quote:

How can anyone tell you sorry lot how wrong you are!

That's an interesting question.

Look at the whole scope of this political forum. How's that tactic working?

OTOH, the political plot of telling a sorry lot of how Right (pun intended) they are, and need more Right, works pretty good.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Except its not "look what you made me do"

That's simply conceit.

When the dems put forward a candidate that moves too the centre, forgets the identity politics BS and shows the required skillset, they will win.

Consider this as a demonstration of democracy in action:

https://youtube.com/shorts/rSh...?si=Z1NeRRoWLp6eD789

The path to winning again begins here

Kind of, You need someone charismatic without the kind of baggage that Joe or Kamala had.
But you can still tell the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Kind of, You need someone charismatic without the kind of baggage that Joe or Kamala had.
But you can still tell the truth.

The guy in the video talking about messaging and influencers didn't mention the need for a charismatic person, or lack of baggage and he never suggested that messaging and influence would be anything other than truth.

For one thing, as I've said before in several ways, much of the baggage on Dems, any Dem candidate, is fabricated/fomented with lies, hype and such from the Right, messaged and influenced. Trump is especially keen and good about it.

You guys on the right over value charisma, IMO, or at least the wrong kind of charisma. Take Reagan and Trump for examples - celebrities, actors, front men with backup from Rightist think tanks and orgs, like Heritage Foundation, etc.

In Trump's case it looks like he's just getting in the way a lot with his own screwed up ideas.

BTW, I read an article a day or two ago how Trump, DOJ, whatever, has distanced themselves from the Federalist Society and the Bar Association regarding several reasons, such as selection of lawyers to anoint as judges.

It's pretty easy to figure why they would do that. Trump prefers Fox to vet his appointees, for one thing.

Following up on the above post commenting on Trump's association with the Federalist Society, here's a article about the governance we deserve.

All Trump's BS about the Deep State was a smoke screen, and Trump is a loose cannon regarding the conservative's plan 50+ years in the making.

https://newrepublic.com/articl...rt-trump-leonard-leo

Trump’s War With Leonard Leo Could Expose a Conservative Legal Scam
The former Federalist Society power broker used the president to achieve judicial supremacy. Now all that work could get wrecked by the monster he turned loose.

quote:

The brutal truth is We have gotten too the point where most American would rather be lied too by a funny, beautiful, or charismatic person, than be told the truth by a boring ugly nerd

Nothing about democrat v republican. He does mention the truth, and charisma.

And if you dont think its relevant too the Dems, Clinton V Gore. Barrack Obama v Hillary.

Dems baggage is fabricated?
So the Steele dossier was true, Hunters laptop false? The BLM riots never cost businesses money and all perpetrators punished? Biden didnt go against the officers on the ground, wishes in the afghan withdraw? Remember, Harris said she would have done nothing different.
These are all part of the Dems brand, in peoples mind.
The repubs. have their own list, but Kabob, you think none of these things are Dems fault and it's made up?

The Repugs villainized Hillary for forty years because they thought she was dangerous to their ideology. And that's one thing they were correct about. Remember Bengasi investigations, seven as I recall. Repugs admitted they were for the purpose of her destruction politically, not the truth.

The Steele dossier was not fabricated.

No one with any sense said the BLM riots didn't cost businesses money nor that all those involved were punished. Repugs made that up.

The commander chief often does and has the authority to not abide advice from officers on the ground.

No, I don't remember Harris saying she wouldn't have done anything different. You probably heard that on Fox.

Again, the Dem brand in some people's minds is made up and fomented for many years.

That's correct. It's not Dems' fault.

https://thehill.com/opinion/na...-been-misunderstood/

Hunter's laptop never proved what Repugs claimed - the connection to Joe. But they got the political damage they wanted. You are evidence of that.

Hillary decided she only had to campaign on the east and west coast. Bill told her to go to fly over country, she didnt.
Harris was asked ON THE VIEW what she would have done different. She said nothing. Look it up, stop going to your scapegoat, Fox news.
It doesnt matter if you think the steele dossier was real, it was proven false. You think the dems dont have a brand problem, the polls say otherwise, by the dem voters themselves. Harris spent her time with hollywood elites. Why not go to E palistine ohio, and tell the folks there she's sorry, she would treat them better.
More important for her to go on Opera.

The Steele Dossier was NOT proven false.

And yes, the Dems have a so-called brand problem, much of which is attributable to lies by the Right.

One example of the lies is the claim that the Steele Dossier was a lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...specific_allegations

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/a...ossier-retrospective

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective
Sarah Grant, Chuck Rosenberg
Friday, December 14, 2018, 8:00 AM

Not all of the material in the dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier holds up well.

So the Durham report was false?
He found the primary source to have repeatedly lied, but you have info differently?

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
So the Durham report was false?
He found the primary source to have repeatedly lied, but you have info differently?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politi...-lying-fbi-rcna52787

Analyst who provided Trump-Russia dossier information is acquitted of lying to FBI
Analyst Igor Danchenko's acquittal is another blow to special counsel John Durham’s probe into the origins of the FBI's investigation of allegations of ties between former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia.

======================================
AI Overview:

Igor Danchenko, a key source for the Steele dossier, was acquitted of lying to the FBI. He was part of a larger probe by Special Counsel John Durham into the origins of the FBI's Russia probe. The jury found Danchenko not guilty on all counts. NPR reported the news.

Elaboration:
Danchenko's Role:
.
Danchenko was a think tank analyst who contributed significantly to the Steele dossier, a report compiled by Christopher Steele that alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Durham's Investigation:
.
Special Counsel John Durham was investigating the origins of the FBI's Russia probe, and Danchenko was one of the individuals targeted by the investigation.

The Charges:
.
Danchenko was charged with making false statements to the FBI about his role in the dossier.

The Acquittal:
.
After deliberation, a jury acquitted Danchenko of all charges.

Impact of the Acquittal:
.
The acquittal is seen as a setback for the Durham investigation and raises questions about the prosecution's case.

================================================

And the Durham investigation was a waste of TP money.

It did not exonerate Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ney_Kevin_Clinesmith

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ng_conspiracy_theory

Motivated by right-wing conspiracy theory

The report said Durham interviewed Hillary Clinton in May 2022 regarding an alleged effort by her campaign to tie Trump to Russia. Durham wrote that line of inquiry "did not, all things considered, amount to a provable criminal offense" by Clinton's campaign.

This line of investigation by Durham was inspired by a right-wing conspiracy theory asserting the Clinton campaign colluded with Russia to harm Trump.[6] Jonathan Turley, a Trump defender, promoted this flawed theory: "The [Durham] report details how the Russian collusion conspiracy was invented by Clinton operatives and put into the now-infamous Steele dossier, funded by the Clinton campaign."[115]

This belief led Durham to use Russian misinformation documents that had been hacked from Russian intelligence by Dutch intelligence, documents which falsely claimed the Clinton campaign conspired to frame Trump. The documents appeared to contain inconsistencies and inaccuracies that led some in the American intelligence community to suspect Russia had seeded them with disinformation. Federal judge Beryl Howell twice found the documents insufficient to grant Durham seizure orders. Durham sidestepped Howell and used his grand jury authority to demand and receive documents and testimony from the Open Society Foundations, founded by George Soros.[2] Then-CIA director John Brennan briefed president Obama and other high level officials about the documents in August 2016, and referred them to the FBI. John Ratcliffe, director of national intelligence during the Trump administration, released some of Brennan's handwritten notes from the briefing, and publicly stated that the intelligence community was unable to corroborate that Russia actually knew there was such a Clinton plan and did not know whether it was fabricated.[20]

Frank Figliuzzi, a former assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, said:

"Really, the most malignant interpretation of this report is Durham was tasked with doing something that was not only unnecessary to do because the [inspector general] had already done it, but tasked with doing whatever he could to destroy the origins of the Crossfire Hurricane original case ... If the goal was to wrack [sic] up many indictments and prove all of this "Russia, Russia, Russia" stuff, as Trump says, wrong, he's failed miserably. But if the goal, at least the consolation prize, was to hand over a politically tainted document that can be used in sound bites over and over again on Fox News and other platforms, already congressman Jim Jordan has publicly stated he's going to call Durham to testify in congress and I'll note as others have done, John Durham should be Exhibit A in the so-called "Weaponization of Government Subcommittee" because he was weaponized by Bill Barr and turned against the very institutions that he comes out of."[119]

Former federal prosecutor Shan Wu criticized Durham and demanded an apology from him:[120]

"I find Durham's investigation to be a complete waste of taxpayer dollars... Durham failed to produce any evidence of what Trump promised to be 'the crime of the century'—presumably involving the 'deep-state conspiracy' mantra of Trump supporters—and sent no one to jail.... [The report] reads like a plagiarized version of the 2019 [Inspector General's report]... Durham also lacks any moral authority to lecture the FBI or anyone else about concerns over political bias when his entire investigation originated with Barr's efforts to politically weaponize the DOJ. Durham's investigation was so compromised that his own top aide, a respected career prosecutor, resigned in protest."

You are lumping everything that happened to get the results you want.
The Mueller report cleared Trump.
The danchenko part was the Durham report on the FBI using false reports to get wire taps illegally.
Remember clinton's man Sussman reported to the FBI that trump and a russian bank had business ties. Proven false. You cant take one piece of the report because you like that piece only.

Thanks for helping me prove my points.

======================================

quote:

Sussman reported to the FBI

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61654042

Clinton lawyer cleared of lying to FBI over Trump
31 May 2022

==========================================

quote:

The Mueller report cleared Trump.

https://time.com/5610317/muell...ort-myths-breakdown/

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die. Here’s Why They’re Wrong
12 minute read

June 24, 2019

=============================================

Your point is actually why there is so much distrust of the government in general.

The reports generated were documented as being false and the agent involved should have double checked but didn’t.

The system then refuses to prosecute these folks because they feel they can’t get a conviction.

Government agents generally have immunity as long as there is no proof of bad intent that can get to the court.

In essence, there is a very low bar for bad behavior to be introduced to policy, and a very high bar (which is appropriate) to prosecution of individuals in court.

The biased see the clear issues when their ox is gored, but don’t when it’s the other side.

The folks in the middle see both sides are a circus.

Sussman admitted he lied, but they chose to let him go on it. danchenko had one set of charges dropped because it couldnt be proven that his lie was a criminal act.
They do nothing to change that all the data was there, and Mueller used it to say trump was not guilty of collusion.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Your point is actually why there is so much distrust of the government in general.

The reports generated were documented as being false and the agent involved should have double checked but didn’t.

The system then refuses to prosecute these folks because they feel they can’t get a conviction.

Government agents generally have immunity as long as there is no proof of bad intent that can get to the court.

In essence, there is a very low bar for bad behavior to be introduced to policy, and a very high bar (which is appropriate) to prosecution of individuals in court.

The biased see the clear issues when their ox is gored, but don’t when it’s the other side.

The folks in the middle see both sides are a circus.

Those thinking both sides are a circus, or half of the bigger circus, are not folks in the middle.

Trump supporters don't see the issues clearly even as their ox, Trump, is gored. They even think that's the issue.

Weaponization of the system or law and/or false claims of such weaponization, and/or prosecutions or choices to not prosecute, and political investigations, based on feelings is not how it works, or at least not how it's supposed to work.

The rule of law and court proceedings and trials are designed to get to objective truth.

The distrust of the government is not an effect of the points I have been making, which is cause.

My points have been about at least two cause and effect scenarios tied together.

For example, the lies, then the belief or affirmation, then the reality not meshing with the belief and lies, then the distrust and more lies to cover. Each has a cause and effect relation, and so forth. I chose to start the sequence with Trump's lies as cause, but it too is an effect of something.

And the distrust broods more distrust, especially for those vulnerable to conspiracy theory. It's like cause and effect and effect and cause, tandem. The GOP, Trumpsters, the self-deemed conservatives have become like a perpetual motion machine, violating several laws of nature. https://www.google.com/search?...gHPQ&sclient=gws-wiz

To break the cycle, critically thinking people, would re-evaluate their belief structure. But instead those not so inclined just distrust, because they can't reconcile reality with their belief and vulnerability to lies.

================================================

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ng_conspiracy_theory

Excerpts:

Aitan Goelman, an attorney for Peter Strzok who was a key FBI figure in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, accused Durham of leading a dysfunctional investigation, saying, "In fact, it is Mr. Durham's investigation that was politically motivated, a direct consequence of former President Trump's weaponization of the Department of Justice, an effort that unanimous juries in each of Mr. Durham's trials soundly rejected."[16]

...

Like the inspector general, Durham did not conclude there was political motivation involved, but found there was confirmation bias and a "lack of analytical rigor". He said he found no evidence the FBI considered any role the Clinton campaign might have played in influencing the investigation, even citing messages Peter Strzok sent to colleagues urging skepticism of the Steele dossier; Strzok messaged that whoever commissioned it was "presumed to be connected to the campaign in some way".

...

Acquittal of Igor Danchenko
In December 2020, Special Counsel John Durham subpoenaed the Brookings Institution for the personnel files of Washington-based Russian analyst Igor Danchenko.[82] In November 2021, Danchenko was arrested in connection with the John Durham investigation and was charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI on five different occasions (between March 2017 and November 2017) regarding the sources of material he provided for the Steele dossier.[83][84][85][86] This includes Danchenko having allegedly obscured his relationship with Charles Dolan Jr. and having allegedly fabricated contacts with Sergei Millian.[87][88] Danchenko pleaded not guilty and was released on bail.[89][90][91][92]

Trump's supporters reacted strongly to these reports of Danchenko's arrest, but conservative columnist and attorney Andrew C. McCarthy described their reactions as "if not irrational, then exaggerated" . He provided context when he urged them to be cautious, as Durham's indictments "narrowly allege that the defendants lied to the FBI only about the identity or status of people from whom they were getting information, not about the information itself ."[10]

...

Conviction of FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith
On October 24, 2019, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that Durham's inquiry had been elevated to a criminal investigation, raising concerns of politicization of the Justice Department to pursue political enemies of the President.[7][51] The Times reported on November 22 that the Justice Department inspector general had made a criminal referral to Durham regarding Kevin Clinesmith, a low-level FBI attorney assigned to the Mueller probe who had resigned in February 2018. Clinesmith was accused of altering an email during the process of renewing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) wiretap warrant against former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.[52] Clinesmith pleaded guilty to a felony violation in August 2020 for adding the phrase "and not a source" to a statement by a CIA liaison saying that Carter Page had a prior "contact" relationship with the CIA from 2008 to 2013.[53][27] On January 29, 2021, Clinesmith was sentenced to 12 months federal probation and 400 hours of community service. The judge stated that Clinesmith "likely believed that what he said about Mr. Page was true" and that he had taken "an inappropriate shortcut." He also said the IG inspection did not establish that "political considerations played a role in Clinesmith's actions."[54]

============================================

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Sussman admitted he lied, but they chose to let him go on it. danchenko had one set of charges dropped because it couldnt be proven that his lie was a criminal act.
They do nothing to change that all the data was there, and Mueller used it to say trump was not guilty of collusion.

They didn't choose to let him go. He was acquitted by a jury. Apparently you can't decipher the difference.

The fact is Mueller did not say "Trump was not guilty of collusion".

Yes they acquitted, but did you see where he admitted he lied? That means they chose to acquit.

No, I didn't see that part.

But if I did, I went right past it to the acquittal.

This represents a bigger picture.

I don't know the details of why they "chose" acquittal, but my Trust of the system causes me to think they had good reason under the correct application of the rule of law, burden of proof, etc.. In this scenario I have more reason to believe the judiciary is trustworthy than not. That's both in process and outcome, means and end.

OTOH, your distrust caused you to connect dots that don't connect, and to conclude several somethings stretched to mesh with lies you believe are true.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61654042

Clinton lawyer cleared of lying to FBI over Trump
31 May 2022

There you go again.

Trump weaponizes the law…

Yes. He’s trying. His supporters buy into his schtick that it’s to repay the other side for what they did.

You are ignoring that there are plenty of episodes where lefty political figures weaponized the law and did not pay a price.

Lois Learner.

Fast and Furious.

Etc.

No, it’s not new. The GOP under Reagan had no issues with Ollie North. The left had no issues with “Deep Throat” in Watergate. That was in my childhood and adolescence, but I’m sure those of you older than I can come up with prior examples.

You continue to complain about equivalence (whataboutism) but deny that your side is every bit as bad to someone on the same spot on the political spectrum on the other side.

I do see the GOP having issues in the next election cycle due to Trump. His execution of policy is tarring the policies to the middle who swing the election to the winning side.

Trump and his tariffs are playing with the economic outlook of the populace, and as Bill Clinton’s campaign put it so succinctly, it’s the economy, Stupid.

Trump isn’t going to get any good press from the mass media for his economy, and unless folks are actually seeing material gains, every issue will go to his and the Republican’s debit.

Unless the Ukraine war is resolved, he is going to look weak as he has tried to push our allies to make concessions for peace, and that Putin isn’t buying the concessions as adequate, it’s making Trump look like a tool of Putin.

Trump was supporting Elon Musk and DOGE. But he didn’t internalize it, and continues to put out populist handouts.

I don’t think my MAGA friends can argue those concerns. Just like you can’t argue that the Dems are supporting DEI, violence from the political left, social engineering, and this whole BTQXYZ stuff (the LG part has left the station and has been successfully mainstreamed into modern society in the west…)

And that's really interesting that the LG section is saying "Dont include us."

Sussmans admission was right in the BBC report you posted.
All of the issues we have been discussing resulted in the IG Horowitz report. Horowitz did not find willfull misuse and cover-up. But did find a great deal of " actions not up to FBI standards".
When some tried to claim vindication, Horowitz said, this vindicates no one from the top down, and changes should be made.
The FBI claim they have now.
As the Dem party was a full supporter of all the actions, and were in power during parts, yes, it shows up in the dem party brand.
They are fine with, anything that gets trump.
It makes them no worse than repubs, but no better either, and is not made up.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
There you go again.

Trump weaponizes the law…

Yes. He’s trying. His supporters buy into his schtick that it’s to repay the other side for what they did.

You are ignoring that there are plenty of episodes where lefty political figures weaponized the law and did not pay a price.

Lois Learner.

Fast and Furious.

Etc.

No, it’s not new. The GOP under Reagan had no issues with Ollie North. The left had no issues with “Deep Throat” in Watergate. That was in my childhood and adolescence, but I’m sure those of you older than I can come up with prior examples.

You continue to complain about equivalence (whataboutism) but deny that your side is every bit as bad to someone on the same spot on the political spectrum on the other side.

You are trying, again, to get me to buy into false equivalences.

My view or definition of political weaponization of the law doesn't fit the examples you gave, Louis Learner, Eric Holder, Ollie North, Deep Throat (as I recall director of FBI at that time).

Weaponization of law as I see it is using or thwarting the judicial system with lies and lawyering up. IOW, what Trump does and wants to do more.

Those examples you gave weren't about defeating or changing the system on the scale as Trumpism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_Lerner

On May 10, 2013, in a conference call with reporters, Lerner apologized that Tea Party groups and other groups had been targeted for audits of their applications for tax-exemption. Lerner resigned over the controversy. An investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation, completed in 2015, found "substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia" but "found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution".[1][2]

As I recall Obama was well within his authority and prerogative to protect Holder from GOPers by using exec privilege.

Ollie got what he deserved. Note that he went on to be a GOPer pundit.

Deep Throat got what he and we deserved - rid of Nixon.

Let's get this straight - about the govt WE deserve and the scale of Trump(ism)'s desires for our future. Include project 2025 in that scenario too.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...jwC?ocid=socialshare

GOP Bill Would Legalize DOGE and Let Trump Dismantle Everything
Story by Douglas Lucas • 10h •
21 min read

Also:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...Zrs?ocid=socialshare

Trump Fires 13 Members of Education Research Board
Story by Nik Popli • 11h •
4 min read

What we are discussing here is Trump's intentional breakdown of the system, with support from various sources, a coalition.

His attacks and tactics are multi, well planned.

I'm sure most agree that it's for authoritarian type of power.

There are certain events in common in all authoritarian plots. One foremost is never let a good crisis go to waste.

We saw it somewhat in action with FDR and Bush's 911. But Trump will do or try to do much more, not to restore or safeguard normalcy but to usher a new normal in his image.

I can't predict if Trump will create or facilitate a crisis of whatever magnitude, but surly he would if he or his handlers think it would move their agenda faster. I hate to think that's a possibility, but given all we know it's a reasoned worry.

I don't like to delve into anything resembling a conspiracy theory, so I'll just say I think this is different in that we know he aspires authoritarianism, and we know he will push it. We just don't yet know how hard and how far. Assuming the worst is a safe bet.

Accordingly, I'll post this video:

Note, I started the video after the intro and promotion for brevity's sake. The intro is a good summary of his premise. If an ad pops up, in a few seconds skip it.

https://youtu.be/AxcXv5Fjg0U?si=8HuEZFIAKKciwAxI&t=98

98 minutes ago

Trump's Administration Is Leaving The US Wide Open To A Terrorist Attack. Is This Deliberate?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...Lca?ocid=socialshare

Trump Appoints 22-Year-Old Ex-Gardener and Grocery Store Assistant to Lead U.S. Terror Prevention
Story by Tom Latchem • 8h • 2 min read

D.C.’s Reagan National Airport will close during Army’s birthday bash
Story by Lori Aratani, Ian Duncan, Olivia George, Emma Uber • 3h • 5 min read

D.C.’s Reagan National Airport will close during Army’s birthday bash
Story by Lori Aratani, Ian Duncan, Olivia George, Emma Uber • 3h • 5 min read