Don't you love that the Intel committee has asked Adam Schiff to resign?
He just can't be fair and keeps pushing the false narrative. good job!
61-69, F
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Can't say that I love it, but I get why others do, and I'd probably be cheering for stuff like this with certain other folks, if I didn't step back and look at this.
We've had two years of relatively defensive politics, while Democrats like Schiff basically have been whining about Trump, with a brief flurry of more activity after they took the house, but it's been still pretty muted with Mueller out and the establishment Democrats not wanting things to turn too nasty when they can't do impeachment, are outgunned by the Senate and the White House, and IMO, are really not quite as well suited for vitriolic attacks as Republicans are (I know, there are exceptions like Waters, and younger ones like Tlaib and AOC, and the media has been pretty aggressive).
I think up till now, despite Trump's the best defense is a high risk offense temperament, Republicans have held back a lot as well, between lingering old school conservatives like McCain holding them back, concern over Trump's impetuosity and inexperience, and the fact that Mueller and Rosenstein, are in fact Republicans, and while they have attacked the witch Hunt, most of the real vitriolic stuff has still been coming from Conservative media (again, there are lots of exceptions). Even Trump himself has arguably been relatively passive at times while he tries to juggle being President, leading the Party and his flock and his own nature.
The Barr Summary may be a real game changer, starting with the battle over revealing and using the fruit of Mueller's investigation, but likely, IMO, even more so later as it gets closer to election time.
Republicans have already started, with this Schiff thing, rumors of attack ads against journalists who contradict their spin on the Summary, and a very short victory lap already morphing into a more aggressive stance. I suspect, while they may lose some battles over the Mueller reveal, they'll have the upper hand and will soon be playing a a more brutal, reckless and big play offense than ever before with Trump playing QB and calling more and more of the plays.
The Democrats, despite folks like Pelosi and some lingering motivation not to get down in the dirt, will sling the mud back, and they'll need to if they want to stay in a high scoring game with Trump and the Senate giving the other side home field advantage and a louder, if not necessarily louder fan base.
I think the Republican call for Schiff's resignation is likely the beginning of much nastier and combative days ahead, and whether a Special Counsel is appointed to investigate the FISA/Dossier, the FBI, the deep state, the Obama administration, and the Clinton Crime Family or not, I expect that someone in the Republican Senate will step up and keep a Congressional hand in attacking their opposition so as to counter balance whatever oversight the Democrats are doing in the House and provide a more public investigation and witch Hunt than a Special Counsel or even an AG could manage.
However much fun this skirmish with Schiff might be, I think it's the beginning of a very bloody war.
We've had two years of relatively defensive politics, while Democrats like Schiff basically have been whining about Trump, with a brief flurry of more activity after they took the house, but it's been still pretty muted with Mueller out and the establishment Democrats not wanting things to turn too nasty when they can't do impeachment, are outgunned by the Senate and the White House, and IMO, are really not quite as well suited for vitriolic attacks as Republicans are (I know, there are exceptions like Waters, and younger ones like Tlaib and AOC, and the media has been pretty aggressive).
I think up till now, despite Trump's the best defense is a high risk offense temperament, Republicans have held back a lot as well, between lingering old school conservatives like McCain holding them back, concern over Trump's impetuosity and inexperience, and the fact that Mueller and Rosenstein, are in fact Republicans, and while they have attacked the witch Hunt, most of the real vitriolic stuff has still been coming from Conservative media (again, there are lots of exceptions). Even Trump himself has arguably been relatively passive at times while he tries to juggle being President, leading the Party and his flock and his own nature.
The Barr Summary may be a real game changer, starting with the battle over revealing and using the fruit of Mueller's investigation, but likely, IMO, even more so later as it gets closer to election time.
Republicans have already started, with this Schiff thing, rumors of attack ads against journalists who contradict their spin on the Summary, and a very short victory lap already morphing into a more aggressive stance. I suspect, while they may lose some battles over the Mueller reveal, they'll have the upper hand and will soon be playing a a more brutal, reckless and big play offense than ever before with Trump playing QB and calling more and more of the plays.
The Democrats, despite folks like Pelosi and some lingering motivation not to get down in the dirt, will sling the mud back, and they'll need to if they want to stay in a high scoring game with Trump and the Senate giving the other side home field advantage and a louder, if not necessarily louder fan base.
I think the Republican call for Schiff's resignation is likely the beginning of much nastier and combative days ahead, and whether a Special Counsel is appointed to investigate the FISA/Dossier, the FBI, the deep state, the Obama administration, and the Clinton Crime Family or not, I expect that someone in the Republican Senate will step up and keep a Congressional hand in attacking their opposition so as to counter balance whatever oversight the Democrats are doing in the House and provide a more public investigation and witch Hunt than a Special Counsel or even an AG could manage.
However much fun this skirmish with Schiff might be, I think it's the beginning of a very bloody war.
1-25 of 42
akindheart · 61-69, F
@MistyCee i like your last statement and concur. The battle is just beginning. AS for the other statement about the Reps slinging dirt, i feel it has been the other way around. The problem is the Dems were so hanging their hats on Mueller finding something. Mueller could not let them down so he left the obstruction statement hanging. Even though he could not find any evidence of obstruction or else he would have charged it.
I don't ever remember any reps asking citizens to attack public servants. And the stupid public took her up on her words. the truth is the Reps let this hang over our heads for almost 2 years. they tried to make trump look bad,tried to portray him as incompetent and it didn't work. They even turned his own party against him for the first year all to no avail. He is in office and there is nothing they can do. all of this is going to backfire on them.
you bet the reps are after blood. And they should be. I can't wait for the heads to roll. I would recommend you get your typing fingers ready because i read the indictments are being prepared. And they are leading to the top.
I don't ever remember any reps asking citizens to attack public servants. And the stupid public took her up on her words. the truth is the Reps let this hang over our heads for almost 2 years. they tried to make trump look bad,tried to portray him as incompetent and it didn't work. They even turned his own party against him for the first year all to no avail. He is in office and there is nothing they can do. all of this is going to backfire on them.
you bet the reps are after blood. And they should be. I can't wait for the heads to roll. I would recommend you get your typing fingers ready because i read the indictments are being prepared. And they are leading to the top.
@akindheart I don't have nearly the same investment in defending Democrats or attacking Republicans in general as I do with Trump in particular.
The weaponizing of the DOJ by Trump to seek revenge and purify America would really worry me, but my ears perked up with Obama and the IRS as well, and legitimate prosecution of criminal conduct is something that probably would have happened a lot more effectively if Trump wasn't at war with the DOJ. For example, I'm not sure Sessions would have had to recuse himself from FISA violations or Uranium One.
Plus, while the idea of weaponizing the DOJ for revenge and making America loyal to Trump above all is pretty abhorrent to me, if it's done through otherwise or at least formerly ethical professional prosecutors it doesn't hit me in the gut as strongly as wrong as using making the same allegations against the same people in public to deflect from and delegitimize other criminal or civil litigation, even when or maybe especially when the prosecution is by an special prosecutor appointed because Congress is I'll equipped and unwilling to excercise it's consitutional duties.
Could be because judges' jobs are to throw out both frivoulous prosecutions and defenses, and I'm frustrated by executive immunity, the idea that the President is above the law and supreme over the other two branches, but I've never been happy about having lawyers argue for their clients in the press, although I did get a guilty kick out of Avenatti and Stormy doing their thing.
I'm sure I'll have opinions, but the thrill of a fight and the smell of blood don't do it for me as much as the art of the battle, and I'd rather see a controlled conflict with minimal casualties than a total war that resulting in massive casualties, the destruction of infrastructure and the salting of fields.
It's not even because Democrats can't win an impeachment battle and are likely less likely to unseat a sitting President with a decent economy by attacking him on things his supporters don't mind.
Deep down, I think I like the stability that issue oriented politics and civil debate based on shared objective facts offers better than ad hominem attacks, alternate facts and polarizing demogoguery.
I see that the latter is effective, and that politicians can't win by taking the high ground when enough voters love and cheer low blows, but I find it distasteful and destructive as opposed to constructive and enlightening.
The weaponizing of the DOJ by Trump to seek revenge and purify America would really worry me, but my ears perked up with Obama and the IRS as well, and legitimate prosecution of criminal conduct is something that probably would have happened a lot more effectively if Trump wasn't at war with the DOJ. For example, I'm not sure Sessions would have had to recuse himself from FISA violations or Uranium One.
Plus, while the idea of weaponizing the DOJ for revenge and making America loyal to Trump above all is pretty abhorrent to me, if it's done through otherwise or at least formerly ethical professional prosecutors it doesn't hit me in the gut as strongly as wrong as using making the same allegations against the same people in public to deflect from and delegitimize other criminal or civil litigation, even when or maybe especially when the prosecution is by an special prosecutor appointed because Congress is I'll equipped and unwilling to excercise it's consitutional duties.
Could be because judges' jobs are to throw out both frivoulous prosecutions and defenses, and I'm frustrated by executive immunity, the idea that the President is above the law and supreme over the other two branches, but I've never been happy about having lawyers argue for their clients in the press, although I did get a guilty kick out of Avenatti and Stormy doing their thing.
I'm sure I'll have opinions, but the thrill of a fight and the smell of blood don't do it for me as much as the art of the battle, and I'd rather see a controlled conflict with minimal casualties than a total war that resulting in massive casualties, the destruction of infrastructure and the salting of fields.
It's not even because Democrats can't win an impeachment battle and are likely less likely to unseat a sitting President with a decent economy by attacking him on things his supporters don't mind.
Deep down, I think I like the stability that issue oriented politics and civil debate based on shared objective facts offers better than ad hominem attacks, alternate facts and polarizing demogoguery.
I see that the latter is effective, and that politicians can't win by taking the high ground when enough voters love and cheer low blows, but I find it distasteful and destructive as opposed to constructive and enlightening.
akindheart · 61-69, F
@MistyCee Trump weaponizing the DOJ? Like Obama and Clinton didn't do that. the evidence is out there that was done and will hopefully be prosecuted. you can stay tuned for that. How i see it is that Trump waited for the Mueller report-it was all in the timing. NOw they have had evidence for awhile on all the stuff you outlined above-Fisa abuse, the 302's, the fake Dossier, the spying on the Trump campaign, the insurance policy to take him out if he was elected, McCabe and Comey and the leakers Brennan and Clapper.
Let the court decide. As for McCain, he was a disgrace. He grandstanded. He was more DEm than Rep. I hope his soul comes to terms with all he did.
we need to restore our justice system, not give power to the ones who use it to their advantage.
The truth is Trump can play the game too. And the dems don't like it.
Let the court decide. As for McCain, he was a disgrace. He grandstanded. He was more DEm than Rep. I hope his soul comes to terms with all he did.
we need to restore our justice system, not give power to the ones who use it to their advantage.
The truth is Trump can play the game too. And the dems don't like it.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@MistyCee The Russian meddling before was simply setting the stage for later. Democrats fell for a silly hoax. There never was any evidence of Russian interference beyond the Steele dossier which was Russian disinformation! Got hand it to Putin he sure played the democrats!!!!
@hippyjoe1955 Ok. I've got to tell you, I never really thought much of the collusion angle as regards to Trump knowingly working in concert with Russia, but the thing is, I remember my Facebook feed filling up with what looked exactly like what Russia (or other foreign trolls) might promulgate to pull out the wackos on both the left and the right. It looked to me like stuff that was intended to create chaos, increase prejudices, destabilize things, and ultimately elect a destabilizing candidate like Trump. This still makes sense to me, Barr summary notwithstanding.
But I haven't seen anything to connect Putin with "Democrats" or for that matter, Republicans like Comey, Rosenstein or Mueller, other than the Steele Dossier, which is really murky at best.
But I haven't seen anything to connect Putin with "Democrats" or for that matter, Republicans like Comey, Rosenstein or Mueller, other than the Steele Dossier, which is really murky at best.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@MistyCee If you think that that was Russian meddling you must be a democrat. Every country does that to other countries. I know Canadians that went to the US to door knock for Hillary. I know American foundations that are pouring funds into Canada to keep the Liberals in power. Russia ran a few facebook posts and tossed the US into political chaos by planting some disinformation with the democrats. The democrats were and are the Russian stooges and they aren't smart enough to know that Russia didn't favor Trump over Hillary. They knew that they had to hamstring Trump because unlike Hillary he had not been bought and paid for. Hillary is a Russian asset and has been for years. She has no loyalty to Russia. She simply loves money and power and the Russians offered her both.
@hippyjoe1955 I saw a lot of stuff that looked phony to me aimed at both sides, tbh, and didn't immediately think of foreign sources at the time as much as the kind of thing that Trump was peddling on the campaign, like Pizzagate and thousands of Muslims dancing in New Jersey after 911.
If there's evidence of Democratic collusion, I'd love to see it, but I'm pretty skeptical from what I saw of Hillary and Putin.
But we'll see, I guess
If there's evidence of Democratic collusion, I'd love to see it, but I'm pretty skeptical from what I saw of Hillary and Putin.
But we'll see, I guess
@hippyjoe1955 I really doubt that no one's vote was influenced by Facebook posts, although I'd be skeptical of evidence purporting to prove that either way, and of the sincerity of anyone offering it.
That last part, though, should be a lot easier to find evidence of, if it exists.
That last part, though, should be a lot easier to find evidence of, if it exists.
@hippyjoe1955 Are you talking about the IRA and Facebook?
Because Barr's summary doesnt say one way or another whether Mueller found whether it influenced voters, only that it found no Trump campaign participation.
And I'm not insisting that it exists or doesn't exist, only that I'd be skeptical of proof offered either way.
I know you think my liberal leanings distorts my thinking process, but I don't think it does in this case. You said
The point is no one was influenced to vote one or the other based on facebook posts.
And I said, I doubted there was proof of this. I could be wrong, but if there is, it's not evident from the Barr summary, and there's no indication that Mueller even got to that issue.
Because Barr's summary doesnt say one way or another whether Mueller found whether it influenced voters, only that it found no Trump campaign participation.
And I'm not insisting that it exists or doesn't exist, only that I'd be skeptical of proof offered either way.
I know you think my liberal leanings distorts my thinking process, but I don't think it does in this case. You said
The point is no one was influenced to vote one or the other based on facebook posts.
And I said, I doubted there was proof of this. I could be wrong, but if there is, it's not evident from the Barr summary, and there's no indication that Mueller even got to that issue.
This message was deleted by its author.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@akindheart It was well known in the Obama administration that the whole set up was being covered by Obama himself. His henchmen did the deeds but in all reality the memo to self "Everything by the book" was not a cya it was an authorization letter. Obama wanted it 'by the book' AKA investigate everything that even had a hint of impropriety on the republican's part. Even if you had to make it up yourself.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@akindheart The Republican DOJ indicted Carter Page, and Manafort, and investigated Trump, but no one brought any charges against him.
Why there were no charges brought against Trump remains to be seen, except for the fact that Barr, a Republican appointed by Trump decided not to do it without much of an explanation why.
If Trump/Barr want to investigate convene a grand jury to attempt to indict Hillary, Lynch, Obama, or even Page or Strozk, they don't even need a Special Counsel, and could have done it any time in the last two years. And they still could.
I don't honestly think they will, because I think the entire mess is likely a whatabout concocted to create a legally spurious but popularly persuasive response to Trump's problems, and the fact that Trump is still whining about it tends to confirm my suspicions that either the evidence is not there, or, possibly (but not likely) Trump has ordered them not to move forward because it might make his problems worse.
Having said that, there is no reason to show "mercy" and really, Trump himself would be the only one who could do that.
Why there were no charges brought against Trump remains to be seen, except for the fact that Barr, a Republican appointed by Trump decided not to do it without much of an explanation why.
If Trump/Barr want to investigate convene a grand jury to attempt to indict Hillary, Lynch, Obama, or even Page or Strozk, they don't even need a Special Counsel, and could have done it any time in the last two years. And they still could.
I don't honestly think they will, because I think the entire mess is likely a whatabout concocted to create a legally spurious but popularly persuasive response to Trump's problems, and the fact that Trump is still whining about it tends to confirm my suspicions that either the evidence is not there, or, possibly (but not likely) Trump has ordered them not to move forward because it might make his problems worse.
Having said that, there is no reason to show "mercy" and really, Trump himself would be the only one who could do that.
@hippyjoe1955 Really?
Does that mean Mueller wasnt running a partisan witch Hunt for 2 years?
What about the 12 angry Democrats?
You're right, that the DOJ is supposed to be non partisan, and I added to the word Republican to make your point after [@kindheart] suggested that "It didnt' stop the Dems from going after a duly elected President ..."
I keep forgetting that the words Democrats, deep state, enemies of the people, globalists, liberals, etc, are interchangeable in Trump-speak.
Does that mean Mueller wasnt running a partisan witch Hunt for 2 years?
What about the 12 angry Democrats?
You're right, that the DOJ is supposed to be non partisan, and I added to the word Republican to make your point after [@kindheart] suggested that "It didnt' stop the Dems from going after a duly elected President ..."
I keep forgetting that the words Democrats, deep state, enemies of the people, globalists, liberals, etc, are interchangeable in Trump-speak.
1-25 of 42