia so as to undermine his presidency.
10. and Obama himself "played it by the book" :wink:

and immediately began to investigate Trump. because Obama clearly had an axe to grind with Trump.

And here we are. ACA is falling apart but it is also not repealed and replaced all because of this "collusion" crap.

this whole entire thing is a sick joke that hurt america badly. and the it will come to bite democrats in the azz. I was a lifelong democrat and will never ever ever be a democrat ever again yet i will remain registered as such and will vote to ruin their chances in the primary. And there are MANY like me. Sickened by this crap. Especially because the MSM and many people like Clogs and Jwiz, and wiz pride and pointgod dont care about the damage they have done. They dont care about truth. nor justice. nor the rule of law. nor equal justice for all. All they care about is power and forcing their ideology on the american people by any means necessary.

me: I am different. I am very opiniateed but I am happy to allow the majority to rule. MORE THAN HAPPY. No matter how stupid th emajority may be. Thats how it should work. even when i know its wrong. Even when i know bad decision are being made. I'm a doctor. I own many smaIl businesses and employ over a hundred people. Im a millionaire many times over. and i made every penny on my own. and my parents really are crack addicts. On a journey like mine you see it all. and it makes me smarter and more equipped to make decisions than 99% of americans. And still. I'm ok with majority rule. Liberals tend to be not as smart. mainly because they are impatient and over emotional in their decision making. it clouds their judgement. and intelligent and very successful liberals are only liberals in name because it benefits them...they operate as and on behalf of conservatives otherwise when they can.

Like i said 2 years ago. You cant honestly serve two masters; the rich and the poor. it's not logically possible. These two groups are absolutely opposed to each other. And the overtly wealthy have successfully convinced the poor that they are on their side. :roll:

what a joke. You cant "take away" from the middle class to give to the poor because in essence you are shutting down the pathway from poor to middle class. Think about that. Think about it over and over and over until you finally get it. You MUST take from the rich. from the elites. The give it to the middle class so as to open pathways from the working poor to upper middle class. As the middle class is saturated with wealth. it forces the elites and small business owners to then employ the unemployed. <--so long as they cant employ immigrants or illegals for less. This is really the only way the system forces people to work and the system works for everyone. But it all starts with taking from the rich. from the elites. Those that earn over 1.5 million or have over $10 Million in net worth. tax the living crap out of them. tax the living crap out of their trusts. tax the living crap out of their real estate and investment holdings. We do not need nor should we have billionaires. no need for it.

stilldropin20 · Post #806 » by **stilldropin20** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:38 am

Read on Twitter

this guy; clogs' daddy

Read on Twitter

stilldropin20 · Post #807 » by **stilldropin20** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:57 am

be honest..how many of you are sad that trump is completely exonerated? i count at least 12 of you...should i name them?

look...CNN has truned on you. They realize their repuation is at stake and they believed the leaks from comey and mccabe as well as the straight up lies from brennen, clapper, coats, schiff, sewall, ted lieu, nadler, and squeezebox.

when don lemon allows van jones to rip the dems like this and then alice stewert to go with out interrupting her every 3 words...something is up. and that something is CNN is fed up with the low ratings and is tired of lying for dems.

Read on Twitter

stilldropin20 · Post #808 » by **stilldropin20** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:06 am

dis right here a gut, mahn. reeeeeeee goot

giv er a looky lou!

Read on Twitter

stilldropin20 · Post #809 » by **stilldropin20** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:09 am

Read on Twitter

Pointgod · Post #810 » by **Pointgod** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:42 pm

dckingsfan wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:Well, this proves my point in two ways. First, "destroy the other side" and a willful ignorance of the GND proposal and how it sets back CCUS and mitigation to chase something that is unachievable (kind of like the wall).

The moderates of both parties need to step in and subdue the irrationality. If someone from one party actually has a discussion with someone from the other party that is a good thing - those that immediately call out that person for "conspiring with the enemy" need to be berated.

If you believe that we need to have a dialog about global warming and climate change, well, you are going to need Rs to get it done. If the Ds take back POTUS in 2020, it is highly unlikely they will grab the senate:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-senate-will-be-competitive-again-in-2020-but-republicans-are-favored/

And you don't do that by making a proposal like the GND. Where you ignore two thirds of the solution and set a panic timeline.

All though it’s not an actual policy proposal I’m happy to discuss the GND in separate conversation thread.

As for the Republican Party, yes I stand by what I said. It needs to be destroyed and rebuilt into something else. It’s become the party of Trump and they’ve continually put politics and party over country and done everything to subvert Democracy. Everything from gerrymandering, voter supression (see Georgia and Florida) and outright voter fraud (see North Carolina) and hamstringing Democratically elected officials (see Wisconsin). IMO the reason the party needs to be destroyed on all levels of government is to send a clear message that their corruption and subversion of Democracy can’t be rewarded. Imagine the precedent it sets of Trump gets re-elected and Republicans don’t get wiped out country wide? It’s a signal that corruption is accepted and they can literally do whatever they want because there are no consequences. And this doesn’t just set the precedent for future Republican Presidents, why would a Democratic President and Congress follow the rule of law and Democratic norms when the voters have signalled it doesn’t matter. Want to make money off the Presidency? Doesn’t matter because Trump did it. Want to appoint Supreme Court justices that will personally protect your interests? Obstruct Justice why not? As long as Congress has your back why bother with Democracy? If you want to save the patient cut off the rot and that rot begins with the current Republican Party.

You have some solid points... but, IMO the GND is material. We are going to replace Trump with some type of ideology - if you want to call it a manifesto that rivals MAGA, fine. Both are equal hack jobs IMO. Net Zero CO2 in 10 years or the Wall - I can't really tell which is the bigger redirect.

But your second paragraph basically says - you don't care where we go as long as Trump and the Rs are wiped out. I have no problem with the latter - but I want to see a reasonable direction on the former before I go full up and down the ticket. If the GND is the direction of the Ds - then I will continue to pick candidate by candidate.

I think it’s interesting that guys like yourself and Jamal think that the Democrats have shifted too far left. Guys like TGW, FAH and gtn think that the party is too centrist. Meanwhile the Zonkers, pancakes, clogs, Monte etc are probably somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Both view points can’t be true which is a sign of a relatively healthy party. I think you and Jamal are overreacting to the party shifting left. AOC maybe the loudest voice in the room, but don’t buy into the media narrative (both sides) that the party is sliding into socialism. The Democrats are a big tent and as a result various view points and ideas should be heard. I have faith that Pelosi and Schumer approach something like the GND from a more tactical perspective than the initial roll out.

Pointgod · Post #811 » by **Pointgod** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:43 pm

TGW wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:
Closing: To me, the sobering message of the investigation that I'm tearing my hair out over is this: we don't seem to care that Russia undeniably f*cked with our election. Even in a light most charitable to Trump, the events unfolded as such: Russia wanted to destabilize America, and ensure the more chaotic candidate won. They began spreading fake news to hurt the more stable candidate. They also decided to hack the emails of the stable candidate, the contents of which included important campaign strategies, voter demographics, etc., which the more chaotic candidate took and used to his advantage.

When presented with this information, the American public instead of turning their anger to Russia, decided to devolve into a morass of infighting. This is a big deal, and we are too partisan to take it seriously.

You know that’s a narrative started by Russia and pushed by garbage news outlets like Breitbart right?
Or maybe...just maybe...they didn't want the candidate who wanted to start WWIII with them?

closg00 · Post #812 » by **closg00** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:48 pm

Must-read, the full report must be released.

Read on Twitter

Post #813 » by **Ruzious** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:01 pm

It seems reasonable to conclude that Meuller likely said there was illegal obstruction of justice - if there was an underlying crime. But since their was no underlying crime, it's up to the lawyers to determine whether or not the obstruction of justice was a crime. It certainly was wreckless and unpresidential. And the continually on-going wreckless comments were a main reason the investigation took so long. To make out like Trump was blameless in all this is laughable, pathetic, sad. He arguably didn't commit a crime in this instance - whoohooo! And it's also sad that the only thing people on both sides of this focus on is Trump - rather than the fact that Russians f'd with our elections, and nothings being done to stop that from happening again. Having fair elections is kinda important for a democracy, or does anybody care?

TGW · Post #814 » by **TGW** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:27 pm

Ruzious wrote:It seems reasonable to conclude that Meuller likely said there was illegal obstruction of justice - if there was an underlying crime. But since their was no underlying crime, it's up to the lawyers to determine whether or not the obstruction of justice was a crime. It certainly was wreckless and unpresidential. And the continually on-going wreckless comments were a main reason the investigation took so long. To make out like Trump was blameless in all this is laughable, pathetic, sad. He arguably didn't commit a crime in this instance - whoohooo! And it's also sad that the only thing people on both sides of this focus on is Trump - rather than the fact that Russians f'd with our elections, and nothings being done to stop that from happening again. Having fair elections is kinda important for a democracy, or does anybody care?

The United States doesn't have fair elections. The person with the most votes can lose, but that's besides the point.

The question I have for the "resisters"--what do you want in response to the Russians interfering/meddling with our elections? Trump has already been overly hawkish with Russia and their allies, despite what conspiracy theorists believe. Doomsday clock is ticking further in the direction of imminent nuclear war.

Some people are suggesting that we switch to paper balloting, with stronger data security measures, and incarceral penalties for using personal devices to do government business. And then the others....want full scale escalation with Russia. So which is it? Do you want different protocol here, or war with Russia?

dckingsfan · Post #815 » by **dckingsfan** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:37 pm

Pointgod wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:
Pointgod wrote:All though it’s not an actual policy proposal I’m happy to discuss the GND in separate conversation thread.

As for the Republican Party, yes I stand by what I said. It needs to be destroyed and rebuilt into something else. It’s become the party of Trump and they’ve continually put politics and party over country and done everything to subvert Democracy. Everything from gerrymandering, voter supression (see Georgia and Florida) and outright voter fraud (see North Carolina) and hamstringing Democratically elected officials (see Wisconsin). IMO the reason the party needs to be destroyed on all levels of government is to send a clear message that their corruption and subversion of Democracy can’t be rewarded. Imagine the precedent it sets of Trump gets re-elected and Republicans don’t get wiped out country wide? It’s a signal that corruption is accepted and they can literally do whatever they want because there are no consequences. And this doesn’t just set the precedent for future Republican Presidents, why would a Democratic President and Congress follow the rule of law and Democratic norms when the voters have signalled it doesn’t matter. Want to make money off the Presidency? Doesn’t matter because Trump did it. Want to appoint Supreme Court justices that will personally protect your interests? Obstruct Justice why not? As long as Congress has your back why bother with Democracy? If you want to save the patient cut off the rot and that rot begins with the current Republican Party.

You have some solid points... but, IMO the GND is material. We are going to replace Trump with some type of ideology - if you want to call it a manifesto that rivals MAGA, fine. Both are equal hack jobs IMO. Net Zero CO2 in 10 years or the Wall - I can't really tell which is the bigger redirect.

But your second paragraph basically says - you don't care where we go as long as Trump and the Rs are wiped out. I have no problem with the latter - but I want to see a reasonable direction on the former before I go full up and down the ticket. If the GND is the direction of the Ds - then I will continue to pick candidate by candidate.

I think it’s interesting that guys like yourself and Jamal think that the Democrats have shifted too far left. Guys like TGW, FAH and gtn think that the party is too centrist. Meanwhile the Zonkers, pancakes, clogs, Monte etc are probably somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Both view points can’t be true which is a sign of a relatively healthy party. I think you and Jamal are overreacting to the party shifting left. AOC maybe the loudest voice in the room, but don’t buy into the media narrative (both sides) that the party is sliding into socialism. The Democrats are a big tent and as a result various view points and ideas should be heard. I have faith that Pelosi and Schumer approach something like the GND from a more tactical perspective than the initial roll out.

I don't - I am saying that the proposals of many of the D candidates are sliding from solid to silly. I largely don't follow AOC - so I can't comment on that. What I can comment on is how many of the candidates support and endorse the GND. What I can comment on is how awful that document is as a base for direction.

Not all of the candidates have endorsed the GND. But how many Ds have come out and said - wow, this is just awful. Just like the Rs, how many have come out and said the Wall is really stupid? Some but not enough.

So, I am not saying that the Ds are sliding toward the left (so what). I am saying they are sliding toward stupid - and that is what we are trying to get away from - right?

dckingsfan · Post #816 » by **dckingsfan** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:39 pm

Ruzious wrote:... than the fact that Russians f'd with our elections, and nothings being done to stop that from happening again. Having fair elections is kinda important for a democracy, or does anybody care?

Sorry to cherry pick - but this.

dckingsfan · Post #817 » by **dckingsfan** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:40 pm

pancakes3 wrote:Closing: To me, the sobering message of the investigation that I'm tearing my hair out over is this: we don't seem to care that Russia undeniably f*cked with our election.

and this...

Pointgod · Post #818 » by **Pointgod** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:41 pm

Ruzious wrote:It seems reasonable to conclude that Meuller likely said there was illegal obstruction of justice - if there was an underlying crime. But since their was no underlying crime, it's up to the lawyers to determine whether or not the obstruction of justice was a crime. It certainly was wreckless and unpresidential. And the continually on-going wreckless comments were a main reason the investigation took so long. To make out like Trump was blameless in all this is laughable, pathetic, sad. He arguably didn't commit a crime in this instance - whoohooo! And it's also sad that the only thing people on both sides of this focus on is Trump - rather than the fact that Russians f'd with our elections, and nothings being done to stop that from happening again. Having fair elections is kinda important for a democracy, or does anybody care?

Am I the only one here that remembers:

1) The FBI opened an investigation into Trump because of legitimate concerns regarding him being a Russian asset? Turns out he’s most likely just a stooge.

2) Michael Cohen told Congress that Donald Trump directed him to lie to Congress. Hmmm sounds like obstruction.

3) Trump didnt sit down with Mueller. How the hell can you determine motive of the President was never interviewed?

Either way it’s interestif that Mueller makes it explicit that Trump was NOT exonerated when it comes to obstruction. The report needs to be released in full to the public. I think this just proves the high bar that the Justice Deparment takes when dealing with government officials. Barr and Mueller need to come to the hill.

Pointgod · Post #819 » by **Pointgod** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:20 pm

In regards to keeping Russia from interfering in elections well you can mostly blame Trump and the Republicans for the distraction of the past two years. And you can also blame Republicans when the Russians and possibly more state actors interfere again.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/01/republicans-block-money-election-security/884438002/

It’s almost like I keep getting proven right that the Republican Party needs to be wiped out.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-cybersecurity/2019/01/07/election-security-bill-wins-praise-471453

It’s almost like there’s only one party that actually gives a damn about Democracy.

daoneandonly · Post #820 » by **daoneandonly** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:25 pm

dckingsfan wrote:
Ruzious wrote:... than the fact that Russians f'd with our elections, and nothings being done to stop that from happening again. Having fair elections is kinda important for a democracy, or does anybody care?

Sorry to cherry pick - but this.

Agree, but Maryland and many many other liberal states aren't exactly playing fair by not enforcing showing your ID when going to the vote, it's a joke. We're going through these hassles now with the new RealID mandate, and still, you don't need an ID to vote, just repeat a few notes like name, birthdate, and address, and walk right through.