A Deeply Fractured US

[brihard]

You can't be serious.

Six individuals were criminally convicted for offenses such as obstruction, making false statements, etc. that’s not all the convictions out of the Mueller investigation, but it’s enough to establish that yes, in fact, he’s capable of being serious.

Those six people were Michael Flynn, Trump’s National Security Advisor; Paul Manafort, his Campaign Chairman; Rick Gates, his Deputy Campaign Chairman; George Papadopolous, his campaign Foreign Policy Advisor; Roger Stone, one of his advisors, and; Alex can Der Zwaan. Five out of those six were in tight as part of Trump’s administration or campaign team. I would consider that reasonably ‘widespread’.

It - the letter suggesting Hunter's laptop was "Russian disinformation" - was very relevant. So was everything else about that laptop. A lot of people worked very hard to discredit it and to minimize public discussion. Post-election surveys revealed that some people would have voted differently if they knew more (or almost anything) about it. Elections depend on information; information suppression and misinformation pollute elections.

And talk of Hunter’s supposed laptop was all over the place. Hardly anyone had not heard about it. The revelations from two years ago that have had new life breathed into them this week is simply that social media outlets, on the request of investigators, lessened the spread of the stories across their platform to minimize the viral nature of the unproven and highly partisan allegations. Nobody was prevented from publishing or reading the stories, it was just forced down our throats less forcefully on Facebook.

Again, more than sixty individual court challenges rejected any challenge to the legitimacy of the election results, with judges appointed by both parties. Trying to dredge that back up to again question the legitimacy of the results is dishonest, stupid, and inflammatory. It’s also deliberate and dangerous. I remain unconvinced about any particular possible criminality on Trump’s part. I AM convinced that either he, or someone using his Truth Social account with his blessing, is deliberately furthering the Big Lie to try to foment further unrest in the US, and that this will get people hurt or killed. His posts over the past few days are increasingly unhinged.

 

[Brad Sallows]

No, the reason that there was no definitive finding of "collusion" was that "collusion"

Your summary is precise. It changes my point not at all.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Like when Comey put out the letter around Clinton right before the election, that may have swayed enough people that Trump won?

What is your point? That Comey should have suppressed any talk about the Clinton investigation, or that the laptop story should not have been suppressed?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Aren't all you people totally bored up the arse with this stuff yet???

 

[Brad Sallows]

Six individuals were criminally convicted for offenses such as obstruction, making false statements, etc.

Sure. Which ones were convicted for conspiring with the Russian government to fix the elections?

[Every time the core issue of Americans conspiring with Russians comes up and people recite the litany of financial and process crimes, the gap between what was important and sought after and what was achieved becomes more pronounced.]

 

[IKnowNothing]

Your summary is precise. It changes my point not at all.

And what was the point? That pedantry excuses a Presidential candidate knowingly benefiting from and welcoming foreign interference from a (borderline) enemy state?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Trying to dredge that back up to again question the legitimacy of the results is dishonest, stupid, and inflammatory.

The 2020 election is never going to look very good. People understand "input" and "output" legitimacy, even if they've never heard the terms of art. Pound a drum all day about process and courts; that's "input" legitimacy. Most people are aware than an important story implicating Joe Biden in corruption was suppressed. Protesting that it was "unproven" just accentuates the fact that something is hard to prove if people actively try to suppress discussion and throw out red herrings.

 

[Brad Sallows]

And what was the point?

That the investigation didn't find that the campaign and the Russians worked together to subvert the election. Or however anyone cares to rephrase it.

 

[KevinB]

US Elections are rigged constantly.
Research Vote harvesting.

Both parties exploit it - which is why no one ever shines a bright enough light on it….

 

[Navy_Pete]

What is your point? That Comey should have suppressed any talk about the Clinton investigation, or that the laptop story should not have been suppressed?

That you were arguing the FBI was biased against Trump? That move was demonstrably not anti-Trump, and arguably helped him win enough votes in key swing states to take the electoral college, by someone who didn't actually like/support Trump. Maybe the current investigation against him is just the FBI doing their job, the same as they did then, regardless of the political implications.

The laptop story wasn't suppressed by Facebook, but they did flag it as a potential false flag story and de-emphasize it in the algorithm. Social media is a very effective psy-ops tool, and we know other governments actively use it against us (and I suspect we do something similar) to spread disinformation.

Still haven't seen anything to suggest the laptop story wasn't necessarily a plant, with a mix of real email mixed in with a bunch of lies to sell the package deal. Given that Trump was actively fawning over Putin and other dictators, why wouldn't they prefer his opponents lose? Like all other silver spoons on all sides of the political spectrum, I'm sure he was up to some questionable stuff, but I don't think there is anyone operating multinationally that isn't greasing a few wheels.

 

[Brad Sallows]

That move was demonstrably not anti-Trump

Comey stated "extremely careless"; the statute people thought Clinton might be charged under uses "grossly negligent". An early draft of Comey's statement used "grossly negligent". Not anti-Trump, but not particularly helpful either, and definitely more helpful to Clinton than charges.

I don't know why Comey felt he had to explain anything, but he was backed into an unexpected corner after AG Lynch met with Bill Clinton, which effectively removed her from involvement without risk of additional impropriety. How two experienced lawyers with national profiles allowed themselves to forget the impropriety of meeting when one is responsible for investigating the spouse of the other is still an open question.

Still haven't seen anything to suggest the laptop story wasn't necessarily a plant

The NYT and WaPo produced stories acknowledging the laptop is authentic, but carry on. I suppose a handful of people are still clinging to hope that some of the content on it was fabricated, and that "big guy" isn't a pseudonym for Joe Biden.

 

[Good2Golf]

Aren't all you people totally bored up the arse with this stuff yet???

That’s why many Hammock Pandas are munching bamboo…

 

[Navy_Pete]

Comey stated "extremely careless"; the statute people thought Clinton might be charged under uses "grossly negligent". An early draft of Comey's statement used "grossly negligent". Not anti-Trump, but not particularly helpful either, and definitely more helpful to Clinton than charges.

I don't know why Comey felt he had to explain anything, but he was backed into an unexpected corner after AG Lynch met with Bill Clinton, which effectively removed her from involvement without risk of additional impropriety. How two experienced lawyers with national profiles allowed themselves to forget the impropriety of meeting when one is responsible for investigating the spouse of the other is still an open question.



The NYT and WaPo produced stories acknowledging the laptop is authentic, but carry on. I suppose a handful of people are still clinging to hope that some of the content on it was fabricated, and that "big guy" isn't a pseudonym for Joe Biden.

The corrupted drive where they had some verified emails, a whole whack of unverifiable items, and actual evidence someone else accessed it and changed files and otherwise did things to it after the fact?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/

None of it is actually a smoking gun, and no one found evidence of anything since.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some kind of kickbacks or whatever (on all sides of the aisle), but none of that really changes the fact that Trump had some very seriously classified items that directly impacted National Security and could have easily gotten people killed, stored in a safe in a golf resort. Regardless of what other wrong doings others got up to, looks like he seriously did something wrong here, and there were very valid reasons for that warrant.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If Trump were any other person, all of the law'n'order table-pounding would make sense. The FBI used a light hand investigating Clinton because it was inconceivable that a presidential candidate could be indicted during an election. There was a lot of "any low ranking military/civilian person would be crucified" talk. But, standard set. Unauthorized unsecured storage of classified materials? Check. Destruction of materials during investigation which could arguably constitute obstruction? Check. Lack of raids and other strong measures of compulstion to acquire evidence? Check.

This thread is about the deep fractures in the US, which are due to social and political tensions. Black letter law can't fix those, and blue and red interpretations of it make things worse. If political exigencies were OK to factor in then, they're OK to factor in now.

Hunter's laptop has greater verisimilitude than the Steele Dossier ever had. Consider the differences in how the media and investigators and people with opinions (eg. the "intelligence community") treated them.

 

[QV]

If Trump were any other person, all of the law'n'order table-pounding would make sense. The FBI used a light hand investigating Clinton because it was inconceivable that a presidential candidate could be indicted during an election. There was a lot of "any low ranking military/civilian person would be crucified" talk. But, standard set. Unauthorized unsecured storage of classified materials? Check. Destruction of materials during investigation which could arguably constitute obstruction? Check. Lack of raids and other strong measures of compulstion to acquire evidence? Check.

This thread is about the deep fractures in the US, which are due to social and political tensions. Black letter law can't fix those, and blue and red interpretations of it make things worse. If political exigencies were OK to factor in then, they're OK to factor in now.

Hunter's laptop has greater verisimilitude than the Steele Dossier ever had. Consider the differences in how the media and investigators and people with opinions (eg. the "intelligence community") treated them.

Until people acknowledge these facts, they will continue talking out of their ass.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Clinton's home brewed server also got hacked a number of times while it contained classified and other sensitive information. Who knows what the Russians or other dodgy dictators learned from the hacks.

Russian collusion? Like selling uranium to them?

 

[KevinB]

Clinton's home brewed server also got hacked a number of times while it contained classified and other sensitive information. Who knows what the Russians or other dodgy dictators learned from the hacks.

Russian collusion? Like selling uranium to them?

As Sec State HRC had access to certain info, to a significantly lesser degree than President Trump.

Yes, I think she should have been indicted, convicted and jailed — but just because she wasn’t, doesn’t give DJT a free pass.

He when President could have easily encouraged his DoJ team to re-open the investigation and press forward on HRC. He realized she was a has been in politics and chose to give her a ‘pass’.

If DJT wasn’t still trying to contest the 2020 election, and making it clear he will try for 2024, I doubt that the AG would be pushing the way it is.

Let’s face it - if anyone else had this sort of classified information lying around they’d be doing time already. It’s Political- but on a two way street.

 

[QV]

If we are going to compare Clinton and Trump, lets not ignore a few things. Clinton transmitted emails up to SCI on her home brew server and destroyed evidence during the investigation (smashed phones and wiped disk drives). Trump was storing allegedly classified hard copy documents at ML which is guarded by the Secret Service. During his term some spaces in ML were secured up to SCIF levels, it was referred to as the second White House. And does anyone think Trump packed all his own boxes?

 

[Remius]

Not sure why anyone is even comparing the two. It’s apples and oranges. Pun intended.

I haven’t seen anyone here defending Clinton. Some seem to be defending Trump.

Let that sink in.

 

[IKnowNothing]

He realized she was a has been in politics and chose to give her a ‘pass’.

If DJT wasn’t still trying to contest the 2020 election, and making it clear he will try for 2024, I doubt that the AG would be pushing the way it is.

Let’s face it - if anyone else had this sort of classified information lying around they’d be doing time already. It’s Political- but on a two way street.

I think that's the long and the short of it. At bare minimum both should be barred from high level security clearances and holding high office.
One went reasonably quietly in the night (with a handshake to do so?)
One did not.

Had Trump returned everything when asked, taken his slap on the wrist and bowed out of politics, DOJ would likely have not followed the same COA, for better or worse.