Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
whembly wrote: No, because as a private citizen at the time he doesn't have the negotiating powah of the state.
This law is one of those outdated statute that hasn't been enforced in quite some time.
No. You've got that ass backwarda. Being a private citizen isn't a defence against the Logan Act, punishing private citizens for negotiating with foreign governments is the whole point of the act.
Nope. Private citizen doesn't have the authority... the listener would know that. Do you really believe that RU ambassador wouldn't know Flynn doesn't have the authority yet?
Hence why it's almost impossible to prosecute under this statute.
If, however, the private citizen sez "I represent the USG...yadda, yadda"... that's a whole different issue. Which is what Flynn was accused of early on...
The real issue is who's interests Flynn was representing when he made those calls. And the answer is "Donald Trump, very fething obviously".
Obviously.
Now we just wait and see if a transcript or recording of the call comes out, and if so how explicit it is that Flynn is giving Yrump's position on the issue.
That's not the issue (well, cant say that for sure w/o reading the transcript). Flynn lied or mislead Pence and Trump. Pence... with that information goes to public based on that information and is consequently looking like the jester of the court. That obviously has created an enormous rift between Flynn and Pence (and Trumpo made is displeasure over these 'infighting').
EDIT: Eli Lake thinks this is more of a political assassination, than some serious trangression. Lake was told, it wasn’t Flynn who broached the subject of sanctions at all. It was Kislyak who mentioned it, and Flynn gave a noncommittal answer about reviewing Russia policy.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/02/14 17:27:52
whembly wrote: No, because as a private citizen at the time he doesn't have the negotiating powah of the state.
This law is one of those outdated statute that hasn't been enforced in quite some time.
No. You've got that ass backwarda. Being a private citizen isn't a defence against the Logan Act, punishing private citizens for negotiating with foreign governments is the whole point of the act.
Nope. Private citizen doesn't have the authority... the listener would know that. Do you really believe that RU ambassador wouldn't know Flynn doesn't have the authority yet?
Hence why it's almost impossible to prosecute under this statute.
If, however, the private citizen sez "I represent the USG...yadda, yadda"... that's a whole different issue. Which is what Flynn was accused of early on...
The real issue is who's interests Flynn was representing when he made those calls. And the answer is "Donald Trump, very fething obviously".
Obviously.
Now we just wait and see if a transcript or recording of the call comes out, and if so how explicit it is that Flynn is giving Yrump's position on the issue.
That's not the issue (well, cant say that for sure w/o reading the transcript). Flynn lied or mislead Pence and Trump. Pence... with that information goes to public based on that information and is consequently looking like the jester of the court. That obviously has created an enormous rift between Flynn and Pence (and Trumpo made is displeasure over these 'infighting').
EDIT: Eli Lake thinks this is more of a political assassination, than some serious trangression. Lake was told, it wasn’t Flynn who broached the subject of sanctions at all. It was Kislyak who mentioned it, and Flynn gave a noncommittal answer about reviewing Russia policy.
Logan Act doesn't care about who has authority. It concerns itself much like the way of spying or just treason. Flynn doesn't need official authority and foreign governments could care less if Flynn doesn't becuase he could/will. Your fundamentally not getting the point. A state loses nothing by making a backroom deal with some guy that could be rising into power but it can gain greatly if it helps said individual. This is basic politics man. The Logan Act is set up to prevent this or at least punish it.
Your reading this as stopping some yahoo from creating trade deals or something. It isn't, it is about removing the incentive for people to work against the government and foreign powers to fish out people willing to work against the government for favors.
The Senate's second-ranking Republican and other GOP senators are calling for an investigation into connections between President Donald Trump and Russia, and want former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to testify.
Sen. John Cornyn, who has called for an investigation into Trump's tie to Russia before Flynn resigned, told reporters Tuesday that the Senate standing committees with oversight of intelligence need to investigate Flynn.
National security adviser Michael Flynn knew he had to resign after he misled the vice-president, a White House official has said.
"He knew he had become a lightning rod and he made that decision," Kellyanne Conway said on NBC's Today programme.
Mr Flynn resigned over allegations he discussed US sanctions with a Russian envoy before Donald Trump took office.
Republicans have joined congressional calls for an investigation into Mr Flynn's contacts with Russia.
EDIT: not sure how much of this, at its core, actually has meaningful substance beyond what fundamentally was a minor protocol booboo, but really shows how inept the administration is at managing almost anything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/14 18:23:47
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
And by saying that there is absolutely something ... "garish" ... about US politics, in general, but with the Republican Party in particular. The more or less recent push toward mass mis/disinformation as a valid tactic, the downgrading in quality of candidates, the overall tone and (lack of) content in debates... the disgusting hypocrisy in the bile reserved for H. Clinton... As much as I despise our crooked liberals, our biblethumping cons and our racists rednecks, there is nothing in the world that could tempt me to trade them for yours.
I saw a good piece in the lead up to the election asking what happened to decency. The writer wasn't pretending things were ever clean, but there used to be a notion that you at least had to pretend to be decent. Trump is not only suffers no penalty for his bullying, no nothing attacks, but it seems to be a major part of his appeal.
My view is that the Republicans have gradually gone down that road because people whose backs are against the wall are often prepared to fight desperately. I think their backs are against the wall because basically they are losing the Culture Wars (gay marriage, etc. is accepted by the majority) they are losing the economic war (tax cuts for the rich and trickle down clearly doesn't benefit the general populations) and they are losing the Science war inevitably because their views on Climate Change and similar issues are not in accordance with reality.
In such a situation, where you can't argue about facts and popular opinion, you have to start arguing about lies and smearing gak everywhere to muddy the scene.
How exactly do you think Trump can ruin the US economy since it takes an act of Congress to change Federal spending and to approve trade deals?
While to some degree correct, the office of the president is in charge of negotiating those trade deals and interacting with foreign governments, is in charge of managing agencies empowered by congress to execute domestic strategy, and can issue EO's on trade issues (such as banning importations of certain items, sanctions, entry into the US, etc), and this particular president is head of the party that controls congress. These all give the POTUS very powerful options for ruining the US economy, both directly and indirectly.
Trump has already made a good dent in the US economy's future by making it clear to talented, hard-working people from the rest of the world that they can feth off if he thinks it will get him a good photo-op.
whembly wrote: No, because as a private citizen at the time he doesn't have the negotiating powah of the state.
This law is one of those outdated statute that hasn't been enforced in quite some time.
No. You've got that ass backwarda. Being a private citizen isn't a defence against the Logan Act, punishing private citizens for negotiating with foreign governments is the whole point of the act.
Nope. Private citizen doesn't have the authority... the listener would know that. Do you really believe that RU ambassador wouldn't know Flynn doesn't have the authority yet?
Hence why it's almost impossible to prosecute under this statute.
If, however, the private citizen sez "I represent the USG...yadda, yadda"... that's a whole different issue. Which is what Flynn was accused of early on...
The real issue is who's interests Flynn was representing when he made those calls. And the answer is "Donald Trump, very fething obviously".
Obviously.
Now we just wait and see if a transcript or recording of the call comes out, and if so how explicit it is that Flynn is giving Yrump's position on the issue.
That's not the issue (well, cant say that for sure w/o reading the transcript). Flynn lied or mislead Pence and Trump. Pence... with that information goes to public based on that information and is consequently looking like the jester of the court. That obviously has created an enormous rift between Flynn and Pence (and Trumpo made is displeasure over these 'infighting').
EDIT: Eli Lake thinks this is more of a political assassination, than some serious trangression. Lake was told, it wasn’t Flynn who broached the subject of sanctions at all. It was Kislyak who mentioned it, and Flynn gave a noncommittal answer about reviewing Russia policy.
You are very naive if you think the Russians aren't capable of "hegotiating" with a "private citizen" who happens to be the expected next head of security of the expected next president. You are even more naive if you think such a "private citizen" would never possibly be in any position to influence poltiical matters in the future.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/14 18:27:07
The Senate's second-ranking Republican and other GOP senators are calling for an investigation into connections between President Donald Trump and Russia, and want former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to testify.
Sen. John Cornyn, who has called for an investigation into Trump's tie to Russia before Flynn resigned, told reporters Tuesday that the Senate standing committees with oversight of intelligence need to investigate Flynn.
National security adviser Michael Flynn knew he had to resign after he misled the vice-president, a White House official has said.
"He knew he had become a lightning rod and he made that decision," Kellyanne Conway said on NBC's Today programme.
Mr Flynn resigned over allegations he discussed US sanctions with a Russian envoy before Donald Trump took office.
Republicans have joined congressional calls for an investigation into Mr Flynn's contacts with Russia.
EDIT: not sure how much of this, at its core, actually has meaningful substance beyond what fundamentally was a minor protocol booboo, but really shows how inept the administration is at managing almost anything.
Cornyn is the other Texas senator, and one of the most conservative in Washington (and real conservative, not "Trump" conservative).
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Prestor Jon wrote: Projecting military power is vitally important, the whole point of NATO is to protect member nations from external threats which are out in the world beyond NATO borders.
What kind of threat are you talking about? Terrorism?
Prestor Jon wrote: How exactly do you think Trump can ruin the US economy since it takes an act of Congress to change Federal spending and to approve trade deals?
Do you think that thinks like his ban are just going to have no effect just because it was later taken to court? Do you really think that it won't make people think twice about organizing stuff in the US? It doesn't have to be enforced to leave quite a big impression. Don't get me wrong, it would have been even worse for the US if it has not been suspended, but don't fool yourself into thinking that having it suspended is going to instantly restore faith in the US for skilled foreign workers and people looking to employ them.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd actually be in support of a rearmorment if he could do it without antagonizing the neighbors too much.
They are pretty bad on the “Not antagonizing neighbors” with their “We just say sorry about our war-crimes so people stop bothering us with them but we don't actually feel any remorse, and we won't any foreign movies showing them”. Japan is very, very far from having honest remorse afaict.
This whole video is missing his famous “Sad!” invective. Sad!
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Now the OGE is recommending disciplinary action against Conway for shilling Ivanka's clothing line.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
The House seems to actually want some investigations, and the Senate is praising the swift action of firing Flynn as soon as possible, rather than waiting three weeks I guess.
I'm told that as a bleeding heart liberal I'm support the government picking winners and losers in business, so I guess I'm supposed to bemoan anyone who thinks the government shouldn't be advocating clothing lines.
d-usa wrote: The House seems to actually want some investigations, and the Senate is praising the swift action of firing Flynn as soon as possible, rather than waiting three weeks I guess.
Yup... investigate... it's their oversight prerogative.
d-usa wrote: The House seems to actually want some investigations, and the Senate is praising the swift action of firing Flynn as soon as possible, rather than waiting three weeks I guess.
Yup... investigate... it's their oversight prerogative.
So 5 years of hearings by 6 committees until we know that Sessions did something unrelated to this all to be mad about?
d-usa wrote: The House seems to actually want some investigations, and the Senate is praising the swift action of firing Flynn as soon as possible, rather than waiting three weeks I guess.
Yup... investigate... it's their oversight prerogative.
So 5 years of hearings by 6 committees until we know that Sessions did something unrelated to this all to be mad about?
Hey... if you claimed that the 'ghazi hearings were a waste of time... you might be a wee bit inconsistent advocating for hearing over Flynn's/Trump's Russian connections.
Besides, we'd may never know about Hillary's private email server if it wasn't those committees.
d-usa wrote: The House seems to actually want some investigations, and the Senate is praising the swift action of firing Flynn as soon as possible, rather than waiting three weeks I guess.
Yup... investigate... it's their oversight prerogative.
So 5 years of hearings by 6 committees until we know that Sessions did something unrelated to this all to be mad about?
Hey... if you claimed that the 'ghazi hearings were a waste of time... you might be a wee bit inconsistent advocating for hearing over Flynn's/Trump's Russian connections.
Besides, we'd may never know about Hillary's private email server if it wasn't those committees.
Umm... he said, "investigate" not, "investigate numerous times until we get the 'evidence' we want, in order to draw the conclusions we wanted to begin with."
Considering that the same people haven't said gak about Trump's administration using private servers, using cell phone cameras to light up sensitive information at country clubs, and the unsecured android phone tweeting away from inside the White House, its safe to say that at least 75% of the Benghazi hearings where a waste of time.
If there is a true independent investigation into Flynn finding he's an idiot and that Trump is naive, then that's fine and dandy. If Democrats then form 3 special committees and grill Conway about lying about her size when ordering Trump fashion online and hold that up as justification for a stupid witch hunt, then it will be just as much of a waste of time.
whembly wrote: Besides, we'd may never know about Hillary's private email server if it wasn't those committees.
And the world would have been a much better place.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/15 00:42:09
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Sentence 1, a personal criticism with no evidence or argument to substantiate it.
For an Australian who seems to think he knows more about U.S. politics than Americans do, you have a pretty distorted view of how politics in this country works and conservatism in general.
Sentence 2, a personal criticism with no evidence or argument to substantiate it.
Here's a fun fact for you: American conservatism isn't the same as "conservative" parties outside the United States.
Sentence 3, a personal criticism backed up by a cliche that shows a misunderstanding of how conservatism has evolved and branded itself in the US. But at least there's an actual argument here so it beats the last two sentences, even though its wrong.
But what do I know, right? Since I'm representative of "ground zero" of supposed lunacy on the American right and "deranged".
No, you're not really anything. You're just a guy posting on the internet, same as the rest of us. Your argument that you gave, which I quoted a while back, that was an example of the foundational issue which has led to modern US conservatism going so badly astray.
So, you have no actual response to what I posted, except snarky one liners about having no arguments, evidence, and whatnot to dodge the issue. Which was, to wit: You are ignorant of political realities in the United States. Pot met kettle.
The political game and realities in this country are very well-known to me, because the game is played the same on all levels of government. I've worked on the campaigns of friends and relatives on the local, County, and State levels of government. And working in public service for years, you learn to navigate the minefield of politics, or else you could end up in the unemployment line. The only difference between D.C. and the others is the scope of the political machine. In my nearly 50 years on God's green Earth, I learned that little truth. Politics is a dirty game regardless of what level of government, and "principled politicians" either have to adapt to the game, or get eaten alive by the wolves like a babe in the woods. The recent election is a gigantic neon sign that has finally hammered home that fact to many in the American Electorate.
On the other hand, your being informed about U.S. politics comes from second and third hand sources and information, unless you are an American expat with some experience dealing with politics. Unlike me, who has been personally exposed to the "game", and in hindsight, felt kinda dirty afterwards.
It's a well-know fact that being "conservative" in the United States is a different ballgame than say, Europe, where "conservatives" would be considered more centrist or outright liberal by American standards. To deny that fact is pure ignorance. Canadian conservatives are pretty close to those in the U.S., but those in Europe (especially Western Europe to name an example) are a different breed. American conservatism would be considered "hard" right in many "mainstream conservative" Western European political circles.
The rank and file John. Q. Conservative on street hasn't evolved that much in ideology since the the late 1950's to late 1960's, when the post-Taft Right in this country was undergoing a serious shake-up, where the Buckleyites came out on top (so-called "neoconservatives" that have dominated the mainstream political right in this country until recently, with Goldwater being the odd exception to that rule). The backlash against the Establishment Right by the Electorate wasn't due to any sort of ignorance as you seem to contend, but intended to send a clear message to the Establishment politicians in both parties that identify as (or cynically play the part of) "conservative". That message is very clearly "WE ARE TIRED OF YOUR . Straighten up and fly right, or we'll keep voting against you and your aspirations". Unfortunately, it will fall upon deaf ears and politicians will continue to be politicians regardless, as they have across the ages. They are only motivated by self-interest and self-advancement. And Americans nowadays have the political attention span of five year olds, being caught up in the rat race or distraction to care. That's how the "MSM" was so easily able to do the thinking for them for so long. But that is slowly changing. Memories are getting shorter and shorter.
Rank and file conservatives have no real love for Trump. Most of his enthusiastic support came from those of a more populist bent. But conservatives went with him because A: They are tired of the status-quo in the Republican Party. And B: None of them wanted Hillary based on her past history going back to her husband's administration and (alleged) actions during her time working under Obama. Hillary was also too much of a hot potato for the Democratic Party to win over the "yellow dog" Democrats in the South and Midwest (who have been increasing alienated by the party since the post-Vietnam era), even with Donald Trump's apparent and obvious short-comings. Bernie Sanders had a better chance, but he was too radical for many, and therefore, in my opinion, wouldn't have beaten Trump. But he would've been a badly needed shot in the arm for the increasingly apathetic left-leaning Democratic voters who finally realized that there was no real difference between neocon dominated Republican Party, and supposedly "progressive" Democrats in terms of key issues, and the money all comes from the same places and people. This was glaringly obvious when Sanders got shafted by the DNC, in favor of Mrs. Establishment.
But continue on being snarky. It's no real skin off my back.
As for the part about being just another guy on the internet just like the rest, that much is true. But remember, most of you post (like the what I post) is from YOUR PERSPECTIVE and is your OPINION. It's not anymore gospel or absolute fact. In fact, while a lot of what you post is insightful, pretty close to being on the mark, and offers another perspective, in this case it's opinion based on erroneous information. Period.
Remember that before you start slinging around epithets like "deranged" before you get the full scoop. It's not welcome or appreciated.
The chair of the House Oversight committee, Republican Jason Chaffetz, has confirmed he will not be investigating anything regarding Flynn's contacts with Russia, what led him to make those contacts, or how long the Whitehouse knew that Flynn had lied about his conversations but did nothing. According to the senator those questions are things that don't even need to be asked.
This is the same guy who leaked Comey's letter in the weeks before the election. So it was a matter of urgent public knowledge that an already public investigation was being re-opened in case a batch of emails located as part of a different investigation might potentially include emails that were lost. But it isn't important for the public to know the extent of a Trump appointee's contacts and collusion with Russia, or who he made those contacts on behalf of, or how the Whitehouse reacted once they learned that Flynn had lied about those contacts.
That one was a Democratic candidate and the other a Republican president is, very obviously, exactly why one thing was made public and the other is being buried.
A few years from now the Republican party will try and convince everyone that Trump was just a rogue actor, that Republicans fought him wherever they could. Obviously those claims will be lies. The Republican party is using every bit of power it has to protect Trump purely for partisan reasons. They are essential in keeping Trump as legitimate as long as possible.
whembly wrote: Nope. Private citizen doesn't have the authority... the listener would know that. Do you really believe that RU ambassador wouldn't know Flynn doesn't have the authority yet?
But there is nothing there about having authority. All the law says is that any private citizen who negotiates with a foreign power, and in doing so undermines existing negotiations then they fall foul of the act. You don't have to claim you represent government, the act does nothing to specify exactly what kind of power you might have that would cause you to be listened to by another government. Representing an incoming administration is clearly sufficient for Russia to listen.
Obviously.
At which point we have reached the conclusion that Trump, through Flynn, conducted secret conversations with Russia, in which Russia was told not to worry about the diplomatic penalties being applied to Russia for interfering in the US election. Flynn later denied those conversations while Trump feigned ignorance, and then when Flynn's deception become undeniable he was forced out, while Trump is still there.
This is why I say the Logan Act is a distraction, the real issue is showing yet another instance of Trump colluding with Russia in a way that is harmful to the US.
The only remaining question is whether anything concrete will turn up connecting Trump directly to this whole sorry mess. The issue is that if such a thing exists, it is in the hands on the intelligence community, and they're typically much more keen to keep secrets to influence people, that put that intel out in the public domain. In this way the leak that doomed Flynn might have been just a shot across the bow, to show Trump what can be done if this stuff comes to light.
That's not the issue (well, cant say that for sure w/o reading the transcript).
Of course it is the issue. The idea that Flynn made those calls off his own bat, just to let the Russians know what his own speculation about what Trump might do is laughable. Flynn was representing Trump. He was communicating on Trump's behalf.
Flynn lied or mislead Pence and Trump. Pence... with that information goes to public based on that information and is consequently looking like the jester of the court. That obviously has created an enormous rift between Flynn and Pence (and Trumpo made is displeasure over these 'infighting').
Ask yourself why Pence was the guy tasked with finding out what Flynn knew and when. If Trump didn't want to do it himself, then it is up to his chief of staff. Managing the rest of staff is literally the job of chief of staff. And yet, Trump didn't do it, and nor did Bannon.
Instead they sent Pence, the guy who is kept on the outside. Flynn then lied to Pence, and Pence was in no position to doubt the claim. And in turn, when it turned out Pence was lied to, he suffers no penalty because he was genuinely misled. All of which distance Bannon and Trump.
Seriously, consider a hypothetical in which Trump knows nothing about Flynn's phone call, and has no politically dubious connections to Russia. And then tell me how in that circumstance Trump and/or Bannon aren't blasting Flynn two weeks ago when they learn he was making unauthorised calls on his own accord to Russia, in which he was communicating future policies of the Trump administration without the knowledge of Trump. In that situation there's no way they're just sending the VP in to ask a single, easy to deny question.
And then consider a hypothetical in which Trump has dubious connections to Russia, and is using Flynn to communicate with Russia before his presidency has begun, including undermining then President Obama's diplomatic sanctions on Russia. And tell me how that scenario plays out any differently to what we've actually seen happen.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/15 03:43:22
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Now, obviously to be taken with a grain of salt, all it says is that there were contacts without knowing exactly what was discussed, but it certainly deepens the rabbit hole of insanity with this election.
For an administration that just barely finished its third week, things are certainly...awkward. I'm having trouble seeing this administration govern just about anything at this point, regardless of political opposition, if this continues. And there's no end in sight.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Kilkrazy wrote: My view is that the Republicans have gradually gone down that road because people whose backs are against the wall are often prepared to fight desperately. I think their backs are against the wall because basically they are losing the Culture Wars (gay marriage, etc. is accepted by the majority) they are losing the economic war (tax cuts for the rich and trickle down clearly doesn't benefit the general populations) and they are losing the Science war inevitably because their views on Climate Change and similar issues are not in accordance with reality.
Definitely, the weakness of their science based positions and the unpopularity of most of their major policies has driven a lot of the Republicans more aggressive campaigning, and focus on petty things and personality.
But I think that was true going back to GW Bush’s campaigns. In fact, it was probably a major driver behind targeting Bill Clinton on his sexcapades, because fighting him on policy was a sure fire loser, as Republicans had taken up minority positions on almost all major policies.
With Trump though I see something different. GW Bush was an ugly campaigner, his push poll during the 2000 primary that implied McCain had an illegitimate black baby was the most famous example but it was far from alone. The other classic was the orchestrated lies around swift boats. But Bush distanced himself from that stuff, and always made sure he appeared gentlemanly and decent. Compare to Trump, who does all his own dirty work himself. He throws mud without the slightest delay against anyone who challenges his power at all. And of course Trump lies almost constantly, on the smallest, pettiest things. He glibly makes promises and then does nothing to keep those promises.
And among a not insignificant portion of the Republican base these things aren’t even ignored or denied, they’re almost celebrated. It’s as if Trump’s ability to act as crudely and as cruelly as he can and get away with it is a big part of his appeal to many in the Republican base. There is a real ugliness there, and it’s quite unnerving.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: Nope. Private citizen doesn't have the authority... the listener would know that. Do you really believe that RU ambassador wouldn't know Flynn doesn't have the authority yet?
But there is nothing there about having authority. All the law says is that any private citizen who negotiates with a foreign power, and in doing so undermines existing negotiations then they fall foul of the act. You don't have to claim you represent government, the act does nothing to specify exactly what kind of power you might have that would cause you to be listened to by another government. Representing an incoming administration is clearly sufficient for Russia to listen.
I think we're getting wires crossed here...
There are no indication that there were any 'negotiations' on that call... just some oblique reference to the sanctions (some sources says the ambassador off-handedly brought it up).
Obviously.
At which point we have reached the conclusion that Trump, through Flynn, conducted secret conversations with Russia, in which Russia was told not to worry about the diplomatic penalties being applied to Russia for interfering in the US election. Flynn later denied those conversations while Trump feigned ignorance, and then when Flynn's deception become undeniable he was forced out, while Trump is still there.
That's a whole lotta assertion without a scintilla of supporting evidence.
This is why I say the Logan Act is a distraction,
Yeah... it's a distraction.
the real issue is showing yet another instance of Trump colluding with Russia in a way that is harmful to the US.
Again, assertions...
The only remaining question is whether anything concrete will turn up connecting Trump directly to this whole sorry mess. The issue is that if such a thing exists, it is in the hands on the intelligence community, and they're typically much more keen to keep secrets to influence people, that put that intel out in the public domain. In this way the leak that doomed Flynn might have been just a shot across the bow, to show Trump what can be done if this stuff comes to light.
This leak may be the harbringer of some system-wide house cleaning.
Intelligence communities isn't monitoring the Whitehouse or government institutions... rather, they're monitoring foreign operatives. SO, they were listening on the ambassador's side of the call.
Then, someone leaked the abstract of the call to the public. That's big... what that means is that either there are rogue IC operatives or Obama loyalists working to undermine the Trump administration. (according to WashPo, they have nine sources!).
That's not the issue (well, cant say that for sure w/o reading the transcript).
Of course it is the issue. The idea that Flynn made those calls off his own bat, just to let the Russians know what his own speculation about what Trump might do is laughable. Flynn was representing Trump. He was communicating on Trump's behalf.
And? We still don't have the transcripts...
Flynn lied or mislead Pence and Trump. Pence... with that information goes to public based on that information and is consequently looking like the jester of the court. That obviously has created an enormous rift between Flynn and Pence (and Trumpo made is displeasure over these 'infighting').
Ask yourself why Pence was the guy tasked with finding out what Flynn knew and when. If Trump didn't want to do it himself, then it is up to his chief of staff. Managing the rest of staff is literally the job of chief of staff. And yet, Trump didn't do it, and nor did Bannon.
Instead they sent Pence, the guy who is kept on the outside. Flynn then lied to Pence, and Pence was in no position to doubt the claim. And in turn, when it turned out Pence was lied to, he suffers no penalty because he was genuinely misled. All of which distance Bannon and Trump.
Seriously, consider a hypothetical in which Trump knows nothing about Flynn's phone call, and has no politically dubious connections to Russia. And then tell me how in that circumstance Trump and/or Bannon aren't blasting Flynn two weeks ago when they learn he was making unauthorised calls on his own accord to Russia, in which he was communicating future policies of the Trump administration without the knowledge of Trump. In that situation there's no way they're just sending the VP in to ask a single, easy to deny question.
And then consider a hypothetical in which Trump has dubious connections to Russia, and is using Flynn to communicate with Russia before his presidency has begun, including undermining then President Obama's diplomatic sanctions on Russia. And tell me how that scenario plays out any differently to what we've actually seen happen.
I think you're giving Trumpo and his peeps waaaaaaay too much credit here...
Must be nice having a media acting as a check on a President Administration... innit? Give 'em a few more whacks... they're still a bit rusty after a 8yr hiatus.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/15 03:56:36
The fact that you can seriously say this after watching the absurd trainwreck of Trump's first few weeks as president is a rather effective demonstration of what is wrong with Your Team. It's pretty much indisputable at this point that Clinton would have been doing a better job of running things, even if you don't agree with her policy positions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/15 04:07:07
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: Hey... if you claimed that the 'ghazi hearings were a waste of time... you might be a wee bit inconsistent advocating for hearing over Flynn's/Trump's Russian connections.
Only if you ignore the substance of what is being investigated. Benghazi was seven investigations on the question of 'did government feth up in protecting an consulate?'. The answer should have been 'yes, duh, a fething consulate got overrun and people died it was a feth up, but US government is a vast organisation spread across the globe so there will be localised feth ups from time to time’. Unfortunately we’re dealing with the modern day Republican party so that wasn’t enough, and so instead of that simple obvious answer we got this vast fishing exercise that toyed around with trying to prove that Obama and later Clinton were somehow acting to harm the defence of the consulate, that was dragged out over seven inquiries, with the only result the unrelated thing about Clinton’s email server.
We just had a recent feth up in the early days of this Trump administration, with the SEAL raid. We could hold a similar inquiry asking if government fethed up. And the answer would also come back ‘yes, obviously, they relied on old intel and got a SEAL and a bunch of civilians killed’. Because the Democrats aren’t similarly crazy we aren’t seeing 7 inquiries in to that, trying to prove that Trump was secretly trying to get Navy SEALs killed or something.
But the question in to Flynn actually has questions that need answering. Why did Flynn make the call, was he directed to communicate Trump’s plans to the Kremlin? When did the Whitehouse know that Flynn had lied, and why did they do nothing until the Washington Post story? Those are important questions with major implications, and the Republican response is to ask none of them.
It is a fething shameful dereliction of duty, and it is entirely for partisan reasons. And you’re okay with it.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
. Straighten up and fly right, or we'll keep voting against you and your aspirations". Unfortunately, it will fall upon deaf ears and politicians will continue to be politicians regardless, as they have across the ages. They are only motivated by self-interest and self-advancement. And Americans nowadays have the political attention span of five year olds, being caught up in the rat race or distraction to care. That's how the "MSM" was so easily able to do the thinking for them for so long. But that is slowly changing. Memories are getting shorter and shorter.
