The DON / redux

[Rich]

Timm and Brad, you are both mischaracterizing what happened here. Trump’s team didn’t just “reach out and improve relations” with Russia. They engaged in active diplomacy, requesting Russia take or refrain from specific policy actions which were antagonistic to the policies of the sitting President and sitting State Department. BEFORE THEY HAD ANY STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO. You don’t become President until you are sworn in. You don’t become a cabinet secretary before you are confirmed by Congress. Reaching out to establish rapport is one thing. Actively engaging in policy negotiations with an adversary that undermine the sitting President is quite another. Don’t try to whitewash what happened here by trying to normalize it. It isn’t normal and it isn’t legal. But this won’t be what brings this administration down. Obstructing Justice and lying under oath will be what brings them down.

As for Roy Moore, I’ll be amazed if he doesn’t win. I know the people in my home state all to well. Don’t forget about George Wallace standing in the University door to block blacks from enrolling. Many of these people would elect Wallace today if they could.

 

[Rich]

Trump tweet of the day:

I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!

So he is admitting that he knew at the time he fired Flynn that Flynn lied to the FBI. Which pretty clearly shows his request to Comey after that to lay off the Flynn investigation, and later firing Comey when he didn’t (along with his contemporaneous statement admitting he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation), and his repeated assertions that the investigation was a witch hunt, was all a concerted effort to obstruct Justice. He is going out of his way to make this easy for Mueller.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Yes Rich, his stupidity and arrogance are quite amazing. One may say "off the charts". Talk about feeding red meat to the sharks.

To 46, please keep those cards and letters (and tweets of course) coming. :rocker:

 

[Rich]

It’s all just icing on the cake for Mueller. He never would have given Flynn the sweetheart deal he did if Flynn couldn’t deliver testimony that would sink Trump himself, so Trump’s foolish public statements incriminating himself are just a cherry on top. Ok, mixing my metaphors there.

 

[twich54]

just a cherry on top. Ok, mixing my metaphors there.

Rich, you can mix your metaphors all you want, me I prefer a cherry mixed in my Manhattans ! ....... had a couple tonight !

 

[timm]

Rich, you can mix your metaphors all you want, me I prefer a cherry mixed in my Manhattans ! ....... had a couple tonight !

And??? The Cary???? You have it yet? If so how is it??

 

[Scumurculum]

There once was a time when no party would support Roy Moore. It says a lot that we are so divided that someone like him could actually get this far. It's not just polarization, but rationalization that nothing is as bad as the "other" party.

The banality of evil

 

[timm]

There once was a time when no party would support Roy Moore. It says a lot that we are so divided that someone like him could actually get this far. It's not just polarization, but rationalization that nothing is as bad as the "other" party.

Here is my take on this. Since news agencies have become polarized and slanted - the general public doesn't know who to trust. Because someone calls you a child molester essentially - and you have been a public figure for over 30 years - and this just so happens to be a key seat - and the timing of such announcements would sway many voters ... this is what many people question. So - let's assume he is innocent as nothing has been proven from events 30 years ago - you have to ask 'is this just a big smear campaign - and if it is then who is really 'the banality of evil''.
Nobody would vote for this guy if they thought he molested children. Problem is that there are 'scum digger uppers' on both sides and as I said in a prior post- if everybody is lying - who do you believe?

Didn't a 'so called' expert in writing show that the signature in the yearbook was written with different pens and at the time he was the DDA not the DA as the signature shows?

I'm truly not taking sides here. Rich is closer to this than anyone.

 

[twich54]

And??? The Cary???? You have it yet? If so how is it??

Yes Tim, I post an impression or two in another tread.

 

[RCHeliGuy]

d you have been a public figure for over 30 years - and this just so happens to be a key seat - and the timing of such announcements would sway many voters ... this is what many people question. So - let's assume he is innocent as nothing has been proven from events 30 years ago - you have to ask 'is this just a big smear campaign - and if it is then who is really 'the banality of evil''.
Nobody would vote for this guy if they thought he molested children. Problem is that there are 'scum digger uppers' on both sides and as I said in a prior post- if everybody is lying - who do you believe?

So you think Bill Cosby was innocent since they all came out recently and nothing happened for decades?

What I see is that Democrats by in large are condemning this behavior when it comes out and asking their politicians to step down.

However when it is a GOP candidate all the excuses come out. I still think the constituents of Alabama are deciding that they were prefer to have a child molester in office than choose another GOP candidate or let a Democrat win.

Just because he didn't step aside earlier and allow another GOP candidate to stand up, everyone is banding around him? Sorry just because he decided this doesn't matter doesn't make him a good man. He is just brazen about his disrespect for his constituents.

 

[Rich]

Timm, I don’t think it’s a case of people not knowing who to trust; I think it’s more along the lines of most people implicitly trust or don’t trust particular media outlets based upon their own preconceived political biases. Unfortunately, the line between actual news and opinion/entertainment has become blurred and many people watch these opinion shows and think they are getting news. There is a difference.

The Washington Post may lean liberal in their editorial style, but their investigative reporting is beyond reproach. Also, remember that they were the first mainstream news outlet to break the *******/Lewinsky story. So bias or not, they will report on a big story regardless of the politics. Anyone who reads their story on the Roy Moore allegations with any sense of rationality will conclude this was not a smear campaign, but a determined and well-researched expose on a controversial candidate. They covered all their bases and Moore’s objections to the story are weak, at best, just like his denial on Hannity (to paraphrase: “I don’t recall dating underage girls, and never would have done it without their mother’s permission”). Not to mention others that have come out since: police officers confirming he was banned from the mall, former colleagues confirming his reputation for going after young girls, etc. At some point, you have to engage in cognitive dissonance to believe Moore’s denials. Oh, interestingly, the Koch-funded Project Veritas went to great efforts to try to prove the Post’s bias by planting a mole with a false Roy Moore story, only to actually prove their integrity and the strength of their investigative techniques when they exposed the fraud.

And no, there was no credible “expert” analysis of the handwriting in the yearbook. True handwriting experts have stated that they would need to examine both the yearbook, as well as many known examples of Moore’s writing from different periods in his life, in order to make a credible determination as to its authenticity. That hasn’t been done. What you are referring to is yet another of Moore’s legal team’s weak defenses to try to cast doubt on the victims.

Have you ever noticed that sometimes it’s the most vocally anti-gay Christian conservative politicians who get caught in hotel rooms with underage boys or in similar situations? Think Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Wes Goodman, Ralph Shortey, etc. Yeah, that’s the type of politician Roy Moore is. He just prefers young girls.

Regardless of all of this, Roy Moore should never have been considered a viable candidate to begin with, even before this story broke. He was, not once but twice, removed from his position of Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court (by members of his own party, no less) for directly refusing to obey a federal court order, because he felt his personal interpretation of “God’s Law” overrides any man-made law, including that of the U.S. Supreme Court. Any man who puts himself above the law should absolutely be prohibited from serving in the U.S. Senate.

 

[timm]

Rock on Rich. Rock on!! .

And yes. I have noticed this about the anti gay Christian far right. Absurd.

Let me add one more thing. Re the hand writing expert. Who has the time to do the due diligence on this crap? It's impossible.

 

[Rich]

Let me add one more thing. Re the hand writing expert. Who has the time to do the due diligence on this crap? It's impossible.

And that’s one of the big reasons people don’t do due diligence and vote for candidates based on their true qualifications. It’s much simpler and less time consuming to buy into a particular viewpoint and vote straight party line. Which is one of the reasons we have the government we have. For example, I generally vote for Democrats because I prefer their stance on most issues I care about, but I have voted for my share of republicans in local, state, and even federal elections, because I felt they were the better candidates in those races after reading, researching, and analyzing. I suspect I’m in the extreme minority in that regard. I also suspect I tend to watch less tv news (almost none) and read more in depth articles from a greater variety of sources than the average voter. But then, I have the time and inclination to do so.

One other thing to note about the Roy Moore handwriting defense. One of the things they hang their hat on is the fact that the inscription ends with “D.A.”, but Roy was a deputy D.A. at the time. This is another red herring. As a former assistant D.A. myself, I used to commonly refer to myself as a “D.A.” We were all D.A.’s, we just weren’t THE D.A. In other words, it wouldn’t have been unusual at all, especially for someone with Moore’s braggadocio, to sign something personal with “D.A.” Instead of “Deputy D.A.” or “D.D.A.”

 

[Scumurculum]

Here is my take on this. Since news agencies have become polarized and slanted - the general public doesn't know who to trust. Because someone calls you a child molester essentially - and you have been a public figure for over 30 years - and this just so happens to be a key seat - and the timing of such announcements would sway many voters ... this is what many people question. So - let's assume he is innocent as nothing has been proven from events 30 years ago - you have to ask 'is this just a big smear campaign - and if it is then who is really 'the banality of evil''.
Nobody would vote for this guy if they thought he molested children. Problem is that there are 'scum digger uppers' on both sides and as I said in a prior post- if everybody is lying - who do you believe?

Didn't a 'so called' expert in writing show that the signature in the yearbook was written with different pens and at the time he was the DDA not the DA as the signature shows?

I'm truly not taking sides here. Rich is closer to this than anyone.

My point had nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the guy.

It was the reports of people saying they would rather a ********* than a Democrat

That sort of tribalism is pretty horrible and frightening and has no justification whatsoever

 

[Rich]

My point had nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the guy.

It was the reports of people saying they would rather a ********* than a Democrat

That sort of tribalism is pretty horrible and frightening and has no justification whatsoever

And I agree with you 100% on that point. And I do think it is this sort of rabid tribalism (on both sides) that has given us the sort of corrupt, dysfunctional government that we have now.

 

[Rich]

Timm and Brad, you are both mischaracterizing what happened here. Trump’s team didn’t just “reach out and improve relations” with Russia. They engaged in active diplomacy, requesting Russia take or refrain from specific policy actions which were antagonistic to the policies of the sitting President and sitting State Department.

Coming back to this topic, I wanted to provide a link to an article that makes my point much clearer than I ever could. Highly recommended reading:

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...-plea-trump-team-crippled-american-diplomatic

 

[Brad225]

Not saying it can't be accurate but The Hill is concidered a left-center publication. Virtually every one is, just be sure to quote the ones you might not agree with also. Just like Rich the DA is only going to provide testimony from sources that support his case. It shows you are clearly biased in one direction though you suggest you are not.

Your point of tribalism is seen in the fact that not one Dem would vote for a tax change. There is no way I will ever believe that not one Dem felt the country would be better off with this reform but was afraid of the political machine. Even some Rep stood their ground and said no.

 

[RCHeliGuy]

Not saying it can't be accurate but The Hill is concidered a left-center publication. Virtually every one is, just be sure to quote the ones you might not agree with also. Just like Rich the DA is only going to provide testimony from sources that support his case. It shows you are clearly biased in one direction though you suggest you are not.

Your point of tribalism is seen in the fact that not one Dem would vote for a tax change. There is no way I will ever believe that not one Dem felt the country would be better off with this reform but was afraid of the political machine. Even some Rep stood their ground and said no.

In what world is the Hill left-center?

Has the ultra right Fake news got everyone convinced that a news outlet isn't conservative unless they are screaming conspiracy theories against anyone who doesn't want to give all their money to large corporations?

 

[Rich]

Brad, did you even read the article? Do you have some dispute with the facts and analysis it laid out? Or did you just want to dismiss what I have to say as biased because I’m not equally citing Breitbart? The Hill has some of the most centrist reporting of Washington politics and policy that you can find. Geez, it’s not like I put a HuffPost or Mother Jones article up there.

As for your point on tribalism, it falls flat. Had the dems been included in the process, or heck, had the republicans even followed normal process, then you may have had a point. But when you completely shut one side out, and rush through a bill with no hearings or debate, you can’t then complain of tribalism because none of them vote for your bill. When the republicans passed tax reform in 1986, there were a dozen hearings and the process took six months. This time? No hearings and it’s pushed through in a matter of weeks. That, my friend, is tribalism.

Your use of the label tax reform is a joke. What “reform”? This is a giveaway to the rich and a means to jack up the deficit so they can use that as an excuse to gut Medicaid, Social Security and welfare programs down the road. Nothing more. And I say that as someone who will greatly benefit from this godawful law once it’s passed.

 

[Brad225]

In what world is the Hill left-center?

Has the ultra right Fake news got everyone convinced that a news outlet isn't conservative unless they are screaming conspiracy theories against anyone who doesn't want to give all their money to large corporations?

Mark, The conspiracy theory approach is pretty much left to the Liberals. Yes left-center.