PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: LevelWing on May 25, 2018, 07:50:39 AM
-
There's been a couple of really good articles from National Review lately discussing the Trump-Russia investigation. Both Jonah Goldberg and David French are arguing that each side is over playing the other side while down playing their own. As with everything, multiple things can be true.
The problem is that both stories might be true. The cartoon versions offered by the usual suspects on the left and the right are surely shot through with hyperbole. But both stories have some truth to them.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/trump-russia-investigation-separating-conspiracy-from-reality/
I’m in neither camp. I simply don’t know if Mueller has any “goods” on Trump or his campaign. He has obviously exposed a troubling degree of real and alleged criminal misconduct surrounding Trump, but he has not yet exposed evidence of actual collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. To the extent that I have a view on the ultimate outcome of his investigation, I’m skeptical that it will find that Trump or campaign officials actively conspired with Russians. The best investigative journalists in the world have been attacking this story for more than a year, with the help of a White House that leaks like a sieve. Yet no substantial evidence of campaign collusion — legal or otherwise — has emerged.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/russia-investigation-robert-mueller-reach-natural-conclusion/
-
Immediate reaction to this is to the quote from Jonas Goldberg. No, two different stories cannot be true. There is one truth. This is doublethink and is double plus ungood for the national conversation. It encourages the idea that you can have your own version of truth. What is true is true and anything else is not.
I agree that both sides probably engage in some degree of hyperbole. It is a hallmark of American politics and one of the reasons Americans distrust politicians so badly. When all they have to say is something negative about the other side, how can you ever believe them about anything? A liar is not a liar some of the time. The fact that a liar may sometimes tell the truth does not negate their status as a liar.
I agree that if there was anything to this, it would have been found by now. They have looked so hard that they've actually uncovered more crimes by Hillary than by the president or his staff!
-
Immediate reaction to this is to the quote from Jonas Goldberg. No, two different stories cannot be true.
It is quite easy for two seemingly opposing stories to be true. Kids learn this in grade school (I know because the kids are in grade school and I've seen it in their homework). Certainly there exists a truth with respect to a certain scenario. But unless you're a personal witness to that truth, dissemination thereof will always emerge through the filter of the storyteller.
It's especially insidious in the modern world, where attention spans are short and folks want their news in a 30 second soundbite or a 140 character tweet, and can't be bothered to research the subject matter.
-
I want to know what was presented at the FISA court which would rise to the level of campaign spying, sig-int, -hum-int(a person within the political campaign). If they have anything more than the Trump Dossier(pack of lies), I want to know. If that's all they based their warrant on, the Dem campaign in 2020 is going to be riddled with FBI/CIA/NSA spying.
This is not good for a republic. Use of LEO for political legerdemain is a path toward doom. Trump is just the kind of sleaze who will do it to them.
-
This is not good for a republic. Use of LEO for political legerdemain is a path toward doom. Trump is just the kind of sleaze who will do it to them.
So you are alleging Trump would weaponize the DoJ/FBI against a political appointment the way that Obama has done?
-
So you are alleging Trump would weaponize the DoJ/FBI against a political appointment the way that Obama has done?
Yes, I think it's more than likely. Everything that was illegal during Watergate aftermath(not the actual B&E) is no longer a crime. Why? Because pols took the teeth out of anything that they could get caught up in. BO/Hillary/DNC took that logical next step and ran with it, seemingly unscathed. That woman in the IRS was allowed to retire. No one from justice, FBI, CIA, etc has been fired, or indicted, or tried, or convicted. The FISA court still meets, the rules for evidence have not changed(as far as we know).
What's to stop Trump?
Predicting that Trump is just salivating until the end of the Mueller investigation. 'Cry havoc - and let slip the dogs of war!' Bad season to be a Dem candidate.
YMMV, pro driver closed course, objects in mirror, and may cause anal leakage
-
Yes, I think it's more than likely. Everything that was illegal during Watergate aftermath(not the actual B&E) is no longer a crime. Why? Because pols took the teeth out of anything that they could get caught up in. BO/Hillary/DNC took that logical next step and ran with it, seemingly unscathed. That woman in the IRS was allowed to retire. No one from justice, FBI, CIA, etc has been fired, or indicted, or tried, or convicted. The FISA court still meets, the rules for evidence have not changed(as far as we know).
What's to stop Trump?
Predicting that Trump is just salivating until the end of the Mueller investigation. 'Cry havoc - and let slip the dogs of war!' Bad season to be a Dem candidate.
YMMV, pro driver closed course, objects in mirror, and may cause anal leakage
A bit delusional. ::)
After witnessing what is in all likelihood the biggest scandal of our government history (BHO weaponizing gov agencies against political opponents) I would highly doubt Trump would go down that same path.
-
Win or go home.
What's to stop him? Does BO or Hillary fear a subpoena? Indictment? Doubt it. I'll change my tune when people at the top are held accoutable. Until then, Katy bar the door.
-
It is quite easy for two seemingly opposing stories to be true. Kids learn this in grade school (I know because the kids are in grade school and I've seen it in their homework). Certainly there exists a truth with respect to a certain scenario. But unless you're a personal witness to that truth, dissemination thereof will always emerge through the filter of the storyteller.
No, two conflicting stories cannot be true. Two people can tell stories that they think are true, but that does not make them so, it makes the story teller uninformed.
There is one truth.
-
No, two conflicting stories cannot be true.
Yes, two seemingly conflicting stories can both be true. As I said, we learn this in grade school. It's an important concept to understand, because it allows us to critically analyze what we're reading, teaches us to examine multiple sources, encourages us to discover whether we're getting the whole story, and then to form our own opinions within that context.
There is one truth, but many ways to tell it.
...and then there is statistics. Which takes "seemingly in direct conflict, but both true" to a whole new level.
-
Give me an example. There is one truth, there are not versions of truth. THAT is what I learned in grade school.
If you're telling a "version" of the truth, then you are lying.
-
Give me an example. There is one truth, there are not versions of truth. THAT is what I learned in grade school.
If you're telling a "version" of the truth, then you are lying.
The elephant must be a tree, said one blind man.
No, it must be a snake, said another blind man.
...
Well, certainly you’ve heard the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
That said, Jonah Goldberg’s article described two sets of people regarding their beliefs on at least two attributes (“deep state conspiracy” and “Trump-Putin collusion”) with binary values. As everyone knows, that yields 4 possibilities, but only one permutation can be true.
Goldberg obviously was using a colloquialism where something is “partially true” if any aspect is logically true. Pretty much par for the course in political writing - unfortunately.
-
Far too often truth is secondary to the liberal political agenda.
'Always' is closer to the absolute truth than 'often,' but the point is well made either way, except to liberals too indoctrinated into their emotional roller coaster of ignorance to admit to the truth, anyway.
-
Immediate reaction to this is to the quote from Jonas Goldberg. No, two different stories cannot be true. There is one truth. This is doublethink and is double plus ungood for the national conversation. It encourages the idea that you can have your own version of truth. What is true is true and anything else is not.
Did you read the article? Of course multiple things can be true. There's obviously only one truth, but that doesn't mean one or more elements from each side's story can't be true at the same time.
I agree that both sides probably engage in some degree of hyperbole. It is a hallmark of American politics and one of the reasons Americans distrust politicians so badly. When all they have to say is something negative about the other side, how can you ever believe them about anything? A liar is not a liar some of the time. The fact that a liar may sometimes tell the truth does not negate their status as a liar.
This is a logical fallacy and painting people with a broad brush stroke. Have you ever told a lie in your life, including white lies?
-
So you are alleging Trump would weaponize the DoJ/FBI against a political appointment the way that Obama has done?
I don't know if he would or not. The broader point is that the door has been opened to doing that.
-
More Conspiracy Theories HERE (http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2017/01/13/president-trump-the-establishment-part-1/): Is The Donald Really An ‘Outsider’?; Part 1 of 6.
Noah W
-
I don't know if he would or not. The broader point is that the door has been opened to doing that.
That's laughable. While BHO "opened the door" by doing it, doesn't make it right, and certainly doesn't make it legal. Many laws have been broken in this scandal and we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
-
That's laughable.
Why is that laughable?
While BHO "opened the door" by doing it, doesn't make it right, and certainly doesn't make it legal. Many laws have been broken in this scandal and we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
Agreed. I’m not arguing that it’s right or legal, I’m only saying that the door has been opened and it doesn’t mean it won’t happen again.
-
Interesting articles making good points, but I disagree with the conclusion of the second article about FISA warrants.
There is nothing inherently scandalous about using informants when investigating a presidential campaign, nor about seeking FISA warrants. Republican candidates and their campaigns are just as subject to the rule of law as Democrats, and it’s no less legitimate to investigate Trump than it was to investigate Hillary Clinton.
No no no no no no. No! FISA does not legitimately investigate Democrats or Republicans. FISA stands for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA exists to filter permissions to gather information related to foreign terrorists or other security threats to the U.S. originating from without the U.S. but using communication systems residing within our borders, or involving American citizens. No warrant to use internally collected information, or to spy on American citizens, may be issued without evidence of criminal intent, connected to foreign powers, to harm or attack the U.S..
It seems very clear that the FISA warrants against the Trump campaign were obtained for purely political purposes. Enough information has been released to prove the operatives were extremely biased against Trump and very invested in Hillary winning. The only way these FISA warrants can be justified in the mind of any individual is if that individual believes that Trump winning the election equals an overthrow of the U.S. government, anything less is a misuse of the FISA court, an abuse of NSA data collection, and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And even then it would have to be a plot conceived of, and carried out by, a foreign power. Russia would have had to have come up with the idea to run Trump, convinced enough U.S. citizens in key states to vote against Hillary, and then use Trump like a puppet to destroy the U.S. and pave the way for a Russian invasion.
But I'm sure some people are convinced of exactly that; the same people who cannot accept that the Dems lost because Hillary sucked as a candidate and the same people who cannot accept that "flyover country" might be finally fed up with their shit.
Back in 2001 with the Bush post 9/11 ramping up data collection I feared exactly this, that FISA unmasking would be turned against our own people for political purposes, and now it has come to pass. It happened sooner than I expected.
As for "truth", you are all wrong. Objective truth goes out the window the second we employ language, because words are symbolic representations of reality, not reality itself. Therefore, it is moot to argue whether two opposites can simultaneously be true.
-
Why is that laughable?
Agreed. I’m not arguing that it’s right or legal, I’m only saying that the door has been opened and it doesn’t mean it won’t happen again.
WTF is this " the door has been opened" crap? Because a former president decided to break multiple laws, future presidents will say " Gee, if Barry did it, guess I'll give it a try!"
Any law can be broken by those who are more than willing to do it. We have now witnessed what happens when a radical president weaponizes various government agencies to do his bidding. What must happen now is a purge of those who carried out these crimes and punish them to the full extent of the law, if for nothing else to deter future crimes from happening.
-
I don't know if he would or not. The broader point is that the door has been opened to doing that.
Agreed - by Obama. It is becoming increasingly apparent that Obama previously weaponized government - not just the FBI, but other branches - to use a political arm. The precedent has been set, now whoever does it is just "doing what is always done."
-
"Yes, I robbed the bank"
"But you see your Honor, the precedent was set by Jesse James"....."Once he "opened the door" to bank robbing then that means others can now do it as well, and I was just doing what has always been done."
"So can we toss out my charges now?"
-
"Yes, I robbed the bank"
"But you see your Honor, the precedent was set by Jesse James"....."Once he "opened the door" to bank robbing then that means others can now do it as well, and I was just doing what has always been done."
"So can we toss out my charges now?"
Jesse James wasn't elected President.
And Obama was the KING of "but other Presidents did it tooooo".
-
Let's just take it to the logical conclusion. Post BO admin, and we have a more conservative minded fed prosecutor. He finds sufficient evidence from the files of Abedin, and the guy who set up Hillary's server, plus all the 'missing' emails, and there is a veritable treasure trove of clear law breaking showing graft, and forwarding secret or classified material. Prosecutor gets an indictment, set for trial, and it goes to a federal court around either DC or NY where her server was.
Now, you have to empanel all twelve jurors who are either neutral or conservative politically. Around DC or NYC this is NEVER, EVER going to happen. a pros will always get at least one lib juror. And don't forget, you must have all 12 to convict. One rotten scum lib, see no evil juror is all it takes. Trial goes on, Hillary is found NG, and what do we have now? We have - precedent. She was/is guilty as HELL but she got off. BO is next, and we have good ole' precedence. He won't even get to trial, it'll be quashed or no-bill or insufficient evidence to proceed. Then, things are even worse, because it is cast in stone.
BTW, the contra-positive of this same issue is true. Post Trump/Pence we get a lib prosecutor. He brings a indictment against any of the Trump staff, cabinet. Trial starts, and you need to be LUCKY as HELL to get one conservative who will vote their conscience. Chance for a conviction of a conservative for the same law with much, much less evidence is very likely.
The deck is stacked. The movers and shakers know it, and use it to indemnify their actions, and take all the liberty they can with the law, because there is very little chance of any conviction.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/06/trump-2020-presidential-opponent-investigation/
Again, I turn to the apologists for the surveillance of the Trump campaign: You must condemn the politically-motivated use of law enforcement tools against Trump in 2016 or lose all moral authority to oppose President Trump if he employs the same tactics in the 2020 presidential election.
-
As I said in a different thread on similar subject, 'whats to stop him' from doing the same thing. No one would be prosecuted, and if prosecuted, no one from the left would be convicted.
-
As I said in a different thread on similar subject, 'whats to stop him' from doing the same thing. No one would be prosecuted, and if prosecuted, no one from the left would be convicted.
If Trump attempted anything of the magnitude that BHO did in the 2016 election, it would be game over as congress would have their "high crimes and misdemeanors" to impeach the President.
BHO gets a pass because of his party affiliation, I can guarantee you if a republican president attempted 1/10th of what BHO has done the Special Prosecutor would be appointed.
What BHO and his cronies in the WH, the DoJ and the FBI have done was to commit actual crimes. I suspect a few subordinates will be thrown under the bus to show "justice has been done" the main culprits will walk away.
-
And this asshole keeps claiming he is the victim of President Trump and has done nothing wrong, yet for some reason he wants immunity to testify.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/05/mccabe-seeks-immunity-for-testimony/
-
David French has a piece discussing, among other things, presidential pardon powers. It includes some excerpts from Federalist Papers. He doesn't see attempting to prosecute a sitting president as feasible but could happen after impeachment and removal.
Let’s begin with three basic assertions about presidential accountability. First — as my colleague Charlie Cooke outlined yesterday — the constitutional mechanism for presidential accountability isn’t indictment but impeachment. Second, the Department of Justice has long held that the “indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.” And third, the standard for impeachment is far more permissive than the standard for criminal prosecution.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/president-donald-trump-obstruction-argument-lawyers-move-goalposts/
It's interesting to note that even the founders wrestled with this issue and the impacts of it.
-
I don't care who you are, what you've done, or party affiliation. After the doling out of amnesty in the Clinton fiasco I don't blame ANYONE from demanding it before uttering one word under oath.
the fourth and fifth A are there for a purpose. This goes back as far as McCarthy, and even before.
-
David French has a piece discussing, among other things, presidential pardon powers. It includes some excerpts from Federalist Papers. He doesn't see attempting to prosecute a sitting president as feasible but could happen after impeachment and removal.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/president-donald-trump-obstruction-argument-lawyers-move-goalposts/
It's interesting to note that even the founders wrestled with this issue and the impacts of it.
Not even a question about it, after official duties are over, by either removal or retirement, any ex-prez is subject to judicial process. It is only sitting prez, and vice prez(and I think a few high ranking officers in cabinet) that are bound by ex-judicia impeachment and not common plea through the regular system.
-
I'd tell them to get a subpoena.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/06/mueller-team-witnesses-cell-phones/
Then, I'd want to know a lot about the judge who authorized it.
No WAY I would give my cell phone over to the feds.
-
I'd tell them to get a subpoena.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/06/mueller-team-witnesses-cell-phones/
Then, I'd want to know a lot about the judge who authorized it.
No WAY I would give my cell phone over to the feds.
The article reads as if the witnesses voluntarily handed over their cell phones out of fear of a subpoena. Other than that, there's really not much to go off of in that article and there's a lot of information missing. Either way, I would have recommended they demand the subpoena and then let their lawyer(s) fight it. However, if a judge decides after a hearing that they must turn their cell phones over, then that's what happens. That's how our system works.
-
They could always just take a hammer and smash them up.
Worked for Felonious Von Pantsuits.
I mean, after all, she "opened the door" for that to happen.
-
By the time they got the subpoena for my 'phone' the largest piece would be about the atomic radius of He, and pretty much all of it would be found feeding fish in the reflecting pool. Go right ahead, prosecute me. My guy is in the WH an he's got a pen and a phone, Fuck you very much. OBTW, when you get done with my indictment for obstruction fill one out for Rodham-Clinton, Hillary; Address - 3rd tier of hell. I think she only destroyed 7 or 8 official phones along the way. Lets not forget the server; 'you mean - with a cloth or something?' AKA toxic cunt.