Muller, Flynn, et al.

[monadnocky]

...Pretty sure this is a tradition that long precedes Reagan.

Likely so. But there's so much, conceptually, between Ike's warning us of the MIC and Regan's "government is the problem" missives. A dramatic escalation since then, aided and abetted by technology.

[monadnocky]

The first two paragraphs of this 37-year-old story are interesting to read now

Very interesting:

"From their lofty station in a board room high in the Arco Plaza Tower, the 16 millionaires who have been helping shape a Cabinet for their friend, President-elect Ronald Reagan have worked with the unshakable faith that theirs is the first step in making America great again"

Shudder.

Just drag out this trope... that there was a mythical past during which America was "great" and all we need is a dear leader to resurrect it. The psychoanalysts call it the "numinous return to mother." All we need to do is take the right actions, find that one special person and we can go back to a place in which we felt omnipotent.

[j44ke]

What leverage would the Russians (Putin, et al) have if Trump isn't elected, i.e. what would the debt, LOCs, etc. be worth as leverage if Trump was still a private citizen? (aka motive for the Russians to collude with Trump on election)

How could Trump offer a quid pro quo to the Russians wrt to the debt he owes, etc without getting elected? (aka motive for Trump to collude with Russians on the election)

Trump's Russian debt and other business dealings might provide the motivation, but it's the election result (and the alleged collusion intended to provide that result) that enables the other pieces to follow. I think of it as all of a whole even if it's only individual pieces that can be proven/documented.

Sure, but I am sure anything that may or may not have been offered would be contingent on other things happening first.

But we're saying the same thing. If there is something to all of this - i.e. there actually is a big picture - there will be a lot of little financial pixels that make the image whole. Probably would take years to unpack it all, so you go looking for people who know a piece or two and put the squeeze on them.

If a money laundering case comes out of this, then that's when things are getting serious. Like with the gold trader who is telling everything he knows about the Turkish government running around the sanctions on Iran and lining their pockets with cash.

[taz]

Sure, but I am sure anything that may or may not have been offered would be contingent on other things happening first.

But we're saying the same thing. If there is something to all of this - i.e. there actually is a big picture - there will be a lot of little financial pixels that make the image whole. Probably would take years to unpack it all, so you go looking for people who know a piece or two and put the squeeze on them.

If a money laundering case comes out of this, then that's when things are getting serious. Like with the gold trader who is telling everything he knows about the Turkish government running around the sanctions on Iran and lining their pockets with cash.

Agreed... I wonder how toxic Trump has to be, even if he is effectively unreachable, before other people stop associating or cooperating with him?

[zachateseverything]

The R majority in the House is aided and abetted by gerrymandering. The electoral college is not (as far as I know!) considered a gerrymand.



p.s. There's a little plaque honoring Governor Elbridge Gerry down the block from my office. He was an interesting guy.

The electoral college is indirectly impacted by gerrymandering. While it's certainly true that the distribution of EC votes is determined by the popular vote in each state and the US census, it's also true that GOP controlled state legislatures have put a lot of effort into suppressing certain voting demographics.

[j44ke]

Agreed... I wonder how toxic Trump has to be, even if he is effectively unreachable, before other people stop associating or cooperating with him?

I've been wondering if Trump is just enough of a wrecking ball to actually wreck Putin's career. If Putin, because of his obsessive Hillary Clinton psychosis, misjudged Trump's ability to deliver terribly, and while the United States will end up with 8 tumultuous years of Trump, there will be a regime change in Russia because the west got wise and Putin couldn't keep the oligarchs fed.

[Corso]

Agreed... I wonder how toxic Trump has to be, even if he is effectively unreachable, before other people stop associating or cooperating with him?

How long did it take before people stopped associating or cooperating with the Clintons?

Each side has it’s loyal base that supports it’s guy/gal no matter what. And that’s the problem---on both sides.

[jclay]

Agreed... I wonder how toxic Trump has to be, even if he is effectively unreachable, before other people stop associating or cooperating with him?

He'd have to be off the charts. Way off the charts. The "joke" about his being able to shoot someone in broad NYC daylight and get away with it? Not far off the mark. He's astonishingly toxic; he's like a catalyst for all sorts of pent up anger (some legitimate, some not) that's not being channelled in constructive ways (like becoming a more educated and informed citizen, vis-a-vis history's lessons and the major issues of our time). His misogynistic comments. How ugly does he have to be, before people realise that he's toxic right down to his DNA?

[bigbill]

I've been wondering if Trump is just enough of a wrecking ball to actually wreck Putin's career. If Putin, because of his obsessive Hillary Clinton psychosis, misjudged Trump's ability to deliver terribly, and while the United States will end up with 8 tumultuous years of Trump, there will be a regime change in Russia because the west got wise and Putin couldn't keep the oligarchs fed.

Russia's strength whether perceived or real is cyclic. Russia expands their influence in the name of national security, they have no natural barriers like oceans on much of their border. They boast, make claims, and belittle western culture. I have the RT app on my phone to see what news is being reported and about half of it reads like Pravda, so slanted that it has to be government written. They boast of their military but can't deploy more than a few ships and haven't really built much since the collapse of the Soviet Union. When their carrier deploys, it has ocean-going tugboats in the battle group so it can get towed back to port. The Chinese have a carrier too, it's the sister ship to the piece-of-shit that the Russians have. Russia thrived when oil prices were high, now they're living on credit and residual value of their economy. You can tell what's happening when their "news" shifts towards nostalgia and patriotism. The problem with that is a shrinking population that will tolerate the existence they endured during the Soviet days. The younger generations have middle class expectations, and the same goes for China. If the President maintains status quo, I'd expect upheavals in Russia and perhaps China.

As far as the OP, I hope this investigation in the name of Russian collusion stays on topic and doesn't continuously drag out because it went off on a bunch of tangents. If there's no collusion, end it and move on. This President will make himself out to be an ass, no outside influence is needed.

[Bob Ross]

As far as the OP, I hope this investigation in the name of Russian collusion stays on topic and doesn't continuously drag out because it went off on a bunch of tangents. If there's no collusion, end it and move on.

Wait, what if there's no collusion but there is obstruction? Isn't that what Mueller's supposed to be looking into (also)?

Moreover...what if those "tangents" turn up genuine High Crimes & Misdemeanors?

[j44ke]

Pence is the mole!

[bigbill]

Wait, what if there's no collusion but there is obstruction? Isn't that what Mueller's supposed to be looking into (also)?

Moreover...what if those "tangents" turn up genuine High Crimes & Misdemeanors?

The reality is that there's really nothing that can't be pardoned, even himself. If by High Crimes and Misdemeanors, you're referring to impeachment, then that's up to Congress but it's not an act of the DOJ.

[Corso]

He'd have to be off the charts. Way off the charts. The "joke" about his being able to shoot someone in broad NYC daylight and get away with it? Not far off the mark. He's astonishingly toxic; he's like a catalyst for all sorts of pent up anger (some legitimate, some not) that's not being channelled in constructive ways (like becoming a more educated and informed citizen, vis-a-vis history's lessons and the major issues of our time). His misogynistic comments. How ugly does he have to be, before people realise that he's toxic right down to his DNA?

John, If you don’t mind me asking, who did you support - vote for - want to see in the oval office? With your colorful description of the current President, I wonder who you feel would have done a better job.

[bigbill]

John, If you don’t mind me asking, who did you support - vote for - want to see in the oval office? With your colorful description of the current President, I wonder who you feel would have done a better job.

If the other person had won, we'd probably still be having an investigation. But not of Trump.

[Matthew Strongin]

The reality is that there's really nothing that can't be pardoned, even himself. If by High Crimes and Misdemeanors, you're referring to impeachment, then that's up to Congress but it's not an act of the DOJ.

Everything I've read says it's either unclear whether Trump could pardon himself since it's never been tried and would have to play out in the courts or that he couldn't pardon himself because even pardon power doesn't allow someone to act as their own judge. As far as impeachment, yes it's a political process that's up to congress. But, if the DOJ finds enough concrete evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, it would be politically difficult for Congress not to at least explore impeachment. I'm not a history buff or an attorney, but my understanding is that the special prosecutor connecting Nixon to Watergate is what ultimately led to Congress starting impeachment. So, while the DOJ can't impeach, nor would it make sense for them to do so, their findings, or more accurately those of a special prosecutor, could still be the kindling for impeachment.

John, If you don’t mind me asking, who did you support - vote for - want to see in the oval office? With your colorful description of the current President, I wonder who you feel would have done a better job.

While your question was posed to jclay, I'm curious. Do you feel that Trump is doing a good job? Is he helping the country progress in a positive way that benefits the citizens? Is he delivering on his legislative agenda in reality, not just nominally?

If the other person had won, we'd probably still be having an investigation. But not of Trump.

Why does this matter? I don't know that I agree Clinton would be under investigation at this stage, but, again, why does it matter? She didn't win. Trump did. And his dealings are shady enough to warrant an investigation. Shouldn't all Americans, regardless of party, want to know whether their president colluded with a foreign power or obstructed justice? It's not a partisan witch hunt. The Republican special prosecutor was appointed by a Republican deputy attorney general in a Republican led DOJ. Dems lack a majority in both halves of Congress and can't seem to stop any confirmations of political appointees. How could they be behind some sort of politically orchestrated smear campaign. So, assuming they're not and this is a valid investigation, why wouldn't people want to see how it plays out? And whatever Clinton did or didn't do that might have drawn the attention of an investigation is irrelevant to the position Trump is in with regards to Mueller's investigation.

[jclay]

John, If you don’t mind me asking, who did you support - vote for - want to see in the oval office? With your colorful description of the current President, I wonder who you feel would have done a better job.

I supported Sanders but voted for Hillary.

I had a vote swapping deal with a VS person in NY. I voted for Clinton in exchange for a NY vote for Sanders. Absent that I would have probably ended up voting for Clinton anyway; knowing what I know now, there's no doubt I'd have supported Clinton. This article is relevant:

How far will Trump go to keep his core supporters on his side? | Nouriel Roubini | Business | The Guardian

It was a lesser of two evils situation. Its unfortunate that the D-party is as beholden/sold-out to big biz & the MIC as the Rs and therefore wouldn't run Sanders. He's the kind of progressive visionary we need.

I oppose some of the big ticket policies that both Clintons supported (neo-liberal economics, vastly muscular and often corrupt foreign pollicy, way to cosy to the MIC and corporatists/Wall Street...much like traditional Rs) but at the very least I don't see Hillary as an intrinsically destructive and toxic personality. She wouldn't try to cripple government so that, as in Grover Norquist's happy turn of phrase, the federal government could be shrunk to a size that would allow him to drown it in a bathtub (while waving the flag). She wouldn't try to throw millions out of health care or plot a course intended to bankrupt the govt so that she could claim that government didn't work and ditch SS, Medicare and Medicaid while selling off the public interest to the highest bidder.

Hillary would have been a competent administrator and she wouldn't have escalated stress at every opportunity while attempting to destroy policies that are in the public's best interest. Clinically, Trump has narcissistic & sociopathic characteristics; he destructively plays one side against the other in his nihilistic game with the country. That directs every decision he makes and it's remarkably corrosive.

[jclay]

It's unfortunate that our politics gets dumbed down to these incessant D vs R party arguments, like a stupid high school football game. While I see the D party as a little more progressive (in spite of way to many ill considered positions), both are enormously corrupted by their ties to big money and powerful, entrenched interests that don't give a tinker's damn about the health or well being of the larger population. We need a progressive party (and ranked voting). Social change isn't comfortable but without progressive thought we'd be living in 5hit. Really, think about it, all the way back to the RADICAL, LIBERAL (in my best Rush Limbaugh voice) concepts of democracy.

I like what progressive social thought and progressive government have brought over the centuries so I'd like to see it continue, not get derailed by frightened, small minded or predatory individuals and organizations.

[j44ke]

I think relativism is one of the weakest forms of argument. There are evaluative differences between individuals. Good and bad, positive and negative. All relativism does is use the theater of disillusionment to immobilize critique as if it was a naive fashion accessory.

[Corso]

It's unfortunate that our politics gets dumbed down to these incessant D vs R party arguments, like a stupid high school football game. While I see the D party as a little more progressive (in spite of way to many ill considered positions), both are enormously corrupted by their ties to big money and powerful, entrenched interests that don't give a tinker's damn about the health or well being of the larger population. We need a progressive party (and ranked voting). Social change isn't comfortable but without progressive thought we'd be living in 5hit. Really, think about it, all the way back to the RADICAL, LIBERAL (in my best Rush Limbaugh voice) concepts of democracy.

I like what progressive social thought and progressive government have brought over the centuries so I'd like to see it continue, not get derailed by frightened, small minded or predatory individuals and organizations.

We're not so different John. I know that may be hard to believe from my recent posting.

[colker]

It's unfortunate that our politics gets dumbed down to these incessant D vs R party arguments, like a stupid high school football game. While I see the D party as a little more progressive (in spite of way to many ill considered positions), both are enormously corrupted by their ties to big money and powerful, entrenched interests that don't give a tinker's damn about the health or well being of the larger population. We need a progressive party (and ranked voting). Social change isn't comfortable but without progressive thought we'd be living in 5hit. Really, think about it, all the way back to the RADICAL, LIBERAL (in my best Rush Limbaugh voice) concepts of democracy.

I like what progressive social thought and progressive government have brought over the centuries so I'd like to see it continue, not get derailed by frightened, small minded or predatory individuals and organizations.

I get on w/ everything you said BUT.. imo progressive politics are dealing w/ issues like racism and gender w/ the wrong perspective; on an ethical and strategical sense, mostly when it comes to education and media. The progressive media, NYT and New Yorker for example, are wrong. Academia is wrong. Some of the reasons, not all, behind Trump´s victory are the strategies played by progressives. There is a lot moralism pretending to be science and history. Moralism does not equal morality. People don´t buy it. It´s much easer to blame big money than be self critical on how progressive thinking has played those issues w/ a guilty sense that is sometimes a fantasy.
A lot of Trump´s tactics is about those issues. In the end it´s about power and ripping off the poor but the game he is playing loudly is on those issues. He knows how to press buttons. That´s all he knows.