The Russia Thingy

originally posted by: whyamIhere

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: whyamIhere
It sure looks like he is helping millions of Americans.

But, feel free to dabble in this ridiculous concept.

The level of butt hurt is astounding.

I would dispute "He's helping millions...." but it is not the subject. Thanks for stopping by.

The "Russia Thingy" is made up because some couldn't handle losing.

For over a year that lie is all there was to hang onto.

So, stop perpetrating this lie. There is no "Russia Thingy".

Only crybabies that for a year spout this lie...

No one cares about the election. We care about our votes going forward.

If you're complaining about the "over a year" don't have your president fire the person in charge of the FBI investigation in order to attempt to extricate himself from it.

Mueller is a lifelong Republican, has been a prosecutor and head of the FBI for over 40 years. You think he'd just "waste time" to assuage Dem "feelings"?

The "crybabies" are those on the right willing to overlook absolutely anything, so long as its done by their hero. Speaking of heroes, what's Bannon's thing? Bannon says it's all real, in fact I think the word Bannon used was "treason" (whether it fits the constitutional definition or not, that's Bannon's word). Is Bannon just "butthurt" too??

"On to" is two words, btw.

originally posted by: keenmachine
a reply to: FyreByrd

Jimmy Dore does a video on this very debate. As glen greenwald points out perfectly there is no way whatever trump did or didn't do with Russia, does treason by definition fit at all. .

I know of Jimmy Dore and will look for that video.

On the point of 'treason' I agree with what Greenwald lays out in the video.

However I do think Risen has a more general point on the mainstream usage of the word treason and how often it has be erroniously used in public discourse (i.e. as you mention Risen being called a Traitor, any whistle blower being called a Traitor, and all the other recent abuses of the term). By that standard, we can easily see how one could call the president a traitor.

What was interesting also, was how each man would not concede any points to the other in this area.

I found the whole discussion so very interesting.

originally posted by: smurfy


The article III though says this,
'Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court'

The seemingly an alternative... 'in adhering to their enemies' is very vague.. an enemy is a hostile, it doesn't mean war per se, only especially so in war.

Anyway, courts won't want to go down that road if there is no war on. A charge of spying/divulging of information is there to do much the same job.

Mueller so far has has made the complaint of conspiracy to defraud the US in his 13 charges against the Russians, that seems to be a rare enough charge, the charges all have the caveat included of other un-named co-conspiritors, and my guess is that he is in for the long haul, if complex, and looking for a lot more items, that may include more serious offences, and if he has anything more, even a whiff, it would be wrong to stop him.

I beleive that Greenwald sites a clarifying court ruling in the support of "declared enemeies" , I will try to find it.

originally posted by: Cassi3l
This month's The Atlantic - Paul Manafort-american-hustler is a pretty good place to start for background reading

We find that Manafort, a serious mover and shaker in political circles since the '80's
went on to ply his trade for some pretty nasty people to help them win elections...

Link

After nigh on 20 years in the US political wilderness,
and 16 million in debt to a russian oliagarch/mafia type Oleg Derispaska
Manafort thought he could make things right (money wise) by helping Team Trump

With the arrival of Donald Trump, Manafort smelled an opportunity to regain his losses, and to return to relevance. It was, in some ways, perfect: The campaign was a shambolic masterpiece of improvisation that required an infusion of technical knowledge and establishment credibility.

The Manafort narrative is thread worthy in it's own right

A great article, thank you. It's helps clear some of the water. Again thank you for posting.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

Directly influencing is one thing, and I agree that this did not happen. However, the indirect influence is a major concern. i hate to use this notion, but it works like that ''butterfly effect.. Toss into the internet a large number of false assumptions and only a few will pick them up. But then what those few do with those assumptions is to believe them and spread them and people who trust those believers end up believing too.

It happens to both sides. I remember the meme of a picture of trump from the 90s where he was supposed to have said that if he ever ran for president he would do so as a Republican because yadda yadda. i believed that one for several weeks until someone here debunked it and thankfully so.

a reply to: NobodiesNormal

In an ideal world, what you say is totally agreeable. That is the way it SHOULD be. But it is not. Trump himself set the stage for identity politics when he came to the debates. Ridicule and slander of all the rest of the debaters. Making fun of physical peculiarities, that was Trumps game throughout.

For a while I thought gee, this businessman might know the best people to run things. The brag was let's get a real businessman as potus and treat the country as a business. Ok, let's do it.

But what has he done? He has hired family and more family, he has picked goofballs like the Mooch and Amarossa. The best people have? His cabnet choices are a joke. What's his name from Texas, couldn't even remember the name of the agency he was put in charge of. And Carson in charge of Urban development.
All over the spectrum his choices have not been the best, they either fail or quit or whatever.

And as far as policies go, his policy of "I am the only one who can save America'' is one hell of a policy.

a reply to: NobodiesNormal
Yes I do. He ran to increase brand awareness. Then he won and now he is fighting for the life of his brand. Before he was president, people engaged with him not because he was such a great busnessman, but that he, more than most had found a simple truth, that people will flock to brands regardless of other products often superiour or less expensive.
He had people willing to go along with his ventures because they hoped to ride on the coattales of his brand.

As president he thought it would be the same, that everyone would just flock to improve their lot by siding with him, but he has found out differently. He thought being president would be easy for him.