DoJ drops case against Flynn.

[tstorm823]

This is "18 USC 1001"

I think it isn't the subject of what the lie is, but rather that a lie took place at all.

I'm not contesting that lying was a crime. I'm saying there's no underlying crime they were investigating.

Imagine the police wrongfully detained you, and you walked away from them, and they charged you with evading the police. They can do that. You committed that crime. There's no denying that, and if they want you punished, they can prosecute. But having seen evidence that the detainment was wrongful, and evidence that the police knew that it was, the DA tells the prosecutors to stand down and let you off for the crime that wouldn't exist if the police weren't doing the wrong thing in the first place.

Doesn't that sound like the right move?

 

[Agema]

Intent is huge in criminal law. WHY were they trying to get him to admit breaking the Logan Act? The Logan act is never enforced.

The FBI's job is to investigate crime. It's a decision for the DoJ whether to pursue, not the FBI, as the FBI documents themselves clearly indicate.

They were after him in order to engage in an insurrection with the color of law.

Evidence for that claim? Don't bother: there is none.

Were Republicans claiming insurrection when the FBI decided to sink Clinton in the middle of the electoral campaign by very publicly reopening a case she'd been already hauled over the coals on publicly and cleared? No? Funny that. I wonder why.

EDIT: What has me so flabbergasted was the obvious abuse of power. This was an act of war against the American people by other means. The lack of outrage about all of this from the Left is just stunning. I have no words. Well. Being free was nice for a while.

The FBI was specifically tasked to look into Russian involvement in US politics by the DoJ after all the evidence of electoral interference - much of this work was later rolled into the Mueller probe. And we all know there were plenty of goings-on between the Trump campaign and Russia which were potentially shifty, hence why the FBI obviously ended up looking at that too. That these Trump-Russia links were plainly shifty was why Trump team members lied about them in the first place. And because some lied about their activities to the authorities, they made themselves criminals. Flynn, Papadopoulos, etc. fucked up, and were done for it. Maybe they were naive and ignorant rather than malevolent, but if people want to criminally lie to the authorities (and in Flynn's case his boss), they dig their own grave.

There's nothing difficult or suspicious about all that.

That's why when the DoJ ran a probe that thoroughly scrutinised the FBI's investigation into the Trump-Russia links in 2019, despite criticising flaws in surveillance procedure, it concluded the investigation was justifiably initiated and that it was not politically biased or improperly motivated.

Nice, simple, and just. Up until the Trump administration attempted to wipe away the stain on its record by politically interfering in the legal process.

 

[gorfias]

The FBI's job is to investigate crime. It's a decision for the DoJ whether to pursue, not the FBI, as the FBI documents themselves clearly indicate.



Evidence for that claim? Don't bother: there is none.

Were Republicans claiming insurrection when the FBI decided to sink Clinton in the middle of the electoral campaign by very publicly reopening a case she'd been already hauled over the coals on publicly and cleared? No? Funny that. I wonder why.



The FBI was specifically tasked to look into Russian involvement in US politics by the DoJ after all the evidence of electoral interference - much of this work was later rolled into the Mueller probe. And we all know there were plenty of goings-on between the Trump campaign and Russia which were potentially shifty, hence why the FBI obviously ended up looking at that too. That these Trump-Russia links were plainly shifty was why Trump team members lied about them in the first place. And because some lied about their activities to the authorities, they made themselves criminals. Flynn, Papadopoulos, etc. fucked up, and were done for it. Maybe they were naive and ignorant rather than malevolent, but if people wants to criminally lie to the authorities (and in Flynn's case his boss), they dig their own grave.

There's nothing difficult or suspicious about all that.

That's why when the DoJ ran a probe that thoroughly scrutinised the FBI's investigation into the Trump-Russia links in 2019, despite criticising flaws in surveillance procedure, it concluded the investigation was justifiably initiated and that it was not politically biased or improperly motivated.

Nice, simple, and just. Up until the Trump administration attempted to wipe away the stain on its record by politically interfering in the legal process.

1) In any criminal defense, you put the watcher's on trial.
2) Intent is inferred from actions and other corroborating evidence.
Suppose jay walking law is never enforced in this small town. Cop arrests a guy who is jaywalking. You find out the jaywalker is known to have been sleeping with the arresting officer's wife. You do the math.
3) Hillary's Email issue was known to the public. If anything, Comey et al. were doing their level best to run interference for her. She committed intentional felonies while Comey called her behavior, "extremely careless."
4) In your wildest nightmares, do you think the Nationalist Trump team has anywhere near the ties to international oligarchs that the globalists have? They do not. So why was any of this done? Again, as intercepted messages show, these people were engaged in an isurrection. We can only hope justise is done and they pay for their crimes against the US citizenry.
4) The

 

[Agema]

Doesn't that sound like the right move?

Firstly, you've changed important parameters to make the allegory further from the situation it's supposed to relate to. This weakens the allegory, and is a little dishonest given that the error is to make your position more symathetic. it would be more accurate as:

Imagine the police detained you believing you may have committed a crime, and you walked away from them, and they charged you with evading the police. They can do that. You committed that crime. There's no denying that, and if they want you punished, they can prosecute. But having seen evidence that you had not initially committed a crime, the DA tells the prosecutors to stand down and let you off for the crime that wouldn't exist if the police hadn't decided to detain you.

Yes, the DA might reasonably decide to let you off, but the DA would likely do things like factor in the relative triviality of the offence for the effort of prosecuting it in the courts.

When we're talking about the National Security Advisor of the USA lying to the FBI in an official investigation, having also lied to the VP, considering the probity expected from those who hold high office and the risks to national security, that's a much bigger issue. At minimum, we're talking a major reprimand and scandal anyway.

 

[tstorm823]

Firstly, you've changed important parameters to make the allegory further from the situation it's supposed to relate to. This weakens the allegory, and is a little dishonest given that the error is to make your position more symathetic. it would be more accurate as:

Imagine the police detained you believing you may have committed a crime, and you walked away from them, and they charged you with evading the police. They can do that. You committed that crime. There's no denying that, and if they want you punished, they can prosecute. But having seen evidence that you had not initially committed a crime, the DA tells the prosecutors to stand down and let you off for the crime that wouldn't exist if the police hadn't decided to detain you.

Yes, the DA might reasonably decide to let you off, but the DA would likely do things like factor in the relative triviality of the offence for the effort of prosecuting it in the courts.

When we're talking about the National Security Advisor of the USA lying to the FBI in an official investigation, having also lied to the VP, considering the probity expected from those who hold high office and the risks to national security, that's a much bigger issue. At minimum, we're talking a major reprimand and scandal anyway.

They had recordings of him talking about things unrelated to their investigation. I don't know how you think it was a good faith interview, Agema.

 

[Agema]

1) In any criminal defense, you put the watcher's on trial.

You can. But if the defendant walks into trial and says "Yeah, I did that and I'm guilty guv'nor", it's getting pretty academic.

2) Intent is inferred from actions and other corroborating evidence.
Suppose jay walking law is never enforced in this small town. Cop arrests a guy who is jaywalking. You find out the jaywalker is known to have been sleeping with the arresting officer's wife. You do the math.

Okay, so why did the FBI want to hurt Flynn and/or Trump as of Januay 2017?

I suspect the FBI might generally dislike Trump by now, but he's given them a lot of reason to.

3) Hillary's Email issue was known to the public. If anything, Comey et al. were doing their level best to run interference for her. She committed intentional felonies while Comey called her behavior, "extremely careless."

She was grilled by Congress for Christ knows how long and thoroughly investigated by the FBI for a year, and the conclusion was that, at best, there was no way to pursue criminal proceedings with a reasonable chance of success. Stating she committed felonies after that much scrutiny, both legal and political from a legislature controlled by Republicans, failed to demonstrate so is wilfully perverse.

4) In your wildest nightmares, do you think the Nationalist Trump team has anywhere near the ties to international oligarchs that the globalists have? They do not. So why was any of this done? Again, as intercepted messages show, these people were engaged in an isurrection. We can only hope justise is done and they pay for their crimes against the US citizenry.

Okay, stop right there. In a democratic country, committing a crime is basically exactly a crime against its citizens. That's even the basis of how they get named: "United States versus Michael T. Flynn", because it's a crime against the USA... and you.

Of course Trump is well tied to international oligarchs. Trump himself is a billionaire, with many operations outside the USA and all his businesses home and abroad awash with investment from places like Saudi Arabia and Russia. His campaigns are funded up the wazoo by billionaire investors and business leaders in finance, manufacturing, retail, etc. who run massive multinational operations. There are all those millionaire / billionaire buds he dumped straight into office - financiers like Scaramucci (short lived though he was) and Tillerson (ex-CEO of ExxonMobil) have huge international interests. Underlying all the bullshit, Trump's economy has actually continued the same trend of huge sums of foreign investments pouring into the USA (someone has to fund the trade deficit) and huge sums of American money going abroad.

All that shit about border walls and mostly cosmetic renogotiations of NAFTA are meaningless compared to the real stuff of where money is going. If he really got in the way of that real stuff, the US right would turn on him crush him in the blink of an eye. This is the real trick. Throw cheap nationalist noises around - insult NATO, Mexicans, squabble with China - but make sure the international capitalists are still content that goods, services, labour and capital can flow round the world where they want.

 

[Agema]

They had recordings of him talking about things unrelated to their investigation. I don't know how you think it was a good faith interview, Agema.

I have no idea what you're talking about, I've read the summaries.

You can see a general summary of the FBI visit here.
You can see interview documentaton here.

The first indicates he was relaxed and talkative, waffling about lots of things on his own accord. The interview document clearly seems to be focused on his dealings with Russia, with the last sections very specifically trying to prompt him to open up on the offending meetings by using the exact words Flynn had used in those meetings with Kislyak. I cannot see any convincing evidence that the agents were asking much stuff unrelated to Flynn's dealings in Russia and with Russian officials.

 

[gorfias]

You can. But if the defendant walks into trial and says "Yeah, I did that and I'm guilty guv'nor", it's getting pretty academic.

Okay, so why did the FBI want to hurt Flynn and/or Trump as of Januay 2017?

She was grilled by Congress for Christ knows how long and thoroughly investigated by the FBI for a year, and the conclusion was that, at best, there was no way to pursue criminal proceedings with a reasonable chance of success. Stating she committed felonies after that much scrutiny, both legal and political from a legislature controlled by Republicans, failed to demonstrate so is wilfully perverse.

Okay, stop right there. In a democratic country, committing a crime is basically exactly a crime against its citizens. That's even the basis of how they get named: "United States versus Michael T. Flynn", because it's a crime against the USA... and you.

Of course Trump is well tied to international oligarchs. Trump himself is a billionaire, with many operations outside the USA and all his businesses home and abroad awash with investment from places like Saudi Arabia and Russia. His campaigns are funded up the wazoo by billionaire investors and business leaders in finance, manufacturing, retail, etc. who run massive multinational operations. There are all those millionaire / billionaire buds he dumped straight into office - financiers like Scaramucci (short lived though he was) and Tillerson (ex-CEO of ExxonMobil) have huge international interests. Underlying all the bullshit, Trump's economy has actually continued the same trend of huge sums of foreign investments pouring into the USA (someone has to fund the trade deficit) and huge sums of American money going abroad.

1. Making and withdrawing a guilty plea can simply mean at first, one did not think the matter worth fighting and then later realizing one should. It actually says nothing with regard to innocence or guilt.

2. Seriously!!! Were it not for Covid, the House would be on their 4th or 5th round of Impeachments. The deep state has collectively lost its mind about the election of an outsider whether in the House, or Department of Education or the FBI. See more in below.

3. Any “grilling” was likely done to satisfy the base. We know enough facts to convict her for serious felonies dealing with, for instance, the email server was not “extremely careless.” It wasn’t even the crime of “gross negligence”. The server didn’t bounce off a truck and onto her network due to a failure to have a hockey goalie block it from doing so. It was put there intentionally. An intentional felony. But why would Republicans give her a pass? Because, as Trump charges, we have a bi partisan oligarchy that is doing as it please, law or the interests of the US be damned.

4. Who altered the documents to present to the FISA court? Kevin Clinesmith? If so, we’d start with US vs. Kevin Clinesmith, for instance.

5. Everything you write counts ten fold against people like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Trump tells us our trade deals with China suck. ITMT, after making these lousy trade deals, friends and relatives of the deep state types, such as Hunter Biden, then go and receive apparent kickbacks in the billions of dollars, betraying our nation. At best, you appear to be making the argument that it is fine that laws against jay walking is never enforced but this one time, that was fine because the jay walker slept with the charging officer’s wife. That isn’t justice. That isn’t Constitutional. That isn’t freedom. It’s a recipe for oppressive dictatorship. I’m glad Flynn is fighting back.

 

[Agema]

1. Making and withdrawing a guilty plea can simply mean at first, one did not think the matter worth fighting and then later realizing one should. It actually says nothing with regard to innocence or guilt.

Firstly, it is not credible that a man of Flynn's position and expensive legal team would be somehow be mistaken over the consequences of guilt. Secondly, whilst pleading guilty might be done by the innocent to mitigate punishment if a case is going badly or just make the thing go away quickly, let's bear in mind Flynn also admitted lying to the FBI in court twice, under oath. So if he didn't lie to the FBI after all, then he committed perjury.

This is why no-one's trying to get Flynn off on the basis that he didn't lie to the FBI... because he absolutely did.

I'm guessing this is how it went in Flynnworld. It is clear Russia and the Trump team have had dealings that at best look bad and at worst are even illegal. Flynn has had some of those dealings. He lies to VP Mike Pence about some of his contacts - and aren't we all inclined to hope what seems like a small lie makes a problem go away? Then the FBI show up, and he either lies more, or both drops the Trump team in deeper bad press and also has to admit that he's lied to Pence. So he chooses lying. Except this time it blows up because the FBI know it.

3. Any “grilling” was likely done to satisfy the base. We know enough facts to convict her for serious felonies dealing with, for instance, the email server was not “extremely careless.” It wasn’t even the crime of “gross negligence”. The server didn’t bounce off a truck and onto her network due to a failure to have a hockey goalie block it from doing so. It was put there intentionally. An intentional felony. But why would Republicans give her a pass? Because, as Trump charges, we have a bi partisan oligarchy that is doing as it please, law or the interests of the US be damned.

There are regulations that Clinton at minimum stretched to breaking point and maybe beyond by using a private email server, but these are the realms of administrative, not legal punishment. She was not the only government official to use a private email server before or after. Colin Powell did. So did Steve Bannon, Ivanka Trump, Steven Miller and others. The sole potential crime is unsafe handling of classified materials. The investigation found that Clinton's staff did not have classified material on the server frequently, routinely, systematically, or intentionally, and none of them apparently leaked. This is a really hard sell in a courtroom.

As for Trump upholding legality... you are kidding, right? Take a look at that man's backhistory. Is he a man of good repute and solid moral character? 40+ years of constant lying. His business empire was built in large part on inheritance supplemented with tax-dodging and stiffing investors and contractors. In fact, the reason he relies on Russians and Saudis for investment is because after multiple bankruptcies and dishonest dealings, most Western financial institutions stopped lending to him. In his personal life, serial philandering, sexual assaults? Are you seriously telling us he became president and suddenly transformed into a beacon of personal and professional probity?

Except we know he hasn't. Let's remember that Ukraine stuff, because at the point the Senate bounced it, the Republicans were reduced to arguments like:
"Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office... I will not vote to remove the President because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation" (Marco Rubio). In other words, Trump totally did try to get a foreign country to interfere in domestic politics illegally, but the Senate Republicans decided it was politically against their interests to remove him. The Ukraine affair also revealed just how close Trump put himself to the influence of foreign money with clearly corrupt agendas. And if he did that, re. his clear non-exoneration in the Mueller report, how confident are you he wasn't interested in Russian help in 2016, and didn't obstruct justice?

Do you want to tell me what Trump has done about the vast trough of lobbyist money in Washington, apart from nothing at all? How do you feel about the president directing public money into his own businesses, for instance by moving state business to his properties, making secret service personnel pay full fare to guard him and his families at his properties, or executive branch and employees staying at his hotels, or the blurring of the lines between public and private in his relentless Trump merchandise selling? That his company has not been put at a proper remove from him, and is busy trying to make deals in foreign countries that Trump has been particularly friendly with?

When you look at the colossal tower of narcissistic ego that is Donald Trump, what on earth makes you think he cares about you in the slightest? You, and most everyone else in the USA, are rubes. He doesn't like you, he isn't interested in you, he doesn't want to share a drink with you and hear your stories. You're people for him to play with so he gets fame, adulation and money. That's his view of other people. As long as you suck up to him, he's peachy. The minute you're a problem, it's "I don't know that guy", and if you disagree with or oppose him, you'll be on the receiving end of a furious Twitter traducement.

Trump tells us our trade deals with China suck.

And we just believe him because... why exactly? To be fair, the trade treaty is old and some form of renogotiation seems reasonable. I don't think you're actually going to see much change, though. All that noise and economic damage from his trade war is just jingoistic theatre.

ITMT, after making these lousy trade deals, friends and relatives of the deep state types, such as Hunter Biden, then go and receive apparent kickbacks in the billions of dollars, betraying our nation.

Hunter Biden doesn't work in government, he can't be the deep state. And even if he did use daddy's connections to enrich himself, how is that betraying the USA? If anything, he took a ton of money off Ukrainians which he then carted back to the USA to spend there and give Americans jobs.

At best, you appear to be making the argument that it is fine that laws against jay walking is never enforced but this one time, that was fine because the jay walker slept with the charging officer’s wife.

This analogy makes no sense. Flynn did nothing to harm or upset FBI such that they should want to set him up. But his conduct was manifestly improper, trying to arrange official state business whilst not in office and lying to the VP about it.

 

[Agema]

2. Seriously!!! Were it not for Covid, the House would be on their 4th or 5th round of Impeachments. The deep state has collectively lost its mind about the election of an outsider whether in the House, or Department of Education or the FBI. See more in below.

What "deep state"? Who are they? What are their objectives? What's their agenda? We may as well be talking about The Illuminati.

There are two reasonable descriptions of "deep state" I have heard.

1) The nature of institutional power and that civil servants that serve longer than politicians. Civil servants are responsible for both conveying information to politicians and enacting policy, thereby can exert a lot of influence over politicians. In some ways, this is an intentional feature of civil service bureaucracy, because it allows for continuation of experience, knowledge and processes in governance whist the elected management rotates. It can be a safety measure, by miitgating radical political agendas, particularly as policy can originate from ideology without having to taste the practicalities of being carried out. It can potentially mean that the civil service can impede political will.

2) Lack of oversight of politicians over the intelligence services. The nature of the intelligence services operating secretly means that they have the most power to carry out agendas outside political control, and potentially could try to determine policy against the will of elected leaders. On the other hand, subjecting the intelligence services to increased scrutiny and transparency inherently lowers security.

* * *

But anyway, what is this supposedly anti-Trump "deep state"? What is Trump doing that they feel the need to stop - do they care about a wall with Mexico, for instance, and why? Why do they want to block a renegotiation of a few trade treaties? What has Trump's agenda done they are so worried about? Are you really saying that government personnel are against Trump for no other reason than he hasn't previously held office - why?

Fundamentally, the whole thing makes no sense. Trump's agenda is not revolutionary. He hasn't threatened any major policy to shake up government departments and do things radically differently. He's basically overseen a pretty ordinary Republican agenda, except with added lies, insults and racism. If the deep state doesn't stop a normal Republican agenda, it's not going to stop Trump's. His party have reliably protected him in the legislature where he's needed them to. Where Trump has largely run into obstruction actually seems to be with his own appointees, like Tillerson, Kelly, etc. Seriously, if you're going through personnel like Trump has, you're either a terrible judge of employees or you don't know what your employees are supposed to be doing.

Inasmuch as the "deep state" of right-wing fantasy exists with regards to Trump, as far as I can tell it's actually just disparate elements within the government that need to cope with an unethical, incompetent and erratic president. Sometimes this means whistleblowing on him. Sometimes it means not carrying out what he wants, because what he wants is illegal or improper. Sometimes, it means frantically running round trying to clear up and cover up the wreckage he caused by being the proverbial bull in a china shop.

 

[SupahEwok]

What "deep state"? Who are they? What are their objectives? What's their agenda? We may as well be talking about The Illuminati.

*Cough, cough*

 

[Worgen]

2. Seriously!!! Were it not for Covid, the House would be on their 4th or 5th round of Impeachments. The deep state has collectively lost its mind about the election of an outsider whether in the House, or Department of Education or the FBI. See more in below.

trump is the fucken state, he is the deep state, no amount of q-anon bullshit will change that. Keep that shit off of here.

 

[Agema]

trump is the fucken state, he is the deep state, no amount of q-anon bullshit will change that. Keep that shit off of here.

Well, Trump asked his advisors whether coronavirus can be treated by injecting disinfectant and shining UV light under the skin. Then he thought he'd boast to the public about it to show the voters how smart and creative he was, and what amazing ideas he was coming up with. Now remember back to those stories that he wanted to stop hurricanes by nuking them, that he denied? Oh my god. He really, really did, didn't he? And you've got to know that level of crazy stupid is going into policy suggestions too, which explains cock-ups like letting Turkey invade the USA's Kurdish allies.

To most people, trying to stop this sort of crazy stupid from emerging as actual policy is a vital function of government. To elements of the US right wing, it's the "deep state".

 

[gorfias]

What "deep state"? Who are they? What are their objectives? What's their agenda? We may as well be talking about The Illuminati.

There are two reasonable descriptions of "deep state" I have heard.

1) The nature of institutional power and that civil servants that serve longer than politicians. Civil servants are responsible for both conveying information to politicians and enacting policy, thereby can exert a lot of influence over politicians. In some ways, this is an intentional feature of civil service bureaucracy, because it allows for continuation of experience, knowledge and processes in governance whist the elected management rotates. It can be a safety measure, by miitgating radical political agendas, particularly as policy can originate from ideology without having to taste the practicalities of being carried out. It can potentially mean that the civil service can impede political will.

2) Lack of oversight of politicians over the intelligence services. The nature of the intelligence services operating secretly means that they have the most power to carry out agendas outside political control, and potentially could try to determine policy against the will of elected leaders. On the other hand, subjecting the intelligence services to increased scrutiny and transparency inherently lowers security.

* * *

But anyway, what is this supposedly anti-Trump "deep state"? What is Trump doing that they feel the need to stop - do they care about a wall with Mexico, for instance, and why? Why do they want to block a renegotiation of a few trade treaties? What has Trump's agenda done they are so worried about? Are you really saying that government personnel are against Trump for no other reason than he hasn't previously held office - why?

Fundamentally, the whole thing makes no sense. Trump's agenda is not revolutionary. He hasn't threatened any major policy to shake up government departments and do things radically differently. He's basically overseen a pretty ordinary Republican agenda, except with added lies, insults and racism. If the deep state doesn't stop a normal Republican agenda, it's not going to stop Trump's. His party have reliably protected him in the legislature where he's needed them to. Where Trump has largely run into obstruction actually seems to be with his own appointees, like Tillerson, Kelly, etc. Seriously, if you're going through personnel like Trump has, you're either a terrible judge of employees or you don't know what your employees are supposed to be doing.

Inasmuch as the "deep state" of right-wing fantasy exists with regards to Trump, as far as I can tell it's actually just disparate elements within the government that need to cope with an unethical, incompetent and erratic president. Sometimes this means whistleblowing on him. Sometimes it means not carrying out what he wants, because what he wants is illegal or improper. Sometimes, it means frantically running round trying to clear up and cover up the wreckage he caused by being the proverbial bull in a china shop.

Who are they? " It can potentially mean that the civil service can impede political will." That can be a bad thing.

I don't recall who but on the Ukraine thing, one employee was let go and our legacy media seemed to not understand: she serves at the discretion of POTUS. His stated objectives matter while hers are subordinate. I applaud her if she fights back and causes political harm to a pol whose ideas are bad. But at the end of the day, firing a subordinate is not in and of itself a violation of anything.

What do they want? Why hate on Trump?

If I had to say, stopping illegal immigration by itself is enough to make a ruling elite apoplectic.
Immigration transfers about $0.5 trillion a year from poor workers to the top 1%. You think they want that stopped if illegal immigration is a big part of that?

Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers

The candidates tell drastically different stories about immigration. They're both skipping half the truth.

www.politico.com

And if you are part of a bi Partisan ruling class that wants more power, don't you want to import socialists to replace the US citizens at such a rate they cannot be assimilated? (My grandparents were part of a huge Red movement. Lots of commies came in. And then a funny thing happened in a relatively free society. They got rich and assimilated: do you think that is happening today at a rate that will keep the USA from shifting politically?)

And how about our lousy trade deal with China that may be making billions in kick backs to the friends and family of those making the deals?

But more than any one policy, an outsider won the Presidency without their permission.

Why did the DNC change its rules after Jimmy Carter won POTUS in the 1970s? Because, in their esteem, that isn't supposed to happen.

 

[Hades]

But more than any one policy, an outsider won the Presidency without their permission.

I'd dispute that Trump is even an outsider to begin with. Trump isn't an enemy of the elites but a long standing member of the elites. He's not a streetfighter who suddenly found himself engaged in politics, he's an openly corrupt businessman. Every nasty trait associated with the elites can also be found in Trump and Trump has always moved within the same circles as the other elites. It is true that Trump is a member of the business elites rather then the political elite but the line between politics and big business has been so blurred for so long that no one of the political elite is going to have an ideological distaste towards the business elite. They are two sides of the same coin and have always had a very intimate relation.

The political establishment doesn't look down on Trump because he's an ''outsider'' but because he's very obviously corrupt and incompetent. They don't distrust him because he's an ''outsider'' but because he's inherently untrustworthy and clearly just in politics for his own personal gain. The Trump presidency isn't a case of an outsider taking on the elites, its one of the elites pretending to be an outsider so he can manipulate an angry crowd and use them as a weapon against his fellow elites.

And that's the same with almost all these populist demagogues. Only Erdogan genuinely is the promoted street fighter he styles himself to be. The Le Pens grew up in a castle, Boris Johnson was a class clown at a boarding school for the super rich, and Wilders is among the longest serving members of parliament. None of them are as different from the elites as they claim to be.

 

[Agema]

I don't recall who but on the Ukraine thing, one employee was let go and our legacy media seemed to not understand: she serves at the discretion of POTUS. His stated objectives matter while hers are subordinate. I applaud her if she fights back and causes political harm to a pol whose ideas are bad. But at the end of the day, firing a subordinate is not in and of itself a violation of anything.

You're talking about the US ambassador to Ukraine. Trump's associates (Lev Parnas and Rudi Giuliani) undermined her so she could not interfere with their attempts to communicate with corrupt Ukrainians, because they were on a job for Trump to get a foreign country to interfere in a US election. The issue is that the president was pressurising a foreign country to interfere in a US election. That is corrupt and illegal, right at the top. That's why he got impeached.

If I had to say, stopping illegal immigration by itself is enough to make a ruling elite apoplectic.
...
And if you are part of a bi Partisan ruling class that wants more power, don't you want to import socialists to replace the US citizens at such a rate they cannot be assimilated?

Okay, so you're apparently defining the "deep state" as elected politicians, because they're the ones bought out by the 1% and that decide on immigration.

So what's Trump done to clean them up? Why has he not cut the lobbying money to US politics, to reduce the power of the 1%? Why, given the perfect opportunity to remove Trump, did these politicians funded up the wazoo by the 1% keep this apparent threat to the 1%'s wealth in office? Why did they renew him as their candidate for 2020? If Trump cares about US workers and wants them to have a higher income, why not campaign for the minimum wage, or stronger bargaining rights for them to negotiate it themselves? If he really wants to stop illegal immigration, why is he trying to build a wall when studies suggest it will be ineffective, but not doing something more likely to work like cracking down on employers hiring illegal immigrants?

I just don't get this.

 

[gorfias]

I'd dispute that Trump is even an outsider to begin with. Trump isn't an enemy of the elites but a long standing member of the elites. He's not a streetfighter who suddenly found himself engaged in politics, he's an openly corrupt businessman. Every nasty trait associated with the elites can also be found in Trump and Trump has always moved within the same circles as the other elites. It is true that Trump is a member of the business elites rather then the political elite but the line between politics and big business has been so blurred for so long that no one of the political elite is going to have an ideological distaste towards the business elite. They are two sides of the same coin and have always had a very intimate relation.

The political establishment doesn't look down on Trump because he's an ''outsider'' but because he's very obviously corrupt and incompetent. They don't distrust him because he's an ''outsider'' but because he's inherently untrustworthy and clearly just in politics for his own personal gain. The Trump presidency isn't a case of an outsider taking on the elites, its one of the elites pretending to be an outsider so he can manipulate an angry crowd and use them as a weapon against his fellow elites.

And that's the same with almost all these populist demagogues. Only Erdogan genuinely is the promoted street fighter he styles himself to be. The Le Pens grew up in a castle, Boris Johnson was a class clown at a boarding school for the super rich, and Wilders is among the longest serving members of parliament. None of them are as different from the elites as they claim to be.

I think you are conflating a wealthy connected person contributing heavily to politics with being an actual insider. Trump is not. He is not one of their beautiful people, though, Ann Coulter worries he wants to be. One thing that I come across on this site is people assuring me Trump will betray his base. I do not know they are wrong on that.

You're talking about the US ambassador to Ukraine. Trump's associates (Lev Parnas and Rudi Giuliani) undermined her so she could not interfere with their attempts to communicate with corrupt Ukrainians, because they were on a job for Trump to get a foreign country to interfere in a US election. The issue is that the president was pressurising a foreign country to interfere in a US election. That is corrupt and illegal, right at the top. That's why he got impeached.



Okay, so you're apparently defining the "deep state" as elected politicians, because they're the ones bought out by the 1% and that decide on immigration.

So what's Trump done to clean them up? Why has he not cut the lobbying money to US politics, to reduce the power of the 1%? Why, given the perfect opportunity to remove Trump, did these politicians funded up the wazoo by the 1% keep this apparent threat to the 1%'s wealth in office? Why did they renew him as their candidate for 2020? If Trump cares about US workers and wants them to have a higher income, why not campaign for the minimum wage, or stronger bargaining rights for them to negotiate it themselves? If he really wants to stop illegal immigration, why is he trying to build a wall when studies suggest it will be ineffective, but not doing something more likely to work like cracking down on employers hiring illegal immigrants?

I just don't get this.

I applaud what Trump was doing in Ukraine. For the most part, when any friend or family looks to be gaining from nepotism, it's a problem. If you chase everyone, there will be no one left to govern. But in the Biden case, the corruption was so in your face, to not look into it would be negligence. Trump could have been impeached if he didn't ask about it.

The deep state can include politicians, or that US ambassador you reference or senior bureaucrats. And it isn't just pols that love immigration. It is wealthy private sector interests. It is teachers unions in California that might lose 10-20% of their jobs without immigration. It is the multi cultural bureaucracy that prints court documents in 175,421 different languages. And more. Immigration courts, bureaucracies, the system. Lotta money and jobs in that system. Cut immigration of all kinds, say, by 2/3? Lotta those jobs and power are gone.

There are a lot of kind hearted people out there who want to help the desperately poor of other nations build a better life for themselves in the West too. I think they hate Trump for his stated position on these matters as well.

You reference a number of things you think would help US workers, slow immigration and more. At this time, As far as Trump's success on slowing immigration, it is difficult to judge. Ann Coulter considers him a betrayer, not really interested in doing anything about immigration. Others call him a fascist for even giving voice to the issue. Others state that, with regard to immigration coming from South of the US, he has pushed places like Mexico to do more to keep migrants in Mexico.

He's all over the place on legal immigration. He has stated he wants both less and more, depending upon the day. This Forbes link says he's slowed it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuart...ration-has-declined-under-trump/#4bdb5c206e99

But again, on any single issue, I would think this one rubs the powers that be the wrong way more than any other, even if, for the sake of argument, Trump is all talk.

 

[Hades]

I think you are conflating a wealthy connected person contributing heavily to politics with being an actual insider. Trump is not. He is not one of their beautiful people, though, Ann Coulter worries he wants to be. One thing that I come across on this site is people assuring me Trump will betray his base. I do not know they are wrong on that.

Even if there is a separation between those groups then it is not a particularly large one and the barrier of entree isn't all that high. One group of elites isn't going to react poorly to another group of those very same elites. They mingle together, support each other and grant each other favors all the time. Clinton and Trump were chummy once in the past and its no surprise that Epstein had involvement with both of them. The world of the elites does not seem to be very large.

Trump's status is not something anyone on this nebulous ''inside'' would look down upon. He's part of the elites just like they are and Trump policy is primarily focused on providing for the elites just like they want. Its no wonder all those on the ''inside'' of the Republican party very quickly embraced Trump.

A true outsider is more someone like Corbyn. He's not all that wealthy and thus not part of the elites and while he has a long career in politics most of it was spend opposing the establishment.

Trump betraying his base is logical enough. He claims to fight for the common man but that is inherently at odds with his nature as a corrupt businessman and its no wonder that one of his few legislative successes turned out to be a tax break for the uber rich. He's a president for big business regardless what claims he makes.

I applaud what Trump was doing in Ukraine. For the most part, when any friend or family looks to be gaining from nepotism, it's a problem. If you chase everyone, there will be no one left to govern. But in the Biden case, the corruption was so in your face, to not look into it would be negligence. Trump could have been impeached if he didn't ask about it.

You say that nepotism is a problem and applaud Trump for looking into it but you're talking about a man who's own children hold high position in the white house only because they are his children. Meanwhile Hunter was employed in Ukraine by a man who certainly was not named Joe Biden. The idea that Trump is opposed to any sort of corruption is already a gigantic stretch but on the subject of nepotism it would be so obviously hypocritical that it would be rather shameful. I don't see what was so in your face about Biden's role in Ukraine. The big smoking gun was that Biden put pressure to remove a prosecutor who was widely known to be corrupt and he did this along with several other European nations. Hardly an example of irredeemable corruption. Something more in your face would be making a call to the Ukranian president and ask him to investigate your political rival while cancelling aid the country needs to survive mere moments before asking that ''question''.

 

[gorfias]

You say that nepotism is a problem and applaud Trump for looking into it but you're talking about a man who's own children hold high position in the white house only because they are his children. Meanwhile Hunter was employed in Ukraine by a man who certainly was not named Joe Biden. The idea that Trump is opposed to any sort of corruption is already a gigantic stretch but on the subject of nepotism it would be so obviously hypocritical that it would be rather shameful. I don't see what was so in your face about Biden's role in Ukraine. The big smoking gun was that Biden put pressure to remove a prosecutor who was widely known to be corrupt and he did this along with several other European nations. Hardly an example of irredeemable corruption. Something more in your face would be making a call to the Ukranian president and ask him to investigate your political rival while cancelling aid the country needs to survive mere moments before asking that ''question''.

I also stated that if you want to throw out/in jail anyone with friends and relatives appearing to benefiting from nepotism, you'd end up with no one in government. So many of our elected officials, for instance, are married to spouses making big bucks arguably off of well placed other family members. As you write, the Trumps apply. Typically, these nepotism hires are at least defensible as exteremly experienced and competent. But the Biden issue is VERY different. Hunter, with a dad as powerful as his, still got possibly dishonorably discharged from the military for drug use. I've read that the guy thinks he is akin to Tony Montana. He is toxic. He is unemployable. And yet, Hunter was pulling down big bucks. This is bad enough. But then Joe Biden uses his clout to get a prosecutor fired who may or may not have built a corruption case against Hunter and/or his associates. That is really bad. But then Biden goes one step further and freaking boasts about it in public and on video capture. Sure, Bidens have excuses such as there were others that wanted the prosecutor fired. Doesn't wash. At that point, Trump could have been impeached if he hadn't looked into it.

Someone really needs to start a pro Trump thread. Given good faith observations, why are people supporting him? Why do people think he is on the side of ordinary Americans of all races who are being betrayed by a globalist elite with obedient legacy media allies?

The answers to those questsions may partially answer why we think Flynn was treated monstrously and are very glad he appears to be out of trouble. And that those that did this to him very well may be on their way, if not to prison, infamy.

 

[Agema]

I applaud what Trump was doing in Ukraine. For the most part, when any friend or family looks to be gaining from nepotism, it's a problem. If you chase everyone, there will be no one left to govern. But in the Biden case, the corruption was so in your face, to not look into it would be negligence. Trump could have been impeached if he didn't ask about it.

It's not Trump's business to look into potential breaches of law in Ukraine. It's either Ukraine's business, or the FBI if the law was broken in the USA.

There is no point talking about "Constitution" and "law" when you support the president abusing his power and breaking the law. You are close to arguing that Trump should be a dictator.

The deep state can include politicians, or that US ambassador you reference or senior bureaucrats. And it isn't just pols that love immigration. It is wealthy private sector interests. It is teachers unions in California that might lose 10-20% of their jobs without immigration. It is the multi cultural bureaucracy that prints court documents in 175,421 different languages. And more. Immigration courts, bureaucracies, the system. Lotta money and jobs in that system. Cut immigration of all kinds, say, by 2/3? Lotta those jobs and power are gone.

Okay, so to simplify this, you appear to be saying that the "deep state" is anyone who might oppose immigration restrictions, for whatever reason. You thus support any measure or politician that appears to be against immigration, irrespective of whether they break the law, are corrupt, incompetent.