patrick.net

mell says

The time has been long overdue to embrace Russia as a friend rather than an enemy.

The time to do that was before Putin. Putin has made Russia worse.

Yes we should try to thaw relations as much as possible, but we should not trust them and we should guard our voting machines from being hacked by them. And we should definitely be cautious about Trump being compromised by them.

Dan8267 says

There is zero chance of Trump going to prison. No high ranking politician in the U.S. has ever gone to prison or even been convicted of a crime. Evidence is irrelevant. Politicians have an unwritten rule that no high ranking politician will ever be treated like a commoner and will never be subject to being caged like a commoner.

:Process" "Rule of Law"

mell says

So do you think the - sometimes extremely hateful and aggressive - rhetoric against Trump by many politicians is just political theater?

Plenty of people believed Obama could do no good because he was a nigger Democrat. Many Republicans voted against his policies even when his policies where literally the Republican policies from a few years ago. Plenty of right-wing conservatives accused Obama of ridiculous things like being a secret Muslim and hating America simply because he was a black Democrat.

Despite all this fake outrage at Obama, there were plenty of bad things Obama did. One could criticize Obama extensively for those bad things which has nothing to do with the fake outrage by racist conservative rightwingers.

By the exact same token, any reasonable person would criticize Trump for a plethora of legitimate problems, and such criticism would have nothing to do with the fake outrage by social justice warrior conservative leftwingers who hate Trump because of what they think he symbolizes.

Tell me, are you really so foolish as to think Trump is a good president? Seriously?

mell says

Well then you should get your impeachment soon.. Or not if there's no evidence.

Your analysis is completely wrong. No entity can self-police, especially not the government. Impeachments don't happen or fail to happen because of legal right and wrong. They happen or don't because of politics and nothing more.

We don't know how much Trump is entangled with Russia, but only an idiot thinks Trump is not at all entangled.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

:Process" "Rule of Law"

?

Dan8267 says

Plenty of people believed Obama could do no good because he was a nigger Democrat. Many Republicans voted against his policies even when his policies where literally the Republican policies from a few years ago. Plenty of right-wing conservatives accused Obama of ridiculous things like being a secret Muslim and hating America simply because he was a black Democrat.

Despite all this fake outrage at Obama, there were plenty of bad things Obama did. One could criticize Obama extensively for those bad things which has nothing to do with the fake outrage by racist conservative rightwingers.

By the exact same token, any reasonable person would criticize Trump for a plethora of legitimate problems, and such criticism would have nothing to do with the fake outrage by social justice warrior conservative leftwingers who hate Trump because of what they think he symbolizes.

Tell me, are you really so foolish as to think Trump is a good president? Seriously?

I think he is better than HRC, but he wasn't my favorite candidate. However the question was with so many Dems calling for impeachment (Maxine Waters etc.) and pretty much 90% of the media against him why would you think he cannot be impeached? Is it just political theater by his opponents? Obama was never attacked like Trump was although I agree many attacks were ludicrous. I consider him a better president than W though I certainly didn't like his presidency.

Dan8267 says

Your analysis is completely wrong. No entity can self-police, especially not the government. Impeachments don't happen or fail to happen because of legal right and wrong. They happen or don't because of politics and nothing more.

We don't know how much Trump is entangled with Russia, but only an idiot thinks Trump is not at all entangled.

That sort of answers the above question mostly. I think if they had anything serious on him they would have started long ago. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about a bj, why should Trump, who has pretty much everybody against him (it seems) get away by bending the rule of law?

mell says

However the question was with so many Dems calling for impeachment (Maxine Waters etc.) and pretty much 90% of the media against him why would you think he cannot be impeached?

1. I don't think he cannot be impeached. I think he won't spend a day in prison because he is a high ranking politician.
2. Only a single Democrat has actually called for Trump's impeachment. That's hardly "so many". His reason was that Trump obstructed justice by interfering with the ongoing federal investigation into Russia's involvement in the 2016 election.
3. It's irrelevant if the Democrats want to impeach Trump. Only the Republicans can actually impeach them since they have the majority in House. Impeachment requires a majority support in the House of Representatives, and actually removing the president from office requires two-thirds approval in the Senate. The Republicans control both chambers and so only they can actually impeach Trump or later remove Trump from office.

mell says

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about a bj

Bill Clinton was impeached for being an effective president. His impeachment was purely political. He absolutely did not lie under oath. That is a complete falsehood.

Bill Clinton simply answered the question that was asked of him and did not volunteer any further information. The Republicans fucked up by not asking what they wanted to ask. They did not ask if Clinton was fellated by Monica Lewinsky. They asked if Clinton had sexual intercourse with Lewinsky. Big fucking difference. It's not Clinton's fault that dumb ass Republicans don't even know the right euphemisms for sexual acts. Sexual "relations" means intercourse, not fellatio. Hell, I knew that since the fifth grade.

By the way, there is no legitimate reason to ask a president if he had fellatio with a consenting woman. None whatsoever. The entire thing was a trap. The Trump Russian scandal is entirely different. No one trapped Trump into being compromised by Russia, and it's a national security issue. Bill Clinton's dick isn't a national security issue.

mell says

Trump, who has pretty much everybody against him

Oh yes, because conservative media never wrongfully attacked President Blackie McBlackass. They never tried to make him look bad.

Dan8267 says

2. Only a single Democrat has actually called for Trump's impeachment. That's hardly "so many".

You may want to research this again, I count at least 3 (Speier, Moore, Green).


Dan8267 says

Bill Clinton was impeached for being an effective president. His impeachment was purely political. He absolutely did not lie under oath. That is a complete falsehood.

That was the narrative. How is this different than saying the narrative against trump is a falsehood? I didn't think it was necessary at that time but it was to show an example that impeachments do happen if there is evidence. True the Repubs are in control, but some were close to defecting. But since no evidence was provided, they didn't have to fear to be on the wrong side and suddenly got silent. But you can't say they are as tight-nit as Dems were during Obama.Dan8267 says

Oh yes, because conservative media never wrongfully attacked President Blackie McBlackass. They never tried to make him look bad.

They did, but I'd say it pales compared to the Trump firestorm.

Dan8267 says

?

I'm in favor of "(Legal) Process" and "Rule of Law", as you advocate with your notice that politicians get no time.

Who knows, maybe we'll see Rx Menendez get some time. I want a special prosecutor to look into his motive for trying to prevent/water down the Medicare Fraud Investigation.

It would be nice if we enforced the law and had "process" onoging for immigration law violators, also.

If there was something it would be found by now. But the only thing we have is left wing conspiracy theories.

I listen to NPR just so I know how low Liberals are willing to go next.

All countries work hard to influence the internal affairs of other countries and disrupt them. Computers are just another avenue. Get used to it.

The USA has been finger fucking foreign sovereignties since it's inception, stop with the righteousness, already.

mell says

Dan8267 says

2. Only a single Democrat has actually called for Trump's impeachment. That's hardly "so many".

You may want to research this again, I count at least 3 (Speier, Moore, Green).

I might be wrong on this, but to clarify what I meant, as far as I know only one Democrat has actually called for a vote on impeachment, which is all that matters. Tweeting about impeachment does not count. I think you and I might be talking about different things.

Tweeting and talking about impeachment is just bullshit political rhetoric. The Republicans engaged in that every single day during the Obama administration. The did not, however, call for a vote to impeach the Obama.

Again, I might be wrong about this, but the last time I checked only one Democrat actually called for impeachment in a Congressional session.

mell says

How is this different than saying the narrative against trump is a falsehood?

It is absolutely certain that Trump obstructed justice -- hell, he admitted to that on television -- and that alone is an impeachable offense. It is also absolutely known that Trump and his campaign officials had many Russian contacts that they lied about under oath. That is also impeachable. What isn't know is how strong those contacts are, and how much influence the Russians have over the Trump administration. However, this is clearly a national security issue whereas Bill Clinton's dick is not.

mell says

But since no evidence was provided

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/13/15952212/trump-russia-investigation-evidence http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/14/media/charles-krauthammer-donald-trump-jr-collusion/index.html
mell says

They did, but I'd say it pales compared to the Trump firestorm.

You're only saying that because this time it's your team being attacked. There is at least legitimacy to attacking Trump on Russia. I say this as someone who advocated strongly against Hillary being elected. Any impartial person will acknowledge that the Trump scandal is a real one and a grave national security concern.

anonymous says

Dan8267 says

1. The Russian government broken into the DNC headquarters' computers

This has been proven to be an absolute lie, due to transfer speeds. Metadata has shown the email files were copied to a flash drive DIRECTLY from the servers inside the DNC. There's zero evidence the data was hacked from a remote location. This is why the DNC won't let the FBI look at their computers.

That would still constitute breaking into computers. Any unauthorized access does regardless of how it's done.

Dan8267 says

You're only saying that because this time it's your team being attacked. There is at least legitimacy to attacking Trump on Russia. I say this as someone who advocated strongly against Hillary being elected. Any impartial person will acknowledge that the Trump scandal is a real one and a grave national security concern.

My team was Rand Paul, in fact I actively donated for a while. I do have a personal (and logical) interest in good relation with Russia, but - aside - from meetings I see no evidence of any sort of deal. And meetings are not prosecution worthy or impeachable. At some time the lamestream media purported a story where Trump "might" have stayed in some hotel and engaged in golden showers. WTF? This is worse than the Clinton BJ coverage. What it seems like is that Trump was forced to give up on good relations with Russia and back the sanctions and mild saber-rattling by the deep state. Part of the push-pull game.

Dan8267 says

That would still constitute breaking into computers. Any unauthorized access does regardless of how it's done.

That could mean somebody on the inside - Rich, the Awan Brothers, etc. - got the info and then passed it on or sold it. An inside job, which makes the Dems look even weaker on CyberSecurity after the Clinton Email Server and Podesta's Moron P@ssw0rd

Dan8267 says

That would still constitute breaking into computers. Any unauthorized access does regardless of how it's done.

But the OP was about Russia. Facts have shown it wasn't Russia that broke into the DNC computers. Time for you liberals to find another boogieman.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

That could mean somebody on the inside - Rich, the Awan Brothers, etc. - got the info and then passed it on or sold it.

Perhaps, it's conjecture. However, it's irrelevant.

It is not bad that the Russians broken into DNC computers, copied data, and released it to the public. Regardless of their intentions, the people have the right to know what shady backroom deals the politicians are doing. Anyone who bitches about the DNC's shady dealings being exposed is saying "fuck the people, they don't have the right to know what politicians are actually doing". That's a very weak case to make.

However, the issue of Russia trying to hack into election machines is a very serious issue. And that's not in the best interest of the American public, and it is a national security issue.

Furthermore, the argument for impeaching Trump has nothing to do with either of these issues. There are three independent legitimate arguments to impeach Trump whether or not their is sufficient evidence to remove him from office, which is something only a trial would reveal.
1. Trump obstructed justice by interfering with an FBI investigation. This is a cold, hard fact.
2. Trump and his campaign perjured about ties to Russia and meeting Russian government officials. This is also a cold, hard fact.
3. Trump may be compromised by blackmail and/or business deals with the Russian government or government officials.

Each of these is a serious matter. The only one that is questionable is the third, but the suspicion is certainly reasonable and the consequences dire.

Dan8267 says

1. Trump obstructed justice by interfering with an FBI investigation. This is a cold, hard fact.
2. Trump and his campaign perjured about ties to Russia and meeting Russian government officials. This is also a cold, hard fact.
3. Trump may be compromised by blackmail and/or business deals with the Russian government or government officials.

Each of these is a serious matter. The only one that is questionable is the third, but the suspicion is certainly reasonable and the consequences dire.

1. Interfering with an FBI investigation? Cmon that's ridiculous. If you want to say that firing the director counts, then you'd have to charge Trump with interfering with every one of the doubtless thousands of investigations ongoing at the time. Which is ridiculous. This kind of charge is a nebulous catch-all they like to tack onto something more serious, but is ridiculously tough to prove by itself.

2. I'm not aware of ANY perjury by Trump or his campaign, on any subject. Reminding you of course, that one is only able to commit perjury while under oath by a court or congress. Lying in any other context is not perjury. So even if you parse everyone's spoken words for lies about Russia, you still won't have a legal leg to stand on!

3. Yes, but his arm is crooked in that picture so it's fake!

Could you BE any more grandiose and wrong at the same time? It's a high bar.

anonymous says

This has been proven to be an absolute lie, due to transfer speeds. Metadata has shown the email files were copied to a flash drive DIRECTLY from the servers inside the DNC. There's zero evidence the data was hacked from a remote location. This is why the DNC won't let the FBI look at their computers.

The theory of one anonymous blogger called “The Forensicator” isn't proof of anything.

bob2356 says

proof of anything

That's exactly what we are missing. Proof of goddam anything!

Quigley says

1. Interfering with an FBI investigation? Cmon that's ridiculous

No, it's not. Firing a head cop for the expressed purpose of hindering the investigation that cop was conducting when you are integrity suspect in that investigation is the very definition of obstruction of justice. It's like if Al Capone had fired Eliot Ness.

It is ridiculous to assert that Trump was not obstructing justice.

Quigley says

2. I'm not aware of ANY perjury by Trump or his campaign, on any subject. Reminding you of course, that one is only able to commit perjury while under oath by a court or congress

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/11/donald-trump-jr-may-have-just-crossed-the-legal-line-on-collusion/?utm_term=.99b817459708

Jacobovitz said conspiracy to commit election fraud is the big legal fish Mueller and his team may be trying to fry. But they're probably also looking at a whole host of laws that could have been broken under this scenario: quid pro quo with the Russians, bribery, potential perjury related to what members of the Trump campaign said under oath to Congress and failing to disclose these contacts in official security forms.

And you can commit perjury without lying to Congress, as again, the Trump campaign did.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/trump-jr-russia-email/533304/

“If the emails are probative of anything, it’s of any sworn statements [Trump Jr.], or others, might have made to federal investigators or on paperwork signed under penalty of perjury, where the meeting might either have been omitted or mischaracterized,” Vladeck said. Lying to federal investigators during an investigation is a felony offense.

OK, so now that you are aware of the evidence, you'll change your mind, right?

Quigley says

3. Yes, but his arm is crooked in that picture so it's fake!

A non-argument that carries no weight.

Quigley says

Could you BE any more grandiose and wrong at the same time? It's a high bar.

The facts are the facts, and you have failed to refute them. What you call grandiose, the rest of the world calls serious legal liability. Your attempts to make like of these facts and the legal issues does not detract from the gravity of the situation. If you tried to make such a defense to any judge, you'd lose big time.

Quigley says

That's exactly what we are missing. Proof of goddam anything!

What exactly would constitute proof by your standards?