Turns out that he loves collusion even more than he loves the poorly educated!
Yeah, why did the special counsel spend all that time investigating? All Mueller needed to do was to ask Trump the dreaded direct question, as George Stephanopoulos did: If Russia offered you dirt on a political opponent, would you take it? And he would have said, as he did to Snuffleupagus in these exact words: “They have information – I think I’d take it.”
Today’s inept effort to spin his way out of it actually made it worse:
“President Donald Trump on Friday tried again to rectify the mess he made by saying he would likely accept dirt on a political opponent from a foreign entity, going on ‘Fox & Friends’ to clean up the comments. Trump insisted during a meandering 50-minute interview that ‘of course’ he would alert the FBI in such a case, but only after reviewing it first, ‘because if you don’t look at it, you won’t know it’s bad.'”
The more he tries to worm out of it, the worse he makes it, because he doesn’t seem to know what is actually wrong with what he said. He doesn’t seem to grasp that the bad part is not what’s in the info, but the source itself, and the thing he needs to report is the contact, not the content.
I wanted to address one thing from earlier. ‘Don’ posted previously the ‘quote’ from Winston Churchill ‘…if you aren’t a conservative by the time you’re 30…’ The real quote is ‘if you aren’t a socialist in your 20’s you have no heart.’ Right wingers have falsely revised this quote to ‘if you aren’t a liberal…’
This would be very odd for Winston Churchill to say this given that he left the Conservative Party at the age of 27 to join the Liberal Party and did not re-join the Conservatives until 1924 when he was 47. His only reason for re-joining the Conservatives was that he concluded the Liberals were no longer a viable electoral alternative to the socialist Labor Party and one of his goals in re-joining the Conservatives was to facilitate a merger between the Liberals and the Conservatives in a way that would be acceptable to both factions and that would accommodate liberal ideology in the Conservative Party.
In regards to people supposedly becoming more conservative as they age. The research from psephology (the scientific study of elections) is quite clear: the reason this presently appears to be the case is because today’s seniors came of age politically in the 1980s and this is regarded as the last successful conservatively dominant era.
In contrast, for instance, it has long been the case that older people are more likely to vote, in the 1980s it was generally regarded that Democrats did better during midterms because seniors were a higher percentage of voters in midterms and they were the most liberal, having grown up in the 1940s and 1950s, part of the successfully dominant liberal era from 1932 to sometime in the 1960s.
Liberalism won out initially. FDR won WWII and was the father of liberalism. Eisenhower would have been called a dirty liberal by today’s Republican standards for his anti military industrial complex issues and his heavy investment in infrastructure.
Really, it boils down to two things why it came back. The Civil Rights Act was one of them. The South was predominantly Democrat until Lyndon Johnson got on board with equality, and as an ex-racist he knew those people to the core and his description of them fits to this very day and sums up every Trump supporter:
President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
The second is the myth of Reagonomics and how trickle down economics ‘saved’ the economy. What was conventionally missing in all of this, was it wasn’t deregulation that caused this surge. It was massive spending the likes of which was never seen:
“During Reagan’s presidency, the federal debt held by the public nearly tripled in nominal terms, from $738 billion to $2.1 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world’s largest international creditor to the world’s largest debtor nation.”
So in the end, you get the combination of two factors there that make up modern conservatives. The first is, I’ll vote against things that would make society better, hell even against my own cause, if you give me some black man or immigrant to look down on and rail against.
The second is the myth of meritocracy – that is all these baby boomers were happy to fuck future generations over with massive debt and look down on everyone else. When they entered the job market they were handed the highest minimum age compared to inflation, the lowest CEO to common worker inequity ratio, and the lowest cost of college education growing up – then in the 80s once they were established said ‘fuck em all’ and let it ride and rode the backs of massive borrowing.
I mean, that sums conservatives up in a nutshell, every one of those things are established fact.
There are some things that I disagree with here, but certainly I agree with the general sentiment.
1.I think it was somewhat of a myth that the economy was all that poor throughout the 1970s. Real GDP growth and job growth were both high, however, there was the problem of inflation which approached 10%, the unemployment rate was fairly high, and the economy was unsettled with a number of briefish recessions throughout the decade.
2.I think Paul Volcker deserves most of the credit for ‘whipping inflation.’ However, unlike those who credit Carter for appointing Volcker, it was Reagan who gave the Federal Reserve the independence to combat inflation without Presidential intrusion (the independence of the Federal Reserve had not been fully established at this time.)
3.The large deficit spending as a percent of GDP (roughly the same as now at about 5% of GDP) certainly juiced the economy in the short term, but it mainly ended up contributing to a return of inflation (I think it got as high again as 7%.)
4.I think the improvement in the economy was due to a number of things.
A.It wasn’t actually all that much improved, more so the perception with stable inflation (for awhile) and probably with the low oil prices.
B.I think deregulation was a factor, however, deregulation was actually started by Nixon and continued by Carter.
C.The reason deregulation was possible was due to the enormous improvements in computing technology with personal computers and the software suit of spreadsheets, word processing and databases (as well as CAD and CAM in design and manufacturing. )
I don’t know how much people appreciate these days the degree to which large sectors of the U.S economy was a command economy with private rather than government owned companies. In trucking and commercial airlines for instance, the government set the prices, decided the routes and decided which firms would operate which routes. Essentially, the commercial airlines and the trucking firms were contractors managed by the government.
Ironically, while it was mostly the trucking and airline firms that mostly pushed for deregulation they ended up losing the most as the increasing competition squeezed their profit margins. This led to instability which led some people to, wrongly in my opinion, conclude that this deregulation was a bad thing, rather than just part of the transition.
5.The United States was the largest creditor nation in terms of having trade surpluses, just as it now has the largest trade deficit. However, the U.S government had a deficit prior to this, and the federal debt is a place where foreign holders of U.S $ place their U.S $. The U.S federal debt, if the U.S still had a trade surplus, would be more owned by American bondholders instead.
7.I think what the second myth you mention is really getting at is the sharp decline in GDP paid to employees as opposed to that held by corporations or paid to ‘the ownership class’ the executives and shareholders of the companies. This Gross Domestic Income peaked at 52% in 1970 and reached a (new) modern low of 42% in 2014. Obviously I think the main problem here is the virtual death of private sector unions.
Attributing it to Churchill is one of those instances of false authority that we see so often on the internet. If Churchill or Twain had lived longer, they could have echoed Yogi Berra by saying “I never said most of the things I said.”
The author of the Yale Book of Quotations says:
This one is usually credited to Georges Clemenceau, but W. Gurney Benham‘s Book of Quotations cites French premier and historian Francois Guizot (1787-1874), translating his statement as “Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head.” Benham asserts that “Clemenceau adopted this saying, substituting ‘socialiste’ for ‘republicain. ‘”
“Republican” in this case referred to those in France who opposed monarchy. The French were still having this argument a century after their revolution. They still had a monarch as late as 1870 and they would have had one even after that, except they couldn’t decide who it should be.
Wikipedia sums it up:
“The early governments of the Third Republic (1870-) considered re-establishing the monarchy, but confusion as to the nature of that monarchy and who should be awarded the throne caused those talks to stall. Thus, the Third Republic, which was originally intended as a provisional government, instead became the permanent government of France.”
Going back to the quote, it’s kind of amazing that the French so recently thought that favoring a republic was something only for the very young and passionate, and that any sensible adult would prefer a monarchy! It demonstrates that the quote was pretty effin’ dim-witted right from day one, even though it now passes as wisdom.
France had a Presidential election as a Republic in 1848 with universal male suffrage. it’s just the person who was voted in as President was Napoleon III and he shortly after declared himself the Emperor and ruled until 1870.
It may be that the monarchy was not regarded as the choice by any sensible adult but only by the real elites because monarchs tend to favor the wealthy and otherwise powerful, however Napoleon III was elected with 74% of the vote and his elevation to Emperor was endorsed by a similar landslide in a referendum (and then re-endorsed in another landslide referendum win in 1870 just before Napoleon III lost the Franco-Prussian war that led to his capture and downfall.) So, it may also be most French people did regard the monarchy as the sensible choice.
I agree, you are confused. Trump “deserves to go to prison.” We can’t prosecute now, he is president. So we should wait until he’s not president and then do nothing?
I think the evil of letting a criminal walk is worse than the danger that prosecuting him will appear politically motivated.
I’m confused. Don Jr is guilty of a felony because the Russians gave him evidence that Hillary Clinton and the DNC were committing/committed crimes and Don Jr. destroyed the evidence rather than give it to the FBI? If true, I think Don Jr could claim that he didn’t believe any such evidence was genuine and argue (quite convincingly) that if he believed it was genuine the last thing he would have done would be destroy it. Criminal statutes require mens rea (mental state) as an element of the crime and I think a prosecutor would have a pretty hard time establishing that element. In other words, you can’t be convicted of destroying evidence of a crime (or failing to report it) if you didn’t believe the crime occurred or that the evidence was genuine.
Personally, I think trying to prosecute Trump or members of his family after he leaves office is probably a waste of time. Your best chance at a conviction is probably in a state court in Manhattan. But even there, odds are at least one Trump supporter ends on the jury and it only takes one to guarantee a mistrial. Contrary to popular opinion not every person in NYC is a Democrat or left-wing independent. Hillary “only” received 79% of the vote in NYC. Trump even got 10% in Manhattan. The law of averages says 1.2 jurors would be a Trump supporter, but it would probably be higher than that because many of the most rabidly anti-Trump Manhattanites would be struck during jury selection. Certainly some very high priced attorney’s would do their best to get Trump supporters on the jury.
In my opinion, there is another reason prosecuting Trump after he leaves office would be a terrible idea. Using criminal investigations/prosecutions to go after political opponents is the mark of totalitarian dictatorships. Now there is of course a difference when those opponents are actually guilty of crimes. But a widespread perception of using criminal prosecutions to punish political opponents is nearly as bad as the reality of it would be. I am NOT saying a president is (or should be) above the law. But political divisions in this country are already so inflamed, I don’t believe a former president should be prosecuted for anything but the most serious of crimes (and with overwhelming evidence).
One of things Trump supporters seemed to enjoy more than anything else at his campaign events were the chants of “Lock her Up!” It is my honest opinion that Hillary Clinton was guilty of at least two felonies, failing to secure classified material and destruction of evidence (her 30,000 deleted emails). The campaign pledge I am probably happiest Trump reneged on was prosecuting Hillary Clinton. Arguably her crimes were more serious than trying to end an investigation into a crime he knew didn’t happen or failing to disclose payoffs to a mistress. Don’t get me wrong, Trump makes Richard Nixon look like George Washington. He probably deserves to go to prison, if not for what he’s done as president then for his shady business dealings before. But we should be wary of starting a tradition where political opponents are subject to criminal investigations as soon as a different political party office.
Your ‘honest opinion’ hardly matters in that Hillary Clinton was investigated by the FBI for these alleged crimes and was cleared. You mention the importance of ‘mens rea’ in regard to Trump Jr, but leave out the reason Hillary Clinton wasn’t charged for her ‘crimes’ is precisely that no ‘mens rea’ could be established. In fact, the FBI outright concluded that Hillary Clinton had no criminal intent.
In contrast, Donald Trump was investigated and something like 800 former prosecutors have said there is sufficient evidence for him to be charged criminally.
It’s that you have these sorts of obvious biases and contradictions in your posts that lead me to conclude that you’re a joke as well as an obviously lousy lawyer.
Way to go Dad. Trump just threw Don Jr. under the bus here. I’d say that that is the newsworthy thing about this interview. Because actually, the thing that Trump does need to report — legally — IS the content, not the contact, in this specific instance. Scoop’s last sentence is correct in 99% of situations one could imagine where ‘political dirt’ is offered. Info/dirt that can undermine a campaign is usually scandalous but not criminal. The press does a real disservice to describe the evidence promised and exchanged in the Trump Tower meeting simply as ‘dirt’. Here, instead, we have specific evidence of the violation of a felony — 52 US Code § 30121 — having been committed by the Clinton campaign and by the DNC. And this evidence was not only promised to Don Jr, it was DELIVERED. And did Don, Jr turn this evidence of a crime over to the FBI as his Dad says that HE would? No, of course not, he destroyed it. Two felony counts committed by Don, Jr right there: failing to report a crime and concealing/destroying evidence of a felony. Remember, that is criminal conduct where the people supplying the evidence were foreign nationals or Americans!
There is no wiggle room here for Don, Jr. He has already admitted that the promised evidence of the Clinton campaign and the DNC receiving foreign funds WAS delivered by the Russians he met with. (This admission was made by his lawyer, Alan Futerfas). In addition, Mr Akmetshin, one of the Russians attending the Trump Tower meeting, said the same thing in telling the press his side of the story.
So it really is the ‘content’ that matters here, not the ‘contact’. A concealment felony was committed by Trump Jr because of the nature of the criminal evidence that he received and disposed of. It really doesn’t matter who gave it to him.
Of course Republicans don’t think this is bad. Honestly, it’s small potatoes to some of the stuff they’ve done.
Nixon intentionally tried to stop peace talks with the North Vietnamese because it would hurt reelection chances:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461
There’s evidence Reagan conspired with Iran to wait until after the election to release US hostages, in exchange for weapons and release of funds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory
It’s been disputed that occurred even though individuals within the government are adamant that happened. But hey, as it turns out, there turned out to be a pattern with this thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
Not surprising, it’s in the Republican blood to obscure things for their true intentions:
“Atwater: Y’all don’t quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger”. By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this”, is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger”. So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the backbone.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater#1980_and_1984_elections
Great track record there. You got Trump. You got war hawk Dub-ya and Cheney who invented a fake war over a non-existent weapons program in a third world country for oil. You got the Reagan/Bush Sr administrations that conspired to sell arms to Iran to fund extremists in Nicaragua – which helped lead to the collapse of government and the refugee problem we have today. And most likely held secret meetings to hold off US hostages from seeing their families to help election chances. And Nixon, who flat out committed treason even before Watergate, to keep American soldiers dying.
So we know the Republican track record here. Keep people down, keep people dying, all for political gains. Then make it obscure enough just like the ‘Southern Strategy’ – and get mindless Republicans to focus on if someone’s standing for the anthem or not, and not protesting pointless wars, all while the blood keeps flowing. Trump’s just the new kid on the block here for a long line of war criminals and murderers, and the people who have always supported them.
I am shocked…SHOCKED!…to discover anyone in Washington would consider taking dirt on their opponent from a foreign source! Also, I am shocked to discover there’s gambling at Rick’s!
Hillary Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon to the Washington Post (Oct. 24, 2017) on whether he would have taken the alleged dirt on Donald Trump from Russia before the 2016 election:
“But if I had gotten handed it last fall, I would have had no problem passing it along and urging reporters to look into it. Opposition research happens on every campaign, and here you had probably the most shadowy guy ever running for president, and the FBI certainly has seen fit to look into it. I probably would have volunteered to go to Europe myself to try and verify if it would have helped get more of this out there before the election.”
Well, no need to be so indirect. Hillary herself admitted that she wished she had known about the Steele reports so she could have used them.
But there’s a key difference. Info coming from a random British national who did some research comes with no strings attached, even if it might be illegal to accept it in a political campaign. Accepting info from Steele is like taking a tip from James Bond. In fact it’s exactly like that. Steele essentially was James Bond.
On the other hand, information coming from a foreign GOVERNMENT comes with all kinds of strings, and expectations of tit-for-tat. (Sanctions, anyone?) Frankly, now that Dana Rohrabacher is out of politics, I can’t imagine any other current politician corrupt enough to accept some dirt on an opponent if offered by Putin or Kim Jong-Un. That’s also out of a Bond movie – but in Bond VILLAIN territory.
What do you think Reagan would have done if Brezhnev had offered him dirt on Jimmy Carter when Reagan was way behind in the polls? I may be naive, but I think the Gipper would have told him to shove it, and would have reported it to the intelligence agencies. I believe Obama would have done the same if Kim’s father had offered him exclusive dirt on John McCain. Same with Al Gore and GW Bush. Same, I believe with Mike Pence.
As for Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney? OK, maybe they are as slimy as Trump. That one is a tough call.