Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

[Stavros]

I would like to qualify my post above. Because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, one might believe there is a natural majority against BS-45, and that the key is winning 'marginal' states where the Electoral College figures are decisive.

However, the spoiler in 2020 must surely be the Democrat choces -assuming that BS-45 is re-nominated by his party- and whether or not the Democrats decide to 'go radical' or 'go safe'. In the case of the former, I would only hope that Bernie Sanders is dumped as soon as possible along with Elizabeth Warren because I don't think voters are ready for the kind of radicalism that they might promote, rather I think that Americans want in the Presidency people who are normal. Radicalism in the present context might look more like revenge than reform, and I wonder if Americans have had enough of negative copy.

If this means Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, I see it as a winning combination, but while Biden is a safe pair of hands and not someone who is going to insult and abuse Americans in the way BS-45 does, he could also be seen as a return to the past, leading a party that cannot make up its mind in what direction it wants to take the US. Kamala Harris would thus give Biden the edge he lacks, and position her for the succession, as Biden may choose to be a one-term President.

In policy terms, I assume Democrats will seek to improve relations that have been sullied by BS-45 and not be so friendly with dictators, though the USA's record in its dealings with Saudi Arabia does not encourage anyone who thinks that relationship will change, though one at least hopes the sale of nuclear technlogy will be denied to the Kingdom of 9/11.

The problem is thus confusion among Democrats as to who and what they want. It would be a tragedy if weakness and division were to deny them the opportunity they have to remove from power the most disgusting person to have occupied the Office of President since his grubby idol, Andrew Jackson.

[buttslinger]

Theoretically, there should be no personality in politics, theoretically there should be no egos.
I don't really see a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton yet, there have only been two Democrats in the White House since Jimmy Carter. I would love to see Bernie pulling all the levers, but I don't see him as a spokesperson for the people, the people haven't got there yet.
Trump is in office because he speaks racist. Racists don't have much anymore except themselves. Then again, that's all they need. Racists don't see themselves as the problem, they see brown colored people that talk funny as the problem. Education isn't the problem, F students are the problem. The framers of the Goddam Constitution didn't think women or blacks should vote. Maybe we should elect an Asian who believes in Education.
We've seen clues of what the Mueller Report might say, but we have not had any charges that stick to BS-45....YET. But I'd say they're coming. CRIMINAL charges straight outta New York South District. Stuff Mueller found but had to send to New York. When criminal charges from grand juries start popping up on a weekly basis, the Republicans won't have any choice, and they won't have a choice of anybody to follow that act. But yeah, that leaves another huge mess for a Democrat to fix. Fixing Trump will be easy compared to what comes next. I'm glad I bought a nice little one room apartment next to my pineal gland.

[filghy2]

However, the spoiler in 2020 must surely be the Democrat choces -assuming that BS-45 is re-nominated by his party- and whether or not the Democrats decide to 'go radical' or 'go safe'. In the case of the former, I would only hope that Bernie Sanders is dumped as soon as possible along with Elizabeth Warren because I don't think voters are ready for the kind of radicalism that they might promote, rather I think that Americans want in the Presidency people who are normal. Radicalism in the present context might look more like revenge than reform, and I wonder if Americans have had enough of negative copy.

I'm not so sure. There's a certain logic that says it's best to appeal to the centre, especially when the other side has moved to the right. But that same logic also suggested that Hillary Clinton was the right candidate to beat Trump in 2016.

In order to win elections you need to get people inclined to your side motivated enough to turn out to vote. A key reason why Trump won is that voter turn-out among Democrat-leaning groups was lower than it had been for Obama. Will the revulsion towards Trump be enough to turn things around next time, or do Democrats need to do more to offer a positive alternative than just being not Trump?

One of the roots of Trumpism is that working people have not been doing well economically over the past decade or so. Will a continuation of the moderate Clinton-Obama approach be enough to convince these people that the Democrats offer a better prospect to improve their lot than Trump's protectionist anti-immigrant approach?

How radical are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren anyway, and why do you characterise their approach as negative? Many of their policies seem to be just bringing the USA closer to the norm for other developed countries; eg single-payer health cover, higher minimum wages. I'm pretty sure they are less radical than Jeremy Corbyn, and most people wrote him off in the last UK election for being too far to the left.

I'm not saying I have a firm view that Sanders or Warren are the best candidates, but I think your assumptions are open to question. There is a good case for the next Democrat candidate to move somewhat to the left of where Hillary Clinton was. Traditional centre-left parties haven't been very successful around the world in recent years. Perhaps they need to offer a clearer alternative to the politics of nationalism and xenophobia? Isn't that what FDR did in the 1930s?

[blackchubby38]

I would like to qualify my post above. Because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, one might believe there is a natural majority against BS-45, and that the key is winning 'marginal' states where the Electoral College figures are decisive.

However, the spoiler in 2020 must surely be the Democrat choces -assuming that BS-45 is re-nominated by his party- and whether or not the Democrats decide to 'go radical' or 'go safe'. In the case of the former, I would only hope that Bernie Sanders is dumped as soon as possible along with Elizabeth Warren because I don't think voters are ready for the kind of radicalism that they might promote, rather I think that Americans want in the Presidency people who are normal. Radicalism in the present context might look more like revenge than reform, and I wonder if Americans have had enough of negative copy.

If this means Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, I see it as a winning combination, but while Biden is a safe pair of hands and not someone who is going to insult and abuse Americans in the way BS-45 does, he could also be seen as a return to the past, leading a party that cannot make up its mind in what direction it wants to take the US. Kamala Harris would thus give Biden the edge he lacks, and position her for the succession, as Biden may choose to be a one-term President.

In policy terms, I assume Democrats will seek to improve relations that have been sullied by BS-45 and not be so friendly with dictators, though the USA's record in its dealings with Saudi Arabia does not encourage anyone who thinks that relationship will change, though one at least hopes the sale of nuclear technlogy will be denied to the Kingdom of 9/11.

The problem is thus confusion among Democrats as to who and what they want. It would be a tragedy if weakness and division were to deny them the opportunity they have to remove from power the most disgusting person to have occupied the Office of President since his grubby idol, Andrew Jackson.

When you have Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez telling the centrists in the party to get on board with the program or face primary challenges, you know the Democratic Party is in trouble. So far, I haven't been impressed with any of the candidates that announced they were running. At this point, I'm going to wind up voting for the CEO of Starbucks.

[filghy2]

At this point, I'm going to wind up voting for the CEO of Starbucks.

Why do you think that will achieve anything other than increasing Trump's chances? And why do people think that businessmen with no policy experience make good political leaders? Why would your prefer Howard Schultz to a mainstream Democrat like Joe Biden?

[Stavros]

How radical are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren anyway, and why do you characterise their approach as negative? Many of their policies seem to be just bringing the USA closer to the norm for other developed countries; eg single-payer health cover, higher minimum wages. I'm pretty sure they are less radical than Jeremy Corbyn, and most people wrote him off in the last UK election for being too far to the left.

I'm not saying I have a firm view that Sanders or Warren are the best candidates, but I think your assumptions are open to question. There is a good case for the next Democrat candidate to move somewhat to the left of where Hillary Clinton was. Traditional centre-left parties haven't been very successful around the world in recent years. Perhaps they need to offer a clearer alternative to the politics of nationalism and xenophobia? Isn't that what FDR did in the 1930s?

I agree my assumptions can be questioned, because I don't live in the US I don't get many of the nuances in the discourse that shape the tone as well as the content of it, for example I was not aware of the remarks of AOC that Blackchubby refers to in his post.

I live in the UK wherre we have single-payer health cover, but don't know if this is the right model for the US. I see the problem being huge -a Federal Tax for a Federal Service to replace most of what exists in States, that is a big admin project, but must surely collide with States Rights on taxation and even the definition of health care. Would family planning become part of a Federal Health Care programme, integrated into General Practice and the Hospital sectors? I did once try to understand health care provision in the US and gave up as life is too short and it quickly becomes evident the US missed the boat on health care and have been left stranded with a broken mast taking them nowhere. A minimum wage might be one way of raising living standards, but if OAC and people like her are right, a structural change to taxation in the US is in order, with restrictions on capital flight added in to the mix, though ultimately, in a capitalist society, it is all about jobs -and jobs for all.

I am not that much older or younger than Warren and Sanders, but feel the US needs someone with youth and vision to offer a positive alternative to the misery it has at the moment, but Blackchubby, who has to make the real decisions, is not energized right now, and that is not good.

[broncofan]

I did once try to understand health care provision in the US and gave up as life is too short and it quickly becomes evident the US missed the boat on health care and have been left stranded with a broken mast taking them nowhere. A minimum wage might be one way of raising living standards, but if OAC and people like her are right, a structural change to taxation in the US is in order, with restrictions on capital flight added in to the mix, though ultimately, in a capitalist society, it is all about jobs -and jobs for all.

I once took an entire course on health care law in the U.S. and the point of the course was that our health care system is not a system, but dozens of overlapping, poorly written laws.

The best model for how a single payer system would work for us is provided by Medicaid (though technically it gets funds from two payers-state and federal). Medicaid is funded by our federal government but administered by the states and provides health care to those below a certain poverty threshold. States can technically opt out of this system, but they tend not to want to turn down federal money even if it requires them to take care of their needy. It might avoid any constitutional challenge if it were set up in this way, by allowing for state administration and tying federal funds to certain minimum care requirements.

We spend far more than other countries for the quality of care we provide and one reason is that health care is not accessible until people are very sick. The system we have now, even with Obamacare is better than it was but not good for people who work for small employers, for the self-employed, or unemployed. So, this should be a priority for us in the election.

I like the idea of higher taxes in this country and better allocation of them for social programs. I think people like Bernie and AOC have been very helpful in making people understand that robust social programs are not frightening or crazy. My complaint with Bernie has been more about the fact that he didn't seem to know how he would achieve his vision and not what he recommends. I also thought the demagoguery with finance was performance politics; regulating the financial sector very stringently over Republican objections is extremely important. Breaking up banks is possibly disastrous imo.

I certainly won't be voting for Howard Schultz and obviously hope he decides not to run. Beyond that, I tend to like Kamala Harris but mostly for personal characteristics and don't know a lot about her policies but have always been impressed with her.

Is someone in their mid-70s a bit too old to begin a first term as President? Everyone is different but I agree it's not an asset for a candidate.

[blackchubby38]

Why do you think that will achieve anything other than increasing Trump's chances? And why do people think that businessmen with no policy experience make good political leaders? Why would your prefer Howard Schultz to a mainstream Democrat like Joe Biden?

If Biden gets in, I would vote for him. But last I checked, he hasn't said he was running.

Also if past history is any indication, a 3rd party candidate is not going to increase Trump's chances of winning. The Democrats running a shitty campaign and/or candidate will do that.

[filghy2]

Also if past history is any indication, a 3rd party candidate is not going to increase Trump's chances of winning.

Why do you say that? There are historical examples where a 3rd party candidate is thought to have influenced the outcome, although we can't know for certain how their supporters would have voted if they had not run..
https://www.history.com/news/third-party-candidates-election-influence-facts

The one thing history does suggest is that a 3rd party candidate has no chance of winning. Even Teddy Roosevelt only managed a distant second.

[blackchubby38]

Why do you say that? There are historical examples where a 3rd party candidate is thought to have influenced the outcome, although we can't know for certain how their supporters would have voted if they had not run..
https://www.history.com/news/third-party-candidates-election-influence-facts

The one thing history does suggest is that a 3rd party candidate has no chance of winning. Even Teddy Roosevelt only managed a distant second.

I'll give you the impact that Teddy Roosevelt had on the 1912 election. But in recent memory, Perot wasn't the reason why Bush lost in 1992, Nader wasn't the reason why Gore lost in 2000, and for sure Gary Johnson and Jill Stein weren't the reason why Hillary lost.

I think there are enough people who are fed up with both parties, that you can start to see more people clamoring for a third party candidate to run. It has to be the right person though.

[filghy2]

I live in the UK where we have single-payer health cover, but don't know if this is the right model for the US. I see the problem being huge -a Federal Tax for a Federal Service to replace most of what exists in States, that is a big admin project, but must surely collide with States Rights on taxation and even the definition of health care.

The US spends almost twice of its GDP on health care as other developed counties for worse health outcomes, so I always find the argument that it can't afford to change a bit strange. Given the rapid rise in health care costs it would be truer to say that it can't afford not to change.

Health is also a state government responsibility in Australia, but we've had a single-payer system since the 1970s. The federal government pays most of the the bills (using its financing powers), but public hospitals are run by state governments and doctors still have private practices. There are also private hospitals and private insurance for things the government does not cover. That seems similar to how it could work in the US. I think the UK system is more like nationalised health care.

One of the best arguments for single payer is that it's a simpler and more robust way to ensure most people get health cover than Obamacare, which relied on a complicated mix of tax penalties, subsidies and regulations. That has made it vulnerable to undermining by changing the components, even though Republicans have not been able to abolish it entirely.

[buttslinger]

….The one thing history does suggest is that a 3rd party......has no chance of winning....

https://i.ibb.co/202VGgc/putin.jpg (https://ibb.co/1YVyF8R)

[filghy2]

But in recent memory, Perot wasn't the reason why Bush lost in 1992, Nader wasn't the reason why Gore lost in 2000, and for sure Gary Johnson and Jill Stein weren't the reason why Hillary lost.

Doesn't that point to the conundrum? If they haven't affected the outcome it's because they haven't attracted many votes and/or they affected both sides similarly. But that also means they have little influence on the political system. Perot won 19% of the vote in 1992, but I can't see that he had any lasting impact on US politics. They would probably need to get 25-30% of the vote to have a real impact.

Minor parties can have an influence in other countries because they can hold the balance of power in parliament, but the US political system does not seem to give them much of a chance.

[Stavros]

The US spends almost twice of its GDP on health care as other developed counties for worse health outcomes, so I always find the argument that it can't afford to change a bit strange. Given the rapid rise in health care costs it would be truer to say that it can't afford not to change.


My view is that in the US health care is a business, where in the UK it is a service. Clearly many businesses have made handsom profits from health care, from dental products to all of the machinery used in hospitals, and the prices pharmacological companies charge is an issue in both the UK and the UK, but the moral, guiding principle of health care free at the time of need from cradle to grave is superior to an insurance based system, because insurance companies are relucant to offer health care to people with chronic illnesses and conditions. There is also the link in the UK which I assume applies in Australia between health care and education in the link between Medical Schools and General Hospitals, so that our NHS unifies training and research with health care under one system, though pressure from the doctors associations in 1947-48 meant that private health care has never been abolished in the UK.

You are also right to describe it as a 'Nationalized' health care system, the Attlee Government in 1945 used 'the Nation' many more times than it did 'Socialism' when describing its programmes (National Coal Board is a good example). And, of course, if there was a more effective health education programme in schools and after, many people might live healthier lives and not need to see a doctor at all excepting accidents and infirmities caused by old age. But yes, too, maybe the US is reaching a point where it can no longer afford to have such a mosaic of health care provision, but it needs to be clearly explained what this means in terms of costs and the structural changes to the health care that exists.

[Stavros]

I'll give you the impact that Teddy Roosevelt had on the 1912 election. But in recent memory, Perot wasn't the reason why Bush lost in 1992, Nader wasn't the reason why Gore lost in 2000, and for sure Gary Johnson and Jill Stein weren't the reason why Hillary lost.

I think there are enough people who are fed up with both parties, that you can start to see more people clamoring for a third party candidate to run. It has to be the right person though.

If a third party candidate is to have a real chance, I think it needs to be someone who has defected from the Democrats or Republicans, who has name recognition and local support. A popular Senator from a large state with enough electoral college votes could do real damage, though having said that, if it were Kentucky Senator Rand Paul would he take the State, or is he aleady seen as too eccentric to make a difference? The more intriguing split could occur if the Republicans allowed someone to challenge the President who went on to defeat him, on the basis that the incumbent had become a liability - but that the President would stand as an independent regardless of that decision. This would surely hand the Presidency on a gold plate to the Democrats as the South would probably vote for the President...but right now the RNC is doing all it can to prevent anyone challenging the Dear Leader.

The problem with the third party candidates is that they tend to be weird people from the fringe of politics, and indeed, society, lacking money, organization, and enough popular appeal. Just as we have seen defections from the two main parties in the UK in the 1980s and again this year, I think the key lies in defections in the two main parties in the US, but they have to be well known and well financed if they are to make a difference. That said, Bernie Sanders is going in the opposite direction, an Independent seeking the Democrat nomination, I don't know how they can allow it. At least he may shape the agenda in policy terms.

[Stavros]

Remember this?



"When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win," Trump tweets.

Trump announced Thursday that he will impose 25 percent tariff on steel and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum as early as next week.


Turns out it was bullshit from the start, but I guess you cannot expect anything less from the Republicans as their record shows. May be best to slap another $ trillion dollars on the debt, and anyway, Jared is raking in the lovely dollars for the family, and that s what matters most.

https://www.theatlas.com/i/atlas_H1uvjIp84.png

[Stavros]

That's some swamp you got there Mr Dennison! Nazdroviye, ma'salamah...

Donald Trump (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/DonaldTrump) ally Erik Prince may have committed perjury, a congressman has said, after the former Navy Seal said for the first time he held a meeting with one of the US president’s sons to discuss “Iran policy”.
Mr Prince, founder of controversial military contractor Blackwater USA (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/blackwater), admitted he met Donald Trump Jr (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/donald-trump-jr) and an emissary for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in Trump Tower ahead of the presidential election.
The admission comes more than a year after the 49-year-old, brother of US education secretary Betsy DeVos (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/betsy-devos), failed to disclose the meeting under oath to the House intelligence committee, according to a public transcript. (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20171130/106661/HHRG-115-IG00-Transcript-20171130.pdf)
According to The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/us/politics/trump-jr-saudi-uae-nader-prince-zamel.html), Mr Prince organised the August 2016 meeting with Mr Trump’s eldest son and Lebanese-American businessman George Nader, who reportedly revealed Saudi Arabia and the UAE wanted to help Mr Trump in his bid for the presidency.
The meeting also reportedly included Stephen Miller, now Mr Trump’s senior policy adviser, and an Israeli social media expert called Joel Zamel.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/erik-prince-trump-tower-meeting-blackwater-interview-mehdi-hasan-a8815446.html

[buttslinger]

Yawn, I missed Nancy Pelosi's 420-0 vote on releasing the Mueller Report NOW!!!!

Maybe it's the way Tubby Barr has been seen schmoozing it up with Trump. He's probably told Trump everything that's in it.

I'm waiting for a Democrat who admits the National Debt is the worst problem we have, after Baby Donald gets thrown out. Live by CASH, die by CASH.
https://i.ibb.co/Y2Bs08j/us-federal-debt-by-president-political-party.jpg (https://ibb.co/zsVv6bf)

[filghy2]

I'm waiting for a Democrat who admits the National Debt is the worst problem we have, after Baby Donald gets thrown out.

Really? Worse than the threat of nuclear war? Worse than climate change? Worse than the decline of democracy around the world? Worse than the rise of right-wing nationalism? Worse than rising inequality and concentration of wealth?

You can bet that when the next Democrat president is elected Republicans will suddenly discover that the national debt is the greatest problem and use it as another excuse to block their policy agenda.

[buttslinger]

…. Worse than the threat of nuclear war? Worse than climate change? Worse than the decline of democracy around the world? Worse than the rise of right-wing nationalism? Worse than rising inequality and concentration of wealth?......

YES. We owe all that money to the rich people, and you can bet they get paid with interest. They own us.

[filghy2]

YES. We owe all that money to the rich people, and you can bet they get paid with interest. They own us.

No. most of it's owned by Social Security and other government Trust Funds, foreign governments and investors and the Federal Reserve. Apart from the bit that's owed to foreigners you mostly owe it to yourself (indirectly). https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124

Whether the debt is a problem depends on what it is used for. Obviously it was a bad idea to blow out the debt for tax cuts to the rich, but borrowing for something with future benefits (like infrastructure and education) might be no bad thing. If the next Democrat administration decided that it couldn't afford to spend on things like that because of the debt it would be doing exactly what the Republicans wanted.

[buttslinger]

No.....

Let's borrow 22 trillion more from ourselves and everyone will be a millionaire!

[Stevie.Thomas]

But if we are all millionaires then the bracket will be moved and we would all be back to were we are now :)

[buttslinger]

But if we are all millionaires then the bracket will be moved and we would all be back to were we are now :)
True. Let's kill all the millionaires and take their stuff. Trump can declare another Emergency Action.
Jeez, this waiting around for Mueller is gnawing at my sense of humor. Would it be too much to ask to slap the cuffs on Don Jr or Ivanka???? The Kellyanne Conway marriage is at stake!!!
I want to hear the sound of laughter again. From John McCain's coffin. Too soon?

I've got a bad feeling Trump already knows what's in the report and he cheated the hangman, again. I hope I'm wrong, again.

[filghy2]

According to recent poll, 78% of Republican Fox News viewers believe that Trump has achieved more than any other president in US history. A country is in serious trouble when a large chunk of the population is this deluded.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/poll-78-of-gop-fox-news-viewers-say-trump-is-best-president-ever?ref=home

[Stavros]

Deluded is only part of the problem--

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said it is "possible" that President Donald Trump was sent by God to save Israel from Iran.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47670717

[buttslinger]

Well, gee whiz Mr President, it looks like I was all wrong about you.....
HA HA HA HA HA!!
I ain't over just because the fat boy Barr sings, he's practically one of Trump's legal team. Four pages???
Let's go, release the Mueller Report and lets find out the facts.

[filghy2]

If Trump was sent by God then maybe God reached down and hid critical evidence from Mueller.

We can't know whether Barr is telling the full story unless the full report is released, but we shouldn't be entirely surprised by the reported conclusions. Mueller is a very 'by the book' guy so he always going to be careful about what he said and not make recommendations unless he was sure the evidence could support them beyond reasonable doubt.

One obvious question is what was the campaign of vilification against Mueller all about if there was nothing to it? If the "witch-hunt" has now delivered a "total and complete exoneration" then they must be very incompetent witch-hunters.

[Stavros]

What do we know so far? Not a lot.

1) The Muelller Report may be judged by what it does not say rather than what it does, by the issues that it did not investigate if they were deemed to be outside the scope of the enquiry.

2) From the start, I believe there was a belief that the Office of the Presidency should be protected, in the sense that it was not just about the candidate who became President, but the potential damage that could be caused to pubic confidence in the Presidency if one man and his team were found to have acted against the law. It would also have challenged the Justice Department to either confirm the convention that sitting Presidents cannot be prosecuted, or overturn that convention to do just that - but with the same standard as applied to other cases: will this one stand up in court and secure a conviction? There may be a lot of evidence that the campaign appeared to cross the line of legality, but is that enough?

3) From the above: when the FBI reaised the Russians were hacking the US and that there were 'links' between the Republican campaign and the Russians, a public investigation with arrests would been presented as an interference in the election, so the investigation continued without publicity. When Barack Obama met his successor in the Oval Office in November 2016 he told him that the evidence the FBI had suggested Michael Flynn should not be given a job in the government, alerting BS45 to the existence of a substantial enquiry, and out of spite, because he hates Obama, BS45 did the opposite even if Flynn was the first high profile casualty of his grubby administration.

4) Again, from the start, BS45 has been able to present this as a campaign against him and the people who voted for him, and he will exact his revenge because he knows no other way of living, other than to humiliate, insult and abuse Americans who don't like him, but it remains to be seen if he can actually have any of 'them' arrested, tried and convicted, though he will maintain his campaign of hate to the end of his life.

5) If it is the case that Bs45 has 'got away with it', this is another tremendous victory for the Russians and their campaigns of interference. We may now never know what role Cambridge Analytica played in the 2016 campaign, if Aaron Banks was given a USB stick in one of his many meetings with the Russian Ambassador to the UK, a stick he gave to Nigel Farage that was given by him to Wikileaks commisar in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London -or maybe there is something in the Report that has yet to see the light of day.

6) Most serious of all, this is not just a triumph for Russia and cybercrime, this President is now emboldened to do things he was shy about before. Having already indicated his desire to smash to pieces the international order that was created in 1945, this man sees no limits to American power, and must now want to be the second American President to use nuclear weapons, in his case, to prove that it can be done again, regardless of the loss of life and long term damage caused.
He loves to destroy, it is his revenge on all those who said he was a shmuck from Queens who could never be President.
The only question is, who will be the victim of this semi-literate lunatic? Iran is in the frame right now, hated by his lovely dollar friends in the 9/11 Kingdom, the 'in-our-pocket' Gulf Sultans, and Israel, though so far Israel's intelligent Generals have succeeded in preventing Netanyahu from attacking Iran -and we won't know for a while if this corrupt little creep will be re-elected Prime Minister. One can only hope for the sake of those not yet dead it doesn't happen.

it is now time for the Democrats to take control of the process, or lose everything. Are they up to it?

[broncofan]

Mueller is a very 'by the book' guy so he always going to be careful about what he said and not make recommendations unless he was sure the evidence could support them beyond reasonable doubt.

One obvious question is what was the campaign of vilification against Mueller all about if there was nothing to it? If the "witch-hunt" has now delivered a "total and complete exoneration" then they must be very incompetent witch-hunters.
I agree with you completely. The answer to your question goes to the heart of why Trump is unfit for office. He wasn't sure whether the investigation would reveal minor improprieties on his part or whether it would incriminate his family members so he felt he had to call it a witch-hunt. When the investigation didn't reveal anything too damaging for him to accept, he can say it exonerates him and Mueller's word is good.

But he did obstruct justice. What were all of his fulminations on twitter and behind the scenes about if not to corrupt the process? Why did he fire Comey and threaten to fire Sessions and Rosenstein if not because they would not serve his own personal interests? The problem is that Democrats set the bar so high by insisting he must be a traitor or an agent of Russia, that simply having no respect for the rule of law seems trivial. At the beginning of this, I said I wasn't sure whether his behavior was consistent with someone who is guilty of something or simply of someone who cannot accept scrutiny. If it turns out it's the latter, that's no less damning.

Now we sit and wait to see if Mueller has handed off crimes that are outside his mandate to state prosecutors. Either way, it is time for Democrats to mostly move on. Impeachment is a political process anyway. There was an investigation conducted by an honest man who has indicted those he saw fit to indict and there may be investigations that branch off of this one, but 2020 approaches.

[broncofan]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-investigations-expla/explainer-why-trumps-legal-woes-go-beyond-the-mueller-report-idUSKCN1R50S3

This is a decent summary of some of the other legal issues, both civil and criminal at the state level that might be on the horizon for Trump. It's probably not comprehensive.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/opinion/trump-mueller-barr-letter.html

This is also a good article by Bob Bauer about how Trump's conduct often skirted the lines of illegality. He argues that an important consideration for Mueller was that many of Trump's acts of obstruction took place in public view.

It's sort of ironic that the more flagrant his conduct is the less it shows consciousness of guilt which may be a saving grace. But then wouldn't the fact that he asked Kushner and Sessions to leave the room before he asked Comey to go easy on Flynn be even more damning? This is a man who is not conscientious enough to avoid witness tampering in public view but asked close associates to leave him alone for his most flagrant attempt to interfere with law enforcement.

[filghy2]

[URL]This is also a good article by Bob Bauer about how Trump's conduct often skirted the lines of illegality. He argues that an important consideration for Mueller was that many of Trump's acts of obstruction took place in public view.

It's sort of ironic that the more flagrant his conduct is the less it shows consciousness of guilt which may be a saving grace.

One of life's great mysteries is how Trump has generally been able to live such a charmed life with the legal and regulatory authorities. For instance, he was able to retain a New Jersey gaming licence despite clear evidence that he had links to organised crime - the regulatory authority simply chose not to investigate. No wonder he thinks normal rules don't apply to him, given he's rarely had to face the full legal or financial consequences of his actions.

There's a theory that Trump has been the ultimate beneficiary of the too big to fail syndrome. First he was too big to fail financially. The regulatory authorities didn't want to shut him down because the consequences would have been too big to handle. His creditors were fairly easy on him in bankruptcy proceeding because the consequences of his failure would have been too big. Now he's too big to fail politically. The Republican party feels it must protect him because his failure would bring them down as well.

Trump is clearly a sociopath who doesn't care about others and doesn't think there should be constraints on him. I'm sure he was getting plenty of legal advice about what might constitute obstruction of justice. But I think he just can't help himself when he feels that something is unfair to him - which is basically any constraint or scrutiny of his behaviour. Also he probably calculated that he could get away with it, given he has mostly gotten away with things in the past.

[Stavros]

filghy2, I regret to say your post is a near perfect summary of a man's career. The only thing we can hope for is that in his zeal to be himself, he will trip up, and not on a banana skin. He may now, as Steve Bannon has put it, go full animal on those who dared to challenge him, calling them 'evil' and 'treasonous' though I assume his definition of treason doesn't get the accused into a courtroom. Sad!

[yodajazz]

I agree with you completely. The answer to your question goes to the heart of why Trump is unfit for office. He wasn't sure whether the investigation would reveal minor improprieties on his part or whether it would incriminate his family members so he felt he had to call it a witch-hunt. When the investigation didn't reveal anything too damaging for him to accept, he can say it exonerates him and Mueller's word is good.

But he did obstruct justice. What were all of his fulminations on twitter and behind the scenes about if not to corrupt the process? Why did he fire Comey and threaten to fire Sessions and Rosenstein if not because they would not serve his own personal interests? The problem is that Democrats set the bar so high by insisting he must be a traitor or an agent of Russia, that simply having no respect for the rule of law seems trivial. At the beginning of this, I said I wasn't sure whether his behavior was consistent with someone who is guilty of something or simply of someone who cannot accept scrutiny. If it turns out it's the latter, that's no less damning.

Now we sit and wait to see if Mueller has handed off crimes that are outside his mandate to state prosecutors. Either way, it is time for Democrats to mostly move on. Impeachment is a political process anyway. There was an investigation conducted by an honest man who has indicted those he saw fit to indict and there may be investigations that branch off of this one, but 2020 approaches.


Well, I agree with you. He did obstruct justice, by attacking the rule of law, with his words. And he continues to do so. While this might not rise to the level of an crime, it means he is not performing his duties, as outlined in the Constitution. He was/is not protecting The Constitution, with his words. And he has done this for a prolonged time. So the length of time, is a factor, I'm talking deep-state stuff, here. I know that removal of a president, may have higher standards, than firing someone from other jobs. However consider this analogy; You do not have t0 be accused of a crime, to be let go from a job.

[yodajazz]

I agree with you completely. The answer to your question goes to the heart of why Trump is unfit for office. He wasn't sure whether the investigation would reveal minor improprieties on his part or whether it would incriminate his family members so he felt he had to call it a witch-hunt. When the investigation didn't reveal anything too damaging for him to accept, he can say it exonerates him and Mueller's word is good.

But he did obstruct justice. What were all of his fulminations on twitter and behind the scenes about if not to corrupt the process? Why did he fire Comey and threaten to fire Sessions and Rosenstein if not because they would not serve his own personal interests? The problem is that Democrats set the bar so high by insisting he must be a traitor or an agent of Russia, that simply having no respect for the rule of law seems trivial. At the beginning of this, I said I wasn't sure whether his behavior was consistent with someone who is guilty of something or simply of someone who cannot accept scrutiny. If it turns out it's the latter, that's no less damning.

Now we sit and wait to see if Mueller has handed off crimes that are outside his mandate to state prosecutors. Either way, it is time for Democrats to mostly move on. Impeachment is a political process anyway. There was an investigation conducted by an honest man who has indicted those he saw fit to indict and there may be investigations that branch off of this one, but 2020 approaches.


Well, I agree with you. He did obstruct justice, by attacking the rule of law, with his words. And he continues to do so. While this might not rise to the level of an crime, it means he is not performing his duties, as outlined in the Constitution. He was/is not protecting The Constitution, with his words. And he has done this for a prolonged time. So the length of time, is a factor, I'm talking deep-state stuff, here. I know that removal of a president, may have higher standards, than firing someone from other jobs. However consider this analogy; You do not have t be accused of a crime, to be let go from a job.

[filghy2]

filghy2, I regret to say your post is a near perfect summary of a man's career. The only thing we can hope for is that in his zeal to be himself, he will trip up, and not on a banana skin. He may now, as Steve Bannon has put it, go full animal on those who dared to challenge him, calling them 'evil' and 'treasonous' though I assume his definition of treason doesn't get the accused into a courtroom. Sad!

It looks like he'll be getting plenty of encouragement to pursue payback. It may never amount to anything more than another "lock em up" chant, but the scary thing is that 80-90% of Republicans would probably cheer him on even more.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/25/graham-fbi-2016-election-1235224
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/25/18278660/mueller-trump-report-republicans-conservatives-reaction

Unfortunately the US seems to be heading toward a situation where the law is seen as just another instrument of partisanship.

[Stavros]

If this:

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) The Mainstream Media is under fire and being scorned all over the World as being corrupt and FAKE. For two years they pushed the Russian Collusion Delusion when they always knew there was No Collusion. They truly are the Enemy of the People and the Real Opposition Party!

Then shut down the 'Enemy of the people' arrest them, charge them in a court of law, and if convicted, send them to prison.

Or was that just bullshit 'Mr President'?

[Stavros]

Another argument I agree with that emphasises how the Mueller Enquiry was biased to protect the President and his family -

That Russia undertook a massive and sophisticated cyberattack on America’s free elections is incontrovertible. That they did it to elect Donald Trump and were successful in helping him is also clear as day. That Trump has shown nothing but subservience to Russian president Vladimir Putin is undeniable. But those disturbing facts are now being obscured by the GOP’s victory lap over the Mueller report (or, more precisely, AG Barr’s spin on it).

The gloating “patriots” on the right are conveniently forgetting what the intelligence community and law enforcement concluded: that America was subjected to a massive cyberattack by the Kremlin intended to tilt a US election to the Republican candidate. And Trump and his GOP apologists like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham are giving the attackers a pass. Unfortunately, by hyping the Mueller report, Democratic lawmakers and strategists have given the GOP fodder to obfuscate and spin.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mueller-report-trump-democrats-mess-peter-daou-adviser-hillary-clinton-a8840861.html

[filghy2]

Unfortunately I fear that the average disengaged voter who doesn't read much beyond the headlines has now formed the impression that Mueller has exonerated Trump and there was no basis to the collusion allegations. Which is exactly the result that Trump and his enablers wanted.

[yodajazz]

Another argument I agree with that emphasises how the Mueller Enquiry was biased to protect the President and his family -

That Russia undertook a massive and sophisticated cyberattack on America’s free elections is incontrovertible. That they did it to elect Donald Trump and were successful in helping him is also clear as day. That Trump has shown nothing but subservience to Russian president Vladimir Putin is undeniable. But those disturbing facts are now being obscured by the GOP’s victory lap over the Mueller report (or, more precisely, AG Barr’s spin on it).

The gloating “patriots” on the right are conveniently forgetting what the intelligence community and law enforcement concluded: that America was subjected to a massive cyberattack by the Kremlin intended to tilt a US election to the Republican candidate. And Trump and his GOP apologists like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham are giving the attackers a pass. Unfortunately, by hyping the Mueller report, Democratic lawmakers and strategists have given the GOP fodder to obfuscate and spin.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mueller-report-trump-democrats-mess-peter-daou-adviser-hillary-clinton-a8840861.html


Unfortunately I fear that the average disengaged voter who doesn't read much beyond the headlines has now formed the impression that Mueller has exonerated Trump and there was no basis to the collusion allegations. Which is exactly the result that Trump and his enablers wanted.

One thing that I think particularly dangerous, and insidious, is Trump's use of the word "witch hunt". He implies that there was no factual basis, for the investigation. The narrative also implies that everything was made up, by a 'deep state' just to attack him. In various discussions in comments sections, I have asked, 'What about Facebook, and Twitter. Are they part of the deep state?' I have gotten little response, except that, 'it didn't make any difference'. Yet it was still a crime, an attack against the US election. So an investigation of the Trump campaign, for possible conspiracy, was warranted. I believe the release of the Mueller Report, will support the idea, that the investigation was a about a real threat vs, Trump's position. Does anyone, have an idea of Trump's latest position, or if he has acknowledged, that there was a real attack?

I understand that low information don't realize that internet users location is identified in their IP address. to this point; I ran into an article today, about Reddit releasing the content of posting by russian users. They trace some of it directly to the infamous, Internet Research Agency. You can examine the content yourself, in this extensive article.
Russian Propaganda On Reddit – Arc Digital (https://arcdigital.media/russian-propaganda-on-reddit-7945dc04eb7b)

[buttslinger]

The area around St Petersburg is responsible for a huge slice of the World's Cybercrime woes as well as child pornography. They got my Mom's IRS refund a few years ago, ended up in the Brighton Beach section of New York. They have been fucking with our elections for years but we've been fucking with them as well.

As much as it seems that Trump is winning, he is on defense now. AG Barr is going to promise ice cream, cake, and a full reveal of the Mueller Report, but we've already seen Mitch McConnel block it's release in the Senate, and Barr announcing the White House has to edit the 900 page document before we see it.

It's good the Republicans are clinging to their religion, guns, and Trump. They can go down with the ship. The Russians have an economy about as big as New Jersey, and the Republicans have a President with SAT scores less than the pages of the report that will eventually do him in. Give Trump all the rope he wants, we'll use it for the hanging. When the sugar high Trump's base is feeling wears off, they're going to find out Trump wasn't lying to Democrats all this time, he was lying to them. For thirty years conservative media has been chanting "Democrats bad, Republicans good, Democrats bad, Republicans good, Democrats bad, Republicans good", that's why things are so fucked up now.

Before Trump came along the Republican party was on the ropes, all they had was obstruction. I hope Obstruction does them in.

[filghy2]

One thing that I think particularly dangerous, and insidious, is Trump's use of the word "witch hunt". He implies that there was no factual basis, for the investigation. The narrative also implies that everything was made up, by a 'deep state' just to attack him. In various discussions in comments sections, I have asked, 'What about Facebook, and Twitter. Are they part of the deep state?' I have gotten little response, except that, 'it didn't make any difference'. Yet it was still a crime, an attack against the US election. So an investigation of the Trump campaign, for possible conspiracy, was warranted. I believe the release of the Mueller Report, will support the idea, that the investigation was a about a real threat vs, Trump's position. Does anyone, have an idea of Trump's latest position, or if he has acknowledged, that there was a real attack?

I'm not aware that he has changed his position. Unfortunately, the Republican party is now so subservient to Trump that I think they will back pedal on any real action to address the problem of interference because that would not suit the narrative that it was all a witch hunt initiated by Democrats. This is asking us to ignore a number of things:
- that Mueller spent nearly 2 years looking into it before concluding that there has not enough evidence
- that people around the Trump campaign consistently lied about contacts with the Russians
- that Trump and his associates have an unusual number of financial links and dealings with Russians
- that Trump was clearly very anxious about the investigation
- that Trump has been so unaccountably subservient towards Putin, including backing his denials
- that a number of Trump associates have been charged with crimes or convicted

I suspect it will be some time before we see the Mueller report and it will be heavily redacted. I know there may be reasons why some things can't be made public, but I can't see why Democrats on the relevant committees can't see the whole thing. If nobody outside the Administration ever gets to see the full report that will be highly suspicious.

[buttslinger]

I've heard a few journalists of late ask Trump spokespeople if Trump believes Russia attacked us, and they say of course he has, Trump has been the toughest President against Russia that ever existed. When asked how that squares with the facts, they veer off into some Junior High mumbo jumbo shit. When Adam Schiff schooled his accusers yesterday in The House, the three Republicans were obviously perplexed.
There is a reason Trump didn't testify in person to Mueller, and there is a reason Trump doesn't go on any network besides FOX anymore. Lying on Fox News has no consequences.
I hope everybody sees that shadow boxing with Trump on the issues is a waste of time, you have to punch him in the gut with your left, and knock him out with your right. And you can only do that on Election Day. The Republicans are better than Democrats about getting their flock to the polls, and having their vote count more because of gerrymandering and dirty tricks. Many of the Laws of Junior High School still ring true: you gotta put up or shut up. It's the Democrat's fault Trump is in the White House now, not Republicans.

[buttslinger]

Puppet? No puppet. You're the puppet!

I wonder what Trump's funeral will be like? Solid Gold coffin? Will all his ex-trophy wives be there? Will Obama say a few kind words? Will Sean Hannity be weeping like a little girl in the front row?
How about his Presidential Library? A copy of The Art of the Deal, a Bible, and a thousand magazines with Trump's picture on the cover?
I wonder if Bill Barr and Betsy DeVoss signed NDAs?
I wonder what kind of Health Plan Trump offers all the illegals that work at his Resorts, Hotels, and Golf Courses?
Most of all I wonder what Trump and Putin talk about when no one else is there......

[Stavros]

It has been said of the Casino business, 'the house never loses', until a man entered the business who not only lost, but lost so bigly it took the rest of the town with it to the knacker's yard. 'Make Atlantic City Great Again!' Yeah, right. And what happened to Atlantic City will happen to the US by the time this crook is done with it.
Fascinating article, here are some extracts-

When Donald Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump) opened the towering Trump Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City in March 1990, he declared it “the eighth wonder of the world” and joined in the celebrations at a launch ceremony filled with portly actors dressed as genies brandishing tacky golden lamps. Even though it was purchased with almost $700m worth of junk bonds (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1990/03/25/donald-trumps-big-bet/0c149273-3752-4f6f-96bf-432457039eb7/?utm_term=.abfb353c6d38) – which meant the Taj had to come up with $94m a year just to pay off its debts, and $1m a day to be profitable – Trump insisted the casino would make Atlantic City great again, returning the area to its prohibition-era glory days.

At one point, Trump had three casinos in Atlantic City, employing 8,000 people and accounting for nearly a third of the area’s gambling revenues. But they eventually became unsustainable thanks to a mixture of enormous debts, rival venues, weak local demand and negative press, which suggested Trump’s businesses were facilitating money laundering – something later given credence when the Taj was fined $10m (https://www.reuters.com/article/trump-ent-trumptajmahal-moneylaundering-idUSL1N0VL2L120150211) for failing to report suspicious transactions. Two, the Trump Castle and the Taj, now have new owners, but the famous Trump Plaza, which once hosted Wrestlemania and Mike Tyson fights, stands derelict and is set to be demolished.

The failure of the now president’s five Atlantic City businesses resulted in thousands of job losses and put dozens of local contractors out of business (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html) because they were, much like the elephant sculptor, unpaid. Yet, during his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump boasted of how he took “incredible” amounts of money out of Atlantic City, borrowing cash from third parties so his own wealth wasn’t affected by his various businesses going under. According to Rose, his legacy is best reflected by Atlantic City’s 7.4% unemployment rate – nearly double the national average. “When Trump failed with his casinos,” says Rose, “he turned Atlantic City into a ghost town. His legacy still haunts the boardwalk.”
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/apr/08/atlantic-city-trump-ghost-town-gambling-brian-rose-photographer

[buttslinger]

Man! If anybody had doubts where Bill Barr is at, there's no doubt anymore! It's a cartoon White House! What a cast of characters!
I hope the Dems get vindictive enough to take advantage of this opportunity and ice the 2020 election. One big win solves everything.

Angry Democratic Traitor Coupsters who worked on Mueller Report:
If you're listening, please leak the juicy parts of what you found.....

[yodajazz]

Here is a take on the collusion case, against trump that i have not heard any commentators discuss. The key way that Trump was able to beat the case, was that Manafort was his back channel, to the line of inquiry, on conspiracy questions. he had a joint defense agreement with Trump, meaning he could legally share any information from Mueller's operation. So all Trump had to do was to make sure, everyone told similar stories. Thus he could not get evidence, about the June '016, Trump Tower meeting, etc. Mark my words. It will be revealed in the report release.

[Stavros]

The President's relentless and merciless attack on the Congresswoman Ilhan Omar reveals a key component of the election strategy he intends to use from now until polling day in November 2020: the Democrats are anti-Jewish and anti-American and cannot be trusted.

To achieve this, the President has been advised to take ownership of 9/11 so that it is no longer a National Tragedy, but one whose memory is cherished and preserved by the Republican Party, shit on and insulted by Democrats. Whoever advised him -Stephen Miller, John Bolton, Mitchell McConnell or even Junior- Ilhan Omar, regardless of the death threats she has received- will be the poster girl of the campaign: the hijab-wearing anti-American who merely by existing confirms the Democrats are an existential threat to the USA. He even gives Omar powers she does not possess, such as this garbage-

Before Nancy, who has lost all control of Congress and is getting nothing done, decides to defend her leader, Rep. Omar, she should look at the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and ungrateful U.S. HATE statements Omar has made. She is out of control, except for her control of Nancy!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/apr/15/trump-mueller-report-release-us-poltics-live-updates-latest-news

Yes, it is sick, and yes, it is dangerous. And yes, it is a brazen act that reverses the truth, that it was the Republican Party that sowed the seeds of al-Qaeda in the 1980s, that it was the President himself who used 9/11 to line his pockets with $150,000 of compensation he did not need, and who openly boasted that with the twin towers gone, he owned the tallest building in Manhattan.

None of that matters, for just as the long term aim is to undermine the public's faith in the Presidency and Congress, so Congresswoman Omar, inexperienced and new to the snake pit, is the 'star' of the campaign -everything she says, everything she does will prove how lost the USA has become, that only one man can save it -a liar, a con-man and a traitor being of better caibre than anyone wearing a hijab.

He likes it dirty, he will play dirty, but will Americans hand owership of 9/11 to the man least qualified to use it? Just when you thought American politics could not get lower, the spiral turned, and lower it goes.

[yodajazz]

Yes Starvos, I agree with everything. But I want to ask you to step back, from some details, and look at the use of energy forces, and take the issue from there. That is, the use of negative emotional energy, and what energy they are getting their power from. Ilhan Omar is now, the highest ranking Muslim in America. So attacking her, is focusing the energy of those who, hate/feed negativity already, and many be create a few new ones. Fear/hate a primal, or closer connected feelings, related to physical survival. DT has throughout the political phase of his career being a focus chanel for negative emotions. Coming out the gate, in his presidential run, he spoke about "mexican rapists", for example.

I am saying all this to say, we could be more effective, attacking the energy force of hate/negative emotions, rather than persons. Call it what is is, even outside of facts. However facts are the major in defending Truth. But as for energy forces, let's address 'nationalism'. Nationalism can mean pride, and honor of ones ancestors. However, look a 'white nationalism'. It seems to cycle a lot of hateful energy, such as racial superiority, violence, and other negative things. White nationalist often use nazi related symbols. Nazi Germany was a center starting force, the world war, which killed 50 million people. Think of it as the biggest recorded event of human negative energy activity/energy. Anyway, taking this case, if you killed the spirit of hate, and other in white nationalism, you would have ,a movement, based upon pride and ancestor honoring. At least that would be your goal. Any reduction, in the energy of hate is a partial victory.

I am writing this, probably more for myself that you. But I challenge you to bring up any issue, and I/we could address the underlying spiritual issue, and that would point to a path for a more positive solution. I could lay out the issue of congress woman Omar. But for now, I want to see, what you think of my central idea, of spiritual/philosophical warfare?

[yodajazz]

Yes Starvos, I agree with everything. But I want to ask you to step back, from some details, and look at the use of energy forces, and take the issue from there. That is, the use of negative emotional energy, and what energy they are getting their power from. Ilhan Omar is now, the highest ranking Muslim in America. So attacking her, is focusing the energy of those who, hate/feed negativity already, and many be create a few new ones. Fear/hate a primal, or closer connected feelings, related to physical survival. DT has throughout the political phase of his career being a focus chanel for negative emotions. Coming out the gate, in his presidential run, he spoke about "mexican rapists", for example.<br>

I am saying all this to say, we could be more effective, attacking the energy force of hate/negative emotions, rather than persons. Call it what is is, even outside of facts. However facts are the major in defending Truth. But as for energy forces, let's address 'nationalism'. Nationalism can mean pride, and honor of ones ancestors. However, look a 'white nationalism'. It seems to cycle a lot of hateful energy, such as racial superiority, violence, and other negative things. White nationalist often use nazi related symbols. Nazi Germany was a center starting force, the world war, which killed 50 million people. Think of it as the biggest recorded event of human negative energy activity/energy. Anyway, taking this case, if you killed the spirit of hate, and other related energies in white nationalism, you would have ,a movement, based upon pride and ancestor honoring. At least that would be your goal. Any reduction, in the energy of hate is a partial victory.

I am writing this, probably more for myself that you. But I challenge you to bring up any issue, and I/we could address the underlying spiritual issue, and that would point to a path for a more positive solution. I could lay out the issue of congress woman Omar. But for now, I want to see, what you think of my central idea, of spiritual/philosophical warfare?

[Stavros]

The short version is this: if we use the language of political existentialism, we are all in a life or death situation. The condition of the USA after Obama was so bad that it was about to die, and only drastic measures can save it -or, it is this President who is determined to destroy what America was, in order to re-construct it as it used to be, a country that was created by, and for white chiristian people.

[Stavros]

This is the longer version-



I am writing this, probably more for myself that you. But I challenge you to bring up any issue, and I/we could address the underlying spiritual issue, and that would point to a path for a more positive solution. I could lay out the issue of congress woman Omar. But for now, I want to see, what you think of my central idea, of spiritual/philosophical warfare?

I think at the level you are thinking of, we should be or could be talking about what used to be called the 'zeitgeist'. If you look back at the political, economic and cultural factors that created the Third Reich, and without over-simplifying them, you can see how in the German case in particular there is the question of how Germany coalesced around a unified state in 1870, and what the impact on it was of the modernization taking place in politics and the economy, but where social forms were thus challenged, with a particular divide between the rural and the urban. Why Germany took the path that it did to dictatorship has been the cause of much debate, but there is a rough consensus that the negative energy you refer to was created by the impossible demands of Unification and Imperialism -Germany's desire for an Empire comparable in size and wealth to the British, French, Dutch and Russian Empires- but the collapse of these ideals in the First World War, and the crisis of identity that followed as Germany lost control of lands that had been in its domain -and where many people were born German and only spoke German rather than Czech or Polish- led to a belief that something had been lost, that a united Germany had in some way 'gone wrong'. Germans then saw and heard a discordant and visually deformed national culture, registered in the atonal music of the Second Viennese School, the twisted and contorted images of contemporary art, the growth of materialism and atheism -in other words, all those ingredients that led Oswald Spengler to write his famous, but miserable book, The Decline of the West, in 1923.

The narrative that the Nazis created and manipulated, was thus a negative one: Germany had lost the war and lost its Empire, but had lost through betrayal; Germany was in reaity a great country, brought low by Germans who had sold their land to those who were not truly German -the Jews and the Communists becoming the cause of defeat and pollution. The positive view of Germany the Nazis offered, was a false one, derived from ancient writings and historical figures, of poets and composers recruited to a cause they would not have supported, but essential to an idea of what it meant to be German, a nationalism that by definition asked the question 'Do you belong here?' with the answer, if it is No, then you must leave, or be thrown out. In this either/or perspective in which the Nazi Party and the Leadership of Adolf Hitler defined the purpose of the Nation, you could only be for it, or against it.

If the crisis in modernization in Weimar Germany was distilled in the music of Schoenberg and the economic crisis that did so much to fracture German society -Schoenberg, the bankers and the media barons all being Jews, of course- you can see how the same tropes have been revived by Bannon and Miller to present a narrative of the USA since the 1960s in which all the forces that made America great have been replaced, traduced, above all betrayed by liberals. God, Family and Country have thus been replaced by atheistic materialism, one-parent families on welfare, and a country 'flooded' with immigrants.

But whereas the Positive perspective of America was of a place where the citizen was equally free to be religious or non-religious, a country where families could, and did prosper regardless of the number of its parents and children, and a country that without immigration would not exist, the element of Race, so crucial to the German experience, and a constant factor in American public life since Jamestown, gives the alt-right perspective almost the same one that characterised the German experience, but with Jews replaced for the most part by Muslims and Black Americans -Black Americans being in the privileged position of being historically the existential threat to White America, just as, since 9/11 it has been convenient to add Muslims to that threat.

So I think that the negative energy comes from the political existentialism that has become central to the Republican narrative, but one it may have borrowed from Israel, which to some extent actually has an existential dilemma the US does not, but one which is exaerbated by Netanyahu's fascist attempt to use Judaism is a form of territorial nationalism, and where it does look politically inept to absorb into the state against their will, a million Palestnians who hate it. But if the extremists in Israel view 'transfer' as a means of solving their Palestinian 'problem', there are extremists in the USA who view the solution to the Black 'problem' another form of transfer known as 'Go back to Africa'. Again there are now Germans who view the influx of refugees in 2015 to be an existential threat to what it means to be German, just as Marine le Pen in France makes the distinction that there is no more left or right in France, the distinction that only matters is between 'Globalists' and 'Patriots', language that has also been used in the US.

And, sitting between the people and their destiny, their true destiny, are the political classes who are the real traitors, legislators and decision makers who put their own interests, and the interests of their clients first with no regard for the 'little man' who is just there to work and pay taxes. With an existential crisis of this proportion, extreme measures are required to correct the mistake, which is why the most extreme individual you can think of occupies an Office of state which he treats with contempt, hoping that by the time he is finished with it, the American people will choose to dismantle their governmental institutions, reduce the Presidency to ceremonial duties, and American democracy be a 'democracy of markets' and self-regulating, self-armed communities, just like it used to be before America was ruined by the Jews, the Liberals and the Muslims.

Barack Obama played against this narrative with its stark alternative: hope and change. To his critics this sounded like something from Sunday School or Sesame Street, but Obama had the belief (Michelle talks about this in her book, Becoming) that America is at its best when it comes together, when it chooses to ignore differences, rather than to exploit them. It is the central dilemma too in election campaigns: do you go for a positive message and refrain from dishing the dirt on your rivals, or do you take them head on with the same negative ads and even vitiolic abuse they throw at you? I think Blackchubby has argued the Democrats need to play rough and promote a more radical agenda to counter the Republican campaign.

But, is the USA going through the traumas of the Civil War withut the bloodshed? Has the question -what is America for, who is America for, now become the coded message that lies beneath this astonishing moment in history when not only is the truth irrelevant, but lies are the flags waving in the crowd because people prefer lies to the truth? Given that the polls were right, and that Hillary Clinton won the vote, the result was clearly close enough to confirm that this is an intensely contested Presidency. But, the President has enough allies in Congress, specifically the Senate who are prepared to allow the most blatant and gross abuses of the Office of the Presidency on the basis it can be controlled and used to their benefit, which is how politicians in the Reichstag viewed 'Herr Hitler' in 1933; and the President only won his selection by the Electoral College by small margins of votes, while polls suggest his support has not diminished, implying those margins could be won again.

2020 could be repeated, or the President lose by margins sufficient to replace him, even with the narrative that already claims 2020 has been 'stolen' from the President -the question thus, must be -can a Democrat appeal to enough voters to win, and what tone, what message will they employ to win? On bread and butter issues, if the US shows signs of an economic downturn, Democrats could argue that the economy they handed on was in good shape but the President has run it down through his tariff barriers and sanctions and tax cuts. They could argue that the reality of immigration is that it is a blessing not a burden, and counter all the scare stories, expose the lies.

Just as in the UK there is a sense of despair with conventional politics, that in France Macron's idealism and reform has been strangled by yellow vests, hit a brick wall, is going down in flames like the Gothic tower of Notre-Dame de Paris, so it is easy to believe we are thinking dark thoughts, that we need drastic measures to resolve existential problems or we will see the break-up of the UK into its constituent parts, the USA will be torn between the coastal states and the inland empire, the Union and the Confederacy, that the EU will dissolve, and Iran and Saudi Arabia develop nuclear weapons, and the failure to tackle climate change condemn waterlogged islands to a very real extinction, and 50 million flee for their lives from south to north...

Or this is just a blip, and in 2020 the US will return to normal; the UK will end up remaining in the EU; de-industrialization will reduce the world's carbon footprint, families will be smaller, the world's population decline, and everyone will be happy.

[yodajazz]

Great post, Stavros! I read extensively about the rise of nazi germany, but presented, things i did not know. I particularly was interested, in how the 'art music' of the time, was considered, in a larger social context. In makes a lot of sense. And there were other things, as well.

But my main thrust now, is to specifically look at not just current issues, but also the spiritual issues at the roots of those issues. I have been spending time, answering YouTube reader comments, on politically themed vids. and it is the public discourse, (if you can call it that,) that really draws me in. The opinions amaze me sometimes with the lack of logic. There are still people out refusing to believe that russia conducted cyber warfare on the US. It was a smart move by Putin. It did a lot more damage than one of the US 100 million dollars apiece, F-35 fighter. Putin helped to inject negative mindset energy into the US/West. Whether there was collusion, or not makes little difference, if similar negative energies are used. And a very ironic thing that lots of negativity is put by religious groups. You know the routine, as they say. Speaking of negative energy, I curious if the under ground narrative was a witch/worshipper of Satan, reached to England? (Plus I heard some sickening rumors related to that). I know the root of how one of was based.

Call it 'Zeitgeist warfare' if you want, but 'spiritual warfare' is more broadly used here. But it is also true within the traditional religious institutions, and movements. The evangelical christian movement often has had specific views certain political positions. And the most stringent ones frame democrat/left behaviors in apocalyptic terms. I have been saying this; Democrats need to take back Jesus. I saw this expressed in one video sent to me. It was great, but I feel like it should be the mantra of the entire democratic party. But I must add, it is not, and should not be about doctrine, specific facts, (.i.e. died on the cross, etc), but on Jesus's words, in how we should act, live, and treat one another. Jesus spoke on the poor several times in the Bible. He even spoke once about eunuchs, a class of them, what we call, transgenders. And I say he was spot on, on that. (But what did he know,). lol

I'll keep you posted on my idea. Its always good to hear what's coming from the other side. Thanks!

[Stavros]

Yodajazz, I think the 'spiritual' aspect of the political environment may be more resonant for Americans than it is for us in the UK, where religion as a component of politics has, in its Christian sense, been eclisped by the view that religion is just not important. Indeed, the irony in a largely secular society is that Muslims and Orthodx Jews are probably the most concerned in the UK with issues that link politics to religion, specifically a half-hearted campaign to ban Halal butchery, which by extension means a ban on Kosher butchery too, but not an issue that has reached Parliament. It is seen by people like me as a means of smuggling in anti-Islamic and anti-Jewish politics into a debate on animal welfare, as if cows and lambs preferred to be stunned before being slaughtered when most, indeed all, were quite happy munching grass in a field.

Religion has become weaponized in central Europe, notably in Poland and Hungary, where the public support for 'Christian' government is in part a reflection of the decades when the Communist State viewed the Church as a rival if not also an enemy. Re-discovering faith is one thing, using it to make a distinction between Christians and 'the others' has obvious problems given the fate of the Jews in Poland and Hungary, but the crisis of 2015 when Muslim refugees (though not all refugees from Syria were Muslims, some were Christian), presented European states with an oppotunity to so promote a 'Christian' culture that it would both deny those refugees sanctuary in Hungary, and oppose any attempt by the EU to absorb any in a 'quota' system. Although religion may be more important in Germany than it is in the UK, the 'backlash' against this sudden influx of refugees has tended to benefit extremist parties such as the AfD who perceive both mainstream parties, the Social Democrats and Chancellor Merkel's Christian Democrats as soft on immigration even before the 2015 crisis. Steve Bannon has thus latched on to public disquiet about the influx of Muslims and Arabs, Kurds, Turks and anyone else east of Istanbul, as constituting an attack on the foundations of Christian Europe, and has thus been campaigning for the removal of Pope Francis who he sees as another 'traitor' to the cause.

If this resonates in the US, it is because of what I see as a peculiar form of Christianity which, in the case of the so-called 'Evangelical Christians' is almost literally a 'death cult', a view of Christianity that thrives on a sense of crisis, of danger, but of a crisis whose resolution can only be, and should only be the end of the world, the second coming of Jesus and all the armageddon stuff that attends it. It seems to me, by contrast that Black American Christians, who may share the view that all shall be judged when the time comes, are more concerned with living a Christian life in the here and now, which means, as Martin Luther King argued before he was shot, that poverty is the fundamental sin of America, though I expect I am simplifying his message. Religion has for some, articulated a response to failure, and one should be aware that political Islam that took various forms before the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, coalesced around the view that the Arabs had been losers when their states were run by liberals, socialists and military dictators -it was easy for the man in the street to identify with the slogan 'Islam is the solution' yet in practice, Islam in government, be it in Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan or 'Daesh' has been a disaster, the quality of life has declined, with the almost bizarre situation in which Muslims whose primary duty is to live and to love, take options that were only meant for extreme situations and places them at the centre of their faith so that a Muslim can say 'we value our death more than you value life'.

As with Islam so in the US so-called Christians present the crisis in their country as a loss of faith that must be restored, and see in liberal social policies on same-sex marriage, abortion and divorce, a fundamental cleavage between what the US was created for, and what it has become. For this reason, it doesn't matter if the President is a crook, a con-man, a racist, a sexist and homophobe. As long as he says he will defend and promote their campaign to 're-Christianize' America, to put God at the forefront of American life, then he can do and say anything he likes -even if it is clear in his personal life he has little that amounts to Christian humility and virtue- so desperate they are, so willing to set aside the existing laws and institutions that represent all Americans rather than just Christians -thus States will make abortion all but illegal through 'heartbeat' laws, because America is a Christian country, it belongs to them, and they will implement at State level what the President cannot do Federally, and it does not matter what the majority of Americans think and want.

And America may not want to talk about poverty as MLK wanted them to, because its solutions might be too 'socialist' if the argument is that poverty can be alleviated through social programs, while libertarians could just as argue that as they see government as the principal obstacle to prosperity, Black Americans ought to support their project.

Another strand of thinking relates the crisis of the age with government, the bureaucracy, and those beneficiaries in high finance and the corporate world. It is thus interesting that Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg have come under much scrutiny, yet there is also an argument, even Elizabeth Warren has advanced it, that in spite of the size, wealth and reach of Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon, there is no need for new anti-trust laws to break up these 'titans' of the new economy'.

But what the crisis also provides is the contradiction of the President and his clan sneering at public service, even though they themselves are public servants. A culture of blame and humiliation has now gripped the political discourse so that senior figures in established institutions like the CIA, the FBI, the Justice Department, can be publicly humiiated, abused, ridiculed, and the President expects everyone to agree with him (or doesn't care), just as members of Congress and the Press are condemned as traitors and liars. Why would anyone now consider public service something honourable? Even those who have not themselves been in service have had to suffer the ridicule and abuse of the President if their husband was killed on armed service, but the Gold Star widow does not take kindly to the President being able to pronounce his name correctly. There was no apology, but there was abuse, because that is the kind of man he is, but crucially, because he knows that by acting the way he does, he is demeaning the Office of the Presidency, so that instead of being a revered position, people will look at the Presidency as part of the problem.

This sneering conempt for politcians is part of the campaign by Bannon and a revived Fascism to identify a crisis that exists because modernization, immigration and globalization has transformed the societies in which we live, and by making them multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-cultural, and multi-sexual undermines the security of tenure that once guaranteed White Christians would be the beneficiaries of capitalism, and while they have in spite of their complaints, benefited most from globalization, people like Bannon see in the 'left behind' a new opportunity to dismantle government to replace it with markets. In effect, neo-liberalism was just chapter one of an experiment whose story is just beginning.

If there is a spiritual element to any of this, it seems to be registered as a kind of emptiness or despair, but if this does characterize where many people are, and the reistance that emerged with the survivors of Parkland has been important, with the NRA facing dissolution, it may also be due to the 'left' failing to convince themselves as well as the public that they have concrete policies that will bridge the gap between rich and poor, that will sustain even create jobs that pay a living wage, and manage the environment so that generations can enjoy its beauty and riches and not end up in a dystopian soup where the sun never shines and the Tyrrell Corporation owns everything.

Maybe we need more to believe in each other, rather than gods and monsters, and do something about the man David Frum desribed on tv last night, as 'America's No 1. Liar'. And we all know who that is.

[Stavros]

Nobody can be surprised that the President has used his veto to render worthless a bi-partisan resolution in Congress to end the USA's materiel and moral support for the Kingdom of 9/11's campaign in the Yemen. The opportunity this gives to America's closest Arab ally and friend to abort the lives, stop the heartbeats of men, women and children, to destroy their homes and their schools, their hospitals and their businesses, to turn the poorest country on the Arabian Peninsula into a garbage dump, is an opportunity that cannot be resisted.

It is why they have given the President lovely dollars, to buy his support for mass murder in the Yemen, to buy his support for the torture of the women in Saudi Arabia's prisons who have been arrested because they thought the 'liberal reforms' of Mohammed bin Salman trumpted by Jared Kushner actually meant something, even as MSB ordered the hands, feet and head of Jamal Khashoggi to be sawn off without anaesthetic, a crime the US supports through its President, soaked as he is in lovely dollars, incapable of distinguishing right from wrong unless it has his name on a money order followed by seven deadly digits.

Congress is either an obstacle to freedom, or an irrelevant nuisance. There is no separation of powers, as the Mueller Report was designed from its inception to protect the most corrupt President since his idol, 'Indian Killer' Andrew Johnson, and the most incompetent manager ever to have disgraced the Office of the President, which now stands exposed to ridicule as being merely the cashpoint for dictators the world over, who have their greatest supporter in the White House ATM. When the price is right, American will act on their behalf, and laugh at anyone who thinks 'yuman rights' and the law have any meaning. Just as nobody is surprised he cheats at golf.

[Stavros]

The 'Indian Killer' was Andrew Jackson, not Johnson, my mistake.

[buttslinger]

On the Hannity show they were laughing that if there had been a Fox News when Watergate happened, Nixon would not have been impeached. I think they're right.
True respect is a dear thing, difficult and demanding. Fake respect is much better, and you don't have to read 400 pages. The Republicans will stonewall to eternity.
I cannot believe that Trump didn't get nabbed on Money Laundering, and that would have been in the redacted stuff, so I think it's probable all those cases Mueller referred to New York will haunt him to his grave. SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!

[yodajazz]

Don't get too down, yet. The game is not over. Congress is the one who has the Constitutional authority to make their own decision on obstruction. Bill Clinton was found guilty, on obstruction, but he was able to remain in office. Nixon was going to be tried, on obstruction before he resigned. The charge is for Congress to decide.

I think Barr's logic, in his conclusion will be tested. Two of his arguments, are that 1. you cant be guilty of obstruction, if you aren't guilty of the underlying crime. 2. By Trump doing things openly, cannot be called obstruction. However that is not a strong argument, because with congress having the authority, to impeach him, the public has influence on congress. His public comments, were made to influence the public. Plus can you name any other crime, that is not a crime, if you do it openly? Plus I believe that Mueller intended for Congress to make the determination, not someone hired by Trump to protect him. Barr had a prejudgment that a president could not obstruct justice before he took the job. I call that prejudiced. Barr's son-law, now works for the White House legal team. I joke that, if Trump is impeached, Barr's son-law will be out of a job. And Barr's daughter and family may have to move back into his family home.! lol

By the way, Barr's original letter did not, question that russia was involved in election interference. So Trump has to still reckon with 'hoax' issue, and address if he even admit whether he believes US Intelligence. . But the other thing, is still those spin-off investigations. I know they will try to knock them off one be one, but that's still coming. So don't let Trump's victory lap claims, fool you. The report hasn't been digested yet. I doubt that the 'no evidence' mantra, will survive. So no, it ain't over!

[filghy2]

In any normal universe Trump would be in deep trouble as a result of Mueller's report. It's telling that his initial reaction to Mueller's appointment according to a witness was "This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked." The conclusion on obstruction of justice alone is pretty damning:
“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. We are unable to reach such a judgment.”

There are precedents for people being convicted of obstruction of justice even they they were not found guilty of an underlying crime, eg Martha Stewart. Nixon was not forced to resign because he was involved in the Watergate burglary, but because he obstructed justice by trying to cover it up. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/martha-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

And even if Mueller ultimately concluded that he could not establish clear evidence of a criminal conspiracy, there was clearly plenty of evidence of concerning behaviour. The fact that Republicans are spinning this as a complete exoneration speaks volumes for how deeply corrupted that party has become.

[yodajazz]

I believe in the report, stated the Mueller said he would respect DOJ guidelines, to not indict a sitting president. Knowing the Congress, would be the one to try any case against the president, he ultimately decided to hand off to Congress, and let them decide. Strategically in his public campaign of obstruction, Trump has made the case, that 'angry democrats' , 'Hillary loyalists', 'deep state', are engaging in coup, to remove him from office. So Mueller, recommending indictment, would more or less put the blame, directly on him. Whereas Congress is ultimately responsible to its constituency. Also the standard for impeachment does not require a conviction of a crime, They have the power to judge for themselves.

Yes, that "complete exoneration" was just a trick. They calculated that a percentage of people, would only remember what they first heard.

[Stavros]

The Report is so damaging one wonders why the President has not resigned. Instead, he is already plotting his revenge-

“Statements are made about me by certain people in the Crazy Mueller Report, in itself written by 18 Angry Democrat Trump Haters, which are fabricated & totally untrue,” he said.
“It was not necessary for me to respond to statements made in the “Report” about me, some of which are total bullshit & only given to make the other person look good (or me to look bad). This was an Illegally Started Hoax that never should have happened.”
“It is now finally time to turn the tables and bring justice to some very sick and dangerous people who have committed very serious crimes, perhaps even spying or treason. This should never happen again!”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mueller-report-latest-donald-trump-participants-treason-spying-turn-tables-a8878761.html

If Collusion is obscure in law it paid to claim the whole of the report hinged on proof of 'collusion' whereas the Report proves that the Campaign when it became aware of Russian involvement, did not peform its moral and legal obligation to inform the FBI, but sat back and let it happen, except for the Republican Candidate's public appeal to a foreign government to help his campaign -in itself a violation of the law- and which they did hours after the appeal. With over 160 references to the Russians in the Report, the prima facie case that the people involved in the Republican campaign committed treason is now stronger than ever, while the 11 instances of obstruction of justice prove what has been known since 2016- the man concerned has absolutely no respect for the law, be it the law of the United States or international law, because he is the law, just as William Barr, having lied to Congress can now only be identified as the President's lawyer, his only job to protect and serve the President.

Just as Mitchell McConnell has abdicated any authority he has as Senate Majority Leader to ignore the Mueller report, so the US not longer has a Department of Justice that serves the Constituion, the the US has only one branch of government -the Presidency- for the 'Supreme' Court will not intervene in any legal proceedings against the President who can indeed, shoot to death anyone he likes, anytime, because the President is above the law, while in the lower echelons of the judicial system tame Republican judges will do the will of the President.

The House can Impeach if it wants to, if it feels it must, but at the moment, it is irrelevant, because Congress is irrelevant. Whatever it decides the President will veto it, and the Senate bend its knee to the will of its idol.

Rupert Murdoch will act at the hatchet man for the President, selecting young women as the sacrificial lambs for the altar of the President's campaign to destroy American government, with Ilhan Omar and AOC the prizes, women who will be pilloried, abused, insulted, and humiliated in public with the full approval of the Republican Party.

Far from settling any conflct between the President and Congress, the war has only just begun, a war constructed from lies, and conducted with the now regular use by the President of swear words that not only confirm that he is an imbeclie unfit for public office, but that he is cursing in public deliberately to undermine the authority of the Presidency. From now on, the Presidency must stink, it must make the American public bear the shame its incumbent does not, just as Sarah Huckabee Sanders, having conceded to the Mueller Enquiry she made stuff up abut James Comey and the FBI, now repeats her lies, because the truth is worthless, because the key objective, the sole objetive is to bring every branch of government into disrepute, to convince the people that there is one thing they do not need in their lives: government.

[broncofan]

There are precedents for people being convicted of obstruction of justice even they they were not found guilty of an underlying crime, eg Martha Stewart. Nixon was not forced to resign because he was involved in the Watergate burglary, but because he obstructed justice by trying to cover it up. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/martha-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

If you look at the federal statute on obstruction, you can see why there should not have to be proof of an underlying crime for one to be guilty of obstruction. In its essence, it occurs when someone interferes with law enforcement objectives and does so not for some good faith reason but because they are afraid of what the process will yield. In a case such as this, where the legal issues are very complex and it's unclear what the process will yield, a person who thinks they are "fucked" and that their "presidency is over" shows the perfect mental state to obstruct.

What probably made Mueller's job on this difficult is that he knows that even if he can indict Trump, there isn't going to be a formal trial while he is President. At trial, a jury is trying to discover whether the facts as they determine them to be meet the legal burden for commission of the crime. But it should at least reach the threshold that it is an issue of triable fact. If all of the facts are as Mueller ascertained them to be, could Trump be guilty of obstruction? Yes. I also don't think there is some magic standard of proof that needs to be met because Trump is President and has abused official duties. I think he committed multiple acts of obstruction, but the bar is so low that without proof he was an active part of a conspiracy to assist Russia while it engaged in espionage, it fits within the new norms he and his party have established.

[broncofan]

I believe in the report, stated the Mueller said he would respect DOJ guidelines, to not indict a sitting president. Knowing the Congress, would be the one to try any case against the president, he ultimately decided to hand off to Congress, and let them decide. .
This is a good point. And I haven't researched what the practical effect is of indicting a President if you are unable to have a criminal trial to obtain a conviction. The impeachment process takes place in the Congress in stages and it's not clear how it is meant to be synchronized with our normal criminal procedures, so it's not easy to determine what part of Mueller's failure to pursue an indictment is simply restraint.

Before the quote by filghy above, the Report stated, "Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent present difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

Or as Jessica Levinson said in this article, if this were a case regarding Mr. Trump rather than President Trump we'd be talking about an indictment for obstruction. https://www.vox.com/2019/4/18/18484731/mueller-report-trump-barr-obstruction-legal-experts

[Stavros]

Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/house-of-representatives) in December 1998 on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The obstruction charge said he committed witness tampering by trying to “corruptly influence” the potential testimony of his secretary Betty Currie, and urged the former White House intern Monica Lewinsky to submit a false affidavit in a lawsuit against him.

Clinton was acquitted by the Senate. But 14 current Republican senators, some of whom were then serving in the House, voted either to impeach or convict Clinton on the obstruction charge. Some specifically cited his actions toward the witnesses when explaining their votes.

And here they are, but will they do in 2019 what they did in 1999?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/20/mueller-report-impeachment-obstruction-bill-clinton-republicans

[broncofan]

Clinton was acquitted by the Senate. But 14 current Republican senators, some of whom were then serving in the House, voted either to impeach or convict Clinton on the obstruction charge. Some specifically cited his actions toward the witnesses when explaining their votes.

And here they are, but will they do in 2019 what they did in 1999?

When I was reading about our founders deciding to make impeachment take place in the legislature rather than the judiciary, this sort of thing came to mind as a major flaw in the system. A Judiciary issues very formal opinions which means as a body their reasoning has to be made very clear. It also means they have to reconcile the opinion with other similar legal issues and fact patterns they've ruled upon. It provides a sort of rigor that the legislature may try to emulate, but we've seen they have no issue doing things for nakedly partisan reasons and not even making clear in a unified way what their real reasons are.

One thing to keep in mind when comparing this to the Clinton impeachment is what the underlying investigation each person was accused of interfering with. While Trump may not have been connected to Russia's actions in ways that are impeachable, he engaged in all sorts of self-serving hijinks to thwart a process that was about the illegal interference with our democratic processes and even our national security. Obstruction is a serious matter even if the case is trivial as it was for Bill Clinton, but it shows a much graver disrespect for his official duties that he would place his own interests over the integrity of our electoral process.

[buttslinger]

When I was reading about our founders deciding to make impeachment take place in the legislature rather than the judiciary, this sort of thing came to mind as a major flaw in the system


If the USA started screening Presidential candidates in Elementary School, like Israel starts grooming it's jet pilots from an early age, we'd have more of a President like Obama, who majored in Constitutional Law. But we'd still have Mitch McConnell, the cancer of the Senate, pulling anything he can get away with. God only knows what is talked about when Trump, Kellyanne, Huckabee, Stephen Miller and Mick Mulvaney get in a room together. While they entertain the WWF/Monster Truck crowd, McConnell is filling Judicial seats, and stealing Supreme Court Justices.

In Art, you concentrate on a spot of the canvas until that spot starts dictating actions. In Religion, you concentrate on God until God start dictating actions. In the Constitution, you concentrate on the lowest common denominator, the American Citizen, and let him dictate actions.
Just like Mueller spelled it out, the ball is in the Democrat's court now, and they have to decide on what the best course of action is.



Nothing would go further in the Political Health of the United States more than a Book of Revelations in October 2020 announcing the 14 slam-dunk Criminal cases that Trump is facing when he leaves office. Throw in all those juicy tidbits Fatboy Barr edited out of the Mueller Report. Mitch McConnell is more guilty of obstruction than Trump, and a lot better at it. If the Democrats can get it together enough to expose the Trump Party (formerly known as the Republican Party) that their God is a fraud and a Criminal, maybe for one second the entire Country would understand that racism is a weakness, not a strength. Then we could go about healing the true weaknesses in the USA, and there are plenty of them.

[buttslinger]

384+ former Federal Prosecutors have gone on record saying they'd bring charges against President Trump if he weren't a sitting President. I can't wait to see how Fox News spins this.
Trump's response is that he needs 2 more years added on to his term to outrun the statute of limitations. Loyalty + Newspaper Headlines = Gullibility, every day makes Trump's base dumber and hickier.

[buttslinger]

Trump once said he could shoot somebody on the street in broad daylight and his base would still back him. Now the entire Republican Congress would look the other way. They say in politics, if you're digging yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING....unless of course 500 former DAs have said they'd bring 10 counts of Obstruction of Justice when you come out.
I'm getting the feeling that the actions are now getting trampled by the consequences, the Journalists on the News Networks aren't tiptoeing around it anymore, sorry Mitch McConnell, every day is going to be Groundhog Day for the next 18 months.


https://i.ibb.co/LQgg8dy/1.jpg (https://ibb.co/rbppm2h)

[buttslinger]

I guess this is what the World looks like when WWIII is not an option. I don't see any other possible description in the history books except for pathetic. Nothing matters now except for the 2020 election, and the by the book oversight of the Trump Carnival. Meanwhile... Trumps approval rating just rose to the highest it's ever been- 46% It's like a four four with a six eight on top of it...

[buttslinger]

Maybe Trump's 2020 Election mantra will go from "Make America Great Again" to "Please keep me out of Jail"
If this keeps up Republicans are going to get a bad name.
As bad as this all looks, in reality it's worse. If Trump doesn't answer for his crimes, we might as well put Bill Barr's face on the $20 bill.

[yodajazz]

I guess this is what the World looks like when WWIII is not an option. I don't see any other possible description in the history books except for pathetic. Nothing matters now except for the 2020 election, and the by the book oversight of the Trump Carnival. Meanwhile... Trumps approval rating just rose to the highest it's ever been- 46% It's like a four four with a six eight on top of it... I would not consider impeachment, to be off the table. In fact with Trump digging in and refusing to co-operate, this seems to put even more validity in the obstruction of justice case. I finally wrote my congress woman, a fairly lengthy letter, with my reasons for impeachment. The short version, is that we need to take a stand on the principle of Truth. And that it will payoff in the long run as, more people will be exposed to the evidence, of the seriousness of russia's actions. Secondly I brought up my idea that Trump's public statements, (including Twitter, be considered a part of an obstruction charge. Some believe that it cannot be done openly, but I feel that is not a valid argument, considering the public is now basically a 'party' to the issue of impeachment.
Thirdly, I brought up a term, I heard on a broadcast, of Michael Isikoff, that Trump should be charged with "dereliction of duty", in regard to, protecting our elections from foreign intervention.

[buttslinger]

... The short version, is that we need to take a stand on the principle of Truth...

Nevermind the truth Yoda, did you catch my 4-4, 6-8 musical reference? That is the beat of the Grateful Dead song "That's it for the Other One" and I think what's going on now is you've got Democrats playing the judicious 4-4 and you've got Trump 6-8 craziness playing on top of it. The Music is drowning out the Lyrics.
Of course you're right, Democrats need to be right, Republicans want to win. And I've heard talk that without impeachment proceedings, Schiff and Nadler's arguments lose weight. When 800 Prosecutors say Trump is a Criminal, what more do you need?
On the other hand, I've heard impeachment is exactly what Trump wants, because it would raise his favorability numbers like Bill Clinton and his gangbuster Economic Numbers. If it comes down to the Truth vs Nailing Trump, I want to nail Trump.
But if the past two years have taught us anything, it's that I have no idea what's going on. It sounds to me like Trump is going to face a mountain of charges after he leaves office. The Important thing is to get a Democratic President in, then we can investigate the Hell out of the entire pack of liars.
It's like the Army, there are rules for everything, and exceptions to every rule. Whatever gets a Democrat into the White House is the side of the coin I want to bet on. The truth right now is an awful thing. Four more years of Trump is inconceivable, I hate to repeat myself, but if Nixon had Fox News, Agnew would have been President, not Carter. The Democrats HAVE to be right.

[buttslinger]

Trump is on the road to hell and he won't be satisfied until everyone follows him. Ockham's Razor says Satan is behind this, Trump is too stupid to pull this off himself. A washed up billionaire can't get a dime from any American bank, so the nation hands him the keys to Ft Knox.
Every so often a Judge or Prosecutor explains it all clearly and truly: the fault falls on Trump and his former Republicans. But MSNBC Journalists come off as bickering children when they say the same thing. If Trump offered to walk away now for no prosecution, I'd say no, he needs to pay.
What is nobler in the mind of man, rising above the fray, or charging in to save the day?

[smalltownguy]

Trump is on the road to hell and he won't be satisfied until everyone follows him. Ockham's Razor says Satan is behind this, Trump is too stupid to pull this off himself. A washed up billionaire can't get a dime from any American bank, so the nation hands him the keys to Ft Knox.
Every so often a Judge or Prosecutor explains it all clearly and truly: the fault falls on Trump and his former Republicans. But MSNBC Journalists come off as bickering children when they say the same thing. If Trump offered to walk away now for no prosecution, I'd say no, he needs to pay.
What is nobler in the mind of man, rising above the fray, or charging in to save the day?

ya.. Satan playing it's part for sure

[buttslinger]

Trump is on the road to hell and he won't be satisfied until everyone follows him. Wait a minute, this is last week's post. Today is "I dare you to Impeach me" day. Time for the Democrats to huddle up yet again and win this game in the second half. I think it's a safe bet to speculate that there is plenty of "there" there, it would be hard to imagine a wild claim against Trump that didn't come true. Go for it, Nancy.

[Stavros]

Face the fact, Buttslinger, the American poliical system has either been put into abeyance, or is in the process of being dismantled. Barr claims to be Attorney General of the USA but is in fact just another shit-eating, spew-babbling tRumpMonkey, who, along with President Dopey Donald, Mitchell McConnell and Lindsay Graham regard the Constitution of the USA as toilet paper, Congress a chamber pot of useless waffle-warriors who can be ignored most of the time, publicly insulted and abused as and when required.

God's President will not be denied, he must be adored, his will be obeyed, just as he now decides if I can or cannot buy a Huawei phone next year, so great is his power. He sits on the iron throne and will sit there for as long as he likes -what can you do about it when there is only one law, the law of Dopey Donald Targaryan, father of fireless dragons, first and last of his name, King of Vandals and the New Confederacy, God's chosen abortion-fascist, border-wall brickie and slayer of the seven freedoms.

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high
Where knowledge is free
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
By narrow domestic walls
Where words come out from the depth of truth
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit
Where the mind is led forward by thee
Into ever-widening thought and action
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.
(Tagore)

[buttslinger]

I thought Samwell's little joke about "the people" choosing their leader fell flat on the GoT, but the facts are "the people" chose Donald Trump, and unless Putin really did fix voting machines then the USA is getting exactly what it deserves.
Remember the Republican Party Leaders wanted nothing to do with Trump, it was the voters that said they no longer wanted a Republican, they wanted a Fox News cartoon character, they wanted a response to Obama. They wanted a President they could fall in love with, and they have.
I think Pelosi sees that a unique opportunity has arisen, with one knockout punch to Trump, you take down the whole party. I'm pretty sure Trump laundered millions and millions of Oligarch dollars. If true, and it's leaked, there's no way to spin that. This week a couple Judges laughed the Republican lawyers out of the Courtroom. If Trump's two Supreme Court Stooges find Trump innocent, and then the truth about Trump surfaces the next week, all the better.
Of course this is a dangerous game.
If Trump loses the 2020 election, he'll die under investigation. If Trump wins, the Western World as we know it will die.

While Nixon was embroiled in the Watergate Scandal, he passed The Endangered Species Act, and a few other bills. Trump is a completely different animal. I do think he's cracking up. He may break before we get the pleasure of breaking him. If Trump is truly disgraced, will the Fox News crowd grow a conscience? Or will they blame the Democrats? Unknown.

[yodajazz]

I think the centerpoint of everything, whether one concedes that russia attacked, and that it was significant. in the recent words of Jared Kushner, "It was just a couple of Facebook posts." Trump has been consistent in evading russia's responsibility. And how could one investigate the start, including the Dossier, if it's central premise, is/was true? I see that investigation, as trying to string along the idea that, russia is innocent. That is why, I believe that impeachment, will put more evidence, out to the american public. And the fact that Trump did not lead the defense of the attack, says everything.

[buttslinger]

With Trump in the White House, The Rubes are dictating policy. They don't want to discuss Russia, because that's a losing hand. They want to talk about Judges and the Economy, where they are winning. One thing I remember from the GoT last episode was some guy discussing the power of THE STORY, and I think anybody who saw Trump in Helsinki knows there is a whale of a story going on there, and it's a mystery story, which makes it even more curiosity raising. More provocative.
Republicans are trying real hard to edit THE STORY, and they've been successful enough to send their donors two trillion "middle class" dollars, and 16 billion to farmers, to shut them up.
This AG Barr investigation of the investigators is an attempt to narrate the story, but like everything attached to the Trump administration, I can't understand that they don't understand how this is going to end. Like any good story, this one has lots of questions and possibilities. But REALITY owns the future, and if history is any judge, it's about time for Trump to lose. Actually, it might be better if we give Trump another year to drag the entire Republican Party down with him. They can come back in 17 years, like locusts.

[Stavros]

I think the centerpoint of everything, whether one concedes that russia attacked, and that it was significant. in the recent words of Jared Kushner, "It was just a couple of Facebook posts." Trump has been consistent in evading russia's responsibility. And how could one investigate the start, including the Dossier, if it's central premise, is/was true? I see that investigation, as trying to string along the idea that, russia is innocent. That is why, I believe that impeachment, will put more evidence, out to the american public. And the fact that Trump did not lead the defense of the attack, says everything.

The Mueller Report was limited by its intentions, and the fact that it was not Mueller's intention to recommend prosecution, which is someone else's job. Just as Bob Woodward in Fear declined to investigate the financial background of God's President, so the relationship with Felix Sater and the claim that the two men by selling real estate to 'certain Russians' were, in effect, laundering money from the Russian Mafia has not been part of the report yet provides the ingredients of the explanation for the odd relationship the Russians appear to have with the man David Frum has called America's No. 1 Liar. Add in the flows of 'lovely dollars' from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, and you find a President compromised by his financial connections long before he entered the White House, but who uses that Office to make even more money, while protecting the very people who by their actions would be in prison in America. And that is before the mystery of Deutsche Bank lending $2 billion to an American with close to a zero credit rating.
It stinks.
And when the same President who joined the Russian campaign agaist the USA in 2016 now applauds the North Korean leader for insulting Joe Biden, you can ask: whose side is he on? Because it ain't the USA.

[Stavros]

But REALITY owns the future, and if history is any judge, it's about time for Trump to lose. Actually, it might be better if we give Trump another year to drag the entire Republican Party down with him. They can come back in 17 years, like locusts.

Buttslinger, you are sleepwalking through a revolution against the revolution, a civil war without the killing -so far. There is a revolution under way that is opposed to the American Revolution's separation of Church from State; just as the Civil War is being re-fought -I kid you not- in the name of Jesus in the South and the North-West, with Abortion its flaming spear. For this is what they say:

One recent article profiles pastor, broadcaster and author Michael L Brown, who blames a “coming civil war” on “militant abortionists”. Brown told Charisma: “A civil war is coming to America, only this time, it will be abortion, rather than slavery, that divides the nation”.

An upcoming book (https://hamiltonstrategies.com/dr-michael-l-brown-explores-how-spirit-of-jezebel-lives-on-and-is-at-war-with-america-and-the-church/) from Brown also warns that abortion is among the signs that “the demonic spirit of Jezebel is powerful in America”. In another column this month Brown wrote (https://stream.org/coming-civil-war-abortion/): “A civil war is certain. The only thing to be determined is how bloody it will be.”

And this:

Earlier this month, the Guardian revealed (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/09/matt-shea-republican-stokes-fears-civil-war-conspiracy-theories) that the Washington state republican legislator Matt Shea had also speculated about civil war, and the “Balkanization” of America, predicting that Christians would retreat to “zones of freedom” such as the inland Pacific north-west, where Shea is campaigning for a new state to break away from Washington.

Asked on a podcast if the two halves of the country could remain together, Shea said: “I don’t think we can, again, because you have half that want to follow the Lord and righteousness and half that don’t, and I don’t know how that can stand.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/26/abortion-ban-rightwing-christian-figures-civil-war-predictions

I will leave you to ask how the defenders of a heartbeat (before the heart has even been formed) call it pro-life, even as they plot the 'end-of-life' to those who want to know what business it is for them if a person A decides to terminate a pregnancy.
Because the weirdos on the fringes are now in power, that is the difference. Jezebel is coming home!

[buttslinger]

Stavros,.... SUH......I have the blood of Robert E Lee flowing through my veins, and I don't need some "uppity" Limey telling me who I am. You don't even recognize Elvis as the one true King! How can I even talk to you!!???!!!
We can debate whether or not a garbageman is created equal with a Fortune 500 CEO, or if Cain killing Abel was murder or natural selection, but one thing we can't debate is that poor people suffer, and that suffering can manifest itself into ugliness pretty quick.
When Obama wondered why Republicans cling to their guns and religion, it was like talking about poor republicans. There are no poor republicans. There are WORKING Republicans. Working for shit wages at some shit job, in the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen. The same money that made Trump a high roller made being poor a criminal offense. In a fair system, who decides who mows lawns for a living?
It's no accident that Trump is the leader of the party that didn't go to College. What we learned last election was how many people in America not only didn't go to College, we learned how many gullible morons are running around free, nobody wants to admit that the problems of a nation need to be fixed one person at a time for a lifetime. Illusion is our friend. If people really knew how fucked everything really is, they would secede from the Union!
In business, when you fuck over your competitors, you win. In politics, for whatever reason, the losing party is bitter and resentful for four years, reminded constantly in the media. I think most leaders in either party understand that you have to lift the entire nation, not just half, but it's just like governing usually turns into deciding how to equally shortchange every institution because there will never be enough money, even in a country that has a pile of dough higher than any before it.
The truth was the truth when we were kids, and the truth is the truth now. It's understandable that Putin wants to stick it to the west, it's understandable that North Korea is un-understandable. Fixing it is not so easy to understand.
Trump will go down, after the damage is done, and eventually we'll get a leader that will make us see that a loaf of bread and a couple fish can feed thousands if you serve it right. But that leader too will come and go, and the poor wise people will be stuck with the knowledge that Wisdom is the only thing that lasts, and Wisdom and the World very rarely meet.
When the framers of the Constitution wrote up the Articles of Impeachment they could have put Trump's picture there, 100%.. but I'm not sure that the founding fathers would have believed that even in 250 years a black man could be President. Democracy is fucking scary, in a nation of fools. Trump should be impeached immediately, but the reality of the thing is not only would it fail because of the republican senators, it would prosecute the entire rural half of the country for the crime of being gullible hicks.
I have faith that Mueller has enough shit on Trump locked away that even Ivanka would want him to be arrested. While I am fumbling in the dark, and don't really know, I would have to say this is a good time for Dems to keep stacking their chips and let the Republicans keep investing in their traitorous manchild. That's called POLITICS, and the real war here is between Nancy and Mitch. McConnell is the one who needs to burn in Hell.

[buttslinger]

The Supreme Court should hear cases on gerrymandering and census rigging today or tomorrow, let's see if we're tired of WINNING yet.


https://i.ibb.co/8zFz6Tt/1.jpg (https://ibb.co/1sHs8hj)

https://i.ibb.co/F7Wf4Cw/2.jpg (https://ibb.co/w6LbhjW)

[buttslinger]

Waves of Nausea
Waves of Nausea

[Stavros]

Yes, it is nauseatiing, yes, it is offensive, and yes, the Confederacy loves it.
But -is the President really going to turn the 2020 election campaign into an existential crisis in which the USA is threatened by four women?

He clearly has a major problem with women in positions of power and authority (no problem with pretty girls 'some of them very young' he sees at parties) -but does this not also mean that he has written off the votes of American women, that he can sacrifice their vote and still win?

Maybe the election should not be about the threat to the USA posed by immigrants, but about Women: the majority of the population who have Rights, Needs and Wants.

[Stavros]

The correct quote from Epstein's buddy should be-

"Trump called Epstein a “terrific guy” who was “a lot of fun to be with.” He added: “It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” (The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)"

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/how-trump-kept-tabs-on-jeffrey-epstein
https://www.vox.com/2019/7/9/20686347/jeffrey-epstein-trump-bill-clinton

[buttslinger]

If Steve Grooby gave me a billion imaginary internet dollars, the entire religion and politics section would become a handful of visitors demanding that I shut the fuck up, with me laughing at all you people. You look like ants to me. I actually used to use this tactic at work, while I was stealing thousands of dollars to spend on wine and women. I can't believe I pulled it off.
This week Nancy Pelosi called Trump a racist on the floor of the House. She had to call him a racist between the lines, because in the USA, you have to show respect for elected lawmakers, even reporters aren't allowed to call Trump a liar to his face. You have to respect the OFFICE, even if you don't respect the person holding it.
There is a 7-11 near my house that has the best BIG GULP machine ever, tomorrow the heat index in DC is going to be 110 degrees. As pathetic as it is that my poison is now a Super Big-Gulp, even worse are the apartments around the 7-11. Poor whites, poor Blacks, poor Immigrants of every size and shape. Lots of babies. Beggars fight for prime locations.
I'm hearing that Bill Barr is putting his hand in the cookie jar, and that cookie jar is the Southern District of New York where Mueller sent all those cases against Trump that didn't fall under the Russia parameter. It looks like cases against Trump are disappearing behind closed doors.
Even if Trump faces Justice, we will still have Mitch McConnell, we will still have millions of poor rednecks, and millions of poor immigrants. I guess the USA is just another Pyramid Scheme.
They unsealed some Cohen documents that cast a real bad light on Trump and Hope Hicks, and Trump's pedophile buddy might be pressured to sing about earlier carefree days with THE DONALD.
But I'm really feeling like not only has the damage been done, Trump is just the first glaring sign that the West is on a downward spiral. China has more people than the US and Europe combined, and they all consider themselves Chinese. Westerners who visit there every two years say each new visit finds a new high speed train or hand-built island or a brand new electronics hub. It's exciting to be there.

[filghy2]

I'm wondering why Donald Drumpf should not be the one who should go back to where he (or his ancestors) came from. He clearly must hate the USA given his determination to trash the constitution and everything else he inherited from his predecessors. Of course the Germans would probably not let him in because of his record of promoting racial bigotry.

I think one thing that has becoming increasingly clear is that the real reason the Republican establishment were opposed to Trump initially was not that he's ignorant, a compulsive liar, a bigot, a sexual predator or a narcissist with authoritarian tendencies. It was that they were worried that he was serious about his populist rhetoric about helping the working class. Once they realised that was all talk and Trump was not going to get in the way of their plutocratic agenda they were quite happy to let him have his way on everything else, especially as the Trump Show provides a useful distraction. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/18/20699176/donald-trump-ilhan-omar-white-collar-crime

[buttslinger]

I think the Republicans shit their pants when Trump first mentioned THE WALL and Mexican rapists and murderers. He gave away the secret sauce. And now the Party is going to pay for it.
Of course Individual Retirement Investments are better than heroin.
Dems better be careful if they plan to run on a Anti-Racist Platform.
Guns and Racism. Hitler never stood a chance.

OMAR!!

https://i.ibb.co/J5BRm34/omar-little.jpg (https://ibb.co/bzWgQbZ)

[buttslinger]

As much as I like to clown and play games, Donald Trump is no joke, cancer causing pesticides are now legal again, corporations are raping and murdering the environment, Bill Barr is "disappearing" court cases against Trump in New York, murderous regimes across the globe are getting a wink, education is being sold off, every day is a new outrage. Everyone in the World who thought of the US Govt. as a criminal enterprise are now right.
Somebody is going to pay for all this, and unless Bernie is elected, it's going to be all of us who pay.

[buttslinger]

In 2000, when they did the Florida Recount, the Republicans pulled out boxes of votes that had been set aside and not counted because of "hanging chads"
Nobody would have known about them unless Officials showed up and started looking.
If Moscow Mitch and his Kamarades stole votes in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, would anybody really be surprised? They stole Obama's Supreme Court pick, and admitted they stole it. The stink of desperation must have been pretty bad if the future of the entire Republican Party rested on Donald Trump's shoulders. I'm not one to believe in Conspiracy Theories, but I've never seen an American President grovel before A Russian Premier either. Something stinks.

[broncofan]

It is a conspiracy theory to reject the most straightforward account of events and supplant it with the hypothesis that there was an elaborate plan involving many people to fool the public.

It would be a conspiracy theory to believe that Epstein was killed in jail. It would also be a conspiracy theory to think that the circumstances of his suicide were facilitated by people afraid of what he would reveal.

The most straightforward account is that he committed suicide in his cell because he didn't want to face a lifetime in prison. He had attempted suicide several weeks earlier and at least for a time was on suicide watch.

It does however require an extraordinary amount of negligence to allow a known suicide risk who is in custody to commit suicide, given that the most common means in prison are by hanging or asphyxiation and there are ways to proof a cell against that.

The fact is that he is a convicted pedophile facing additional charges who had incriminating information on a lot of people. While I am not jumping to the conclusion at this point that there was foul play, if there was, the most likely culprits are those who head up the penal system, which is in Trump's chain of command. At the very least there needs to be an investigation into how this was allowed to happen.

It's also an obvious insult to the victims that he was not held accountable for his predation...

[filghy2]

It would be a conspiracy theory to believe that Epstein was killed in jail. It would also be a conspiracy theory to think that the circumstances of his suicide were facilitated by people afraid of what he would reveal.

And guess who's right onto it? Surprise, surprise. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-retweets-epstein-conspiracy-theory-claiming-clinton-connection-n1041146

[broncofan]

And guess who's right onto it? Surprise, surprise. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-retweets-epstein-conspiracy-theory-claiming-clinton-connection-n1041146
He's such a dangerous clown.

Of the options we have at this point, none are without issues. If someone killed him, there would be multiple people including prison personnel who have to keep the secret and there will be the autopsy and coroner's report. All you need is one person at the prison to say that they were told to leave a door open or some breach of protocol.

On the other hand, none of these cells are supposed to contain anything a person can commit suicide with. Even if he wasn't on suicide watch, which he should have been, he still shouldn't have been able to do it. So somehow he found a way....I accept that's the most likely option.

I guess my question is: what the fuck happened? There really needs to be an investigation, but it is pretty unreal how conspiracy theorists have latched onto the Clintons. If we are moving from the main narrative, the next step would be to look at the stewards of that prison and so on.

[filghy2]

There are reports of severe staff shortages in the prison, so most likely it's a mundane story about overstretched staff with insufficient training and experience. Prison suicides are not uncommon, despite all the precautions against them.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/jeffrey-epstein-part-larger-suicide-problem/595918/

[filghy2]

Warning lights are flashing on the economy, and people are talking about a 1/3 change of a recession in the next year. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/15/20806882/recession-warning-yield-curve-stock-market-dow

If this happens I can't that see any amount of race-baiting, lying or blame-shifting will save Trump. I know we should not wish for a recession, but if it was the price of getting rid of Trump it might be worth paying.

The prospect of a recession under Trump's watch is actually a bit scary, given he's an incompetent ignoramus who imagines he's a genius. At least GWB had enough sense to follow the advice of the experts in 2008. There's not much room to reduce interest rates and the fiscal ammunition has been wasted on tax cuts for the rich when the economy was already strong. You can't bully, bluster and lie your way out of a recession. Most likely he would further escalate his trade wars, even though they are big part of the problem.

Unfortunately, the next Democrat president is likely inherit a poisoned chalice because of the build-up of delayed consequences from Trump's actions.