<-----------votes for pixie dust (see below) We will never see an unedited/unredacted version of the report. Many books will be written about the report with incomplete knowledge of the content of the report, mostly showing the authors' biases. and We can all choose up sides and argue whether fairy dust or pixie dust is the most awesome.
I think the big cop-out, here, is that it virtually always goes this way. Overwhelming evidence? Oh, well, we need to be more certain because he's a Republican; and we also need every fallacy we can find. Unprecedented inquiry? Well, that was chasing down Bill Clinton and a real estate deal. Or was that a drug trafficking deal? Or a secret murder ring? Oh, hey, having an affair. Two decades later we see the insincerity of that impeachment; if we meant it, we would have actually done something about sexual harassment, violence, and exploitation, between then and now. Think of it this way: In the middle of #MeToo, both Monica Lewinsky and Juanita Broaddrick turned up, and nobody really paid much attention to them, especially Broaddrick. They've both been exploited by Republicans, in addition to whatever they suffered by Bill Clinton. And it was, at long last, Republicans who actually compelled Lewinsky into a weird sympathy with Bill Clinton, when someone asked, sarcastically, about the time the Attorney General buried the Clinton inquiry and any details that might have embarrassed other people. Lewinsky turned up on Twitter with a three word response, "If … fucking … only." That is to say, again, we see how this goes. Still, that was then, despite threading into now. When it came to the Republican actually lying to the nation in order to establish false pretense for war, whereupon he would deliberately send inadequate force and then undertake willful and calculated dereliction of the Geneva Conventions? Well, Republicans decided to not renew the law by which they had investigated the Democratic president because, in their view, the American people were tired of special investigations. Apparently the American people got their taste back just in time for Republicans to gratify them with tinfoil Congressional investigations of the next Democratic administration. The conspiracism, by the way, continues today; it was called #Pizzagate, and now is is an insane exercise called #Qanon; and even the journalists trying to cover it can't figure out why they should except for the obvious point of its persistence and growing rightist influence all the way up to words uttered before Congress by Attorney General Barr. It's not like the one direction is a mystery. Now we have the Attorney General of the United States lying to Congress about a Justice Department inquiry, and in such a manner as to shield a Republican president by misprision, and now that the inquiry report paints such a damning picture, we are supposed to tacitly take up the AG's observably false narrative because the best we can do is a both-sides equivocation to "choose up sides and argue whether fairy dust or pixie dust is the most awesome". We see how this goes. Congress has the right to view the full, unredacted report and its supporting evidence; this is beyond any vagary. To accept that, "We will never see an unedited/unredacted version of the report" is to cling to some technicality at best, whereby there will always remain at least one black bar in the report; even infamous files released to the public over the years have gaps in them, and sometimes we don't know if it's a matter of keeping a secret or if the originals were lost. We have better recordkeeping technology, now, though I admit I share at least some of your cynicism. To the other, this is also like a lot of your expressed politic, where you might not support something, but just can't help saying the same things supporters say. It's actually a fairly common human behavior, but on this occasion we can at least make the point. Meanwhile, despite largely consistent political results in these issues, some people continue to take such obvious bait, and others will eventually wonder if this is a matter of wanting something or not knowing any better; after enough repetitions, the difference is a matter of semantics compared to a consistent result. The naked colloquial politic would be to say it really does look like American conservatives need special accommodation as if for disability. A more appropriate expression might simply be that we ought not be surprised at your application of vagary; it is common to both your posting and the vicious, rightist politics you would prefer not be seen as supporting but can't seem to avoid expressing. Try the following: If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, shits on your lawn like a duck, then it must be a robot monkey with a rocket in its ass. And if our resolution is that there is no way to know because we will never actually have the rocket to examine, I will doubt the standard of observation, because it is its own dusted fancy. Think about what the cynicism gets you: More of the same. At some point, we can accept that's what you want not only for yourself but everybody else, as well. But that doesn't really mean it makes any sense. Ego defense, sure, but it's also a pretty rigid structure. Compared to that colloquial politic of conservatism requiring accommodation comparable to disability, though, the question of severity and disruption—i.e., actual criteria for certain psych diagnoses—is largely a reflection on that larger collective politic. As an individual consideration, it's more an appeal to scrutinize the existential condition of what one is buying into, especially if one intends to turn around and sell it.
Forget this focus on criminality. It is not necessary for impeachment. A much stronger case can be made with "high misdeameanors", i.e. "conduct unbecoming the president of the US". The subject himself has provided plenty public evidence of "misdemeanors unbecoming the office of the presidency"
looks like an ultra conservatist. is he the tip of the spear or the thin end of the wedge ? you cant have religious diversity & freedom without secular law maintaining your boundary's the current republican party lust after power soo much that they would never impeach their own president. its all fair in love, war & politics when they are electioneering for leadership of the party. Completely different morality once they are in office & have control. the very act of impeachment defys their core values. what is a litmus test ? any working class legal rights protection they have gone to bat for = none they have removed the right to assemble remember that ! the 2nd amendment doesn't mean anything if you not allowed to be out on the street. if the republican party championed the 2nd amendment they would be front and centre about all police shootings as these challenge the right to bare arms. you would see them doing some actual work to make things better. instead you have unarmed people being shot dead. Most unarmed & exercising their right to freedom of movement. im not talking about the career criminals and gun totting gang members doing drive by shootings Directly under-funding and under-staffing police to force them to use deadly force because they dont have enough police on the ground is no different than being a murderer. equally, under resourcing the training process because you lower the entrance level requirements because you lower the pay and reduce staff so create a high level or burn out is also the same as murder. why the right wing seem to champion the right of dumb idiots to be allowed to run around in public with loaded guns i really dont know, unless they are sadistic sociopaths. how is that a defense 1st policy of moral law ? its not because they promote and endorse the death penalty which makes them a kill first and ask questions later morality. how does that sit with christian values ? how do they display their core values and what are they ? answer that question for yourself. for all the bullshit & bluster the us political right scream about honoring the military and those who serve with a gun in their hands they seem to be all too ready to take the food off their plates and deny them medical cover and professional transition funding.
Can we say that Hillary would have been elected if not for Russian interference? That Trumps victory was a hollow one, a fraud perpetrated by Russian support that he didn't refuse and in fact openly encouraged?
You would have to believe the conspiracy theory that the DNC leak was a hack, and hacked by the Russians, instead of coming from an insider. Which is not really plausible. Even in this case, the Americans should thank Russia for providing them information about the manipulations against Sanders in the primaries. Last but not least, the information was accurate, so, the Americans were, after this, able to make a better-informed decision, not?
If the Russians were truly interested in a better informed American electorate, they would’ve put the same effort in to exposing examples of Trump’s less than ethical behavior.
Fact is it was Trump who got the support not Hillary. Nothing more to say... It was a Russian victory...
Why could Russia be interested in a better informed American electorate? It has own interests. Given that good, or at least peaceful, relations to the US are among them, it was quite natural that it would not make sense to support Clinton. Any problem with this? At a time when the US does not only openly support in every election on Earth some candidate who supports US interests, but supports even coup attempts like now in Venezuela.
I'm indeed happy that up to now there was no Russia-US war starting in Syria, where Clinton has essentially promised in her campaign to start a war. Any problem? Are you unhappy with this? In other questions, one can be happy that Trump's stupidity, combined with the stupidity of the globalists fighting him, has seriously harmed US soft power in foreign relations. The Iran/Russia/China alliance has been strengthened by the stupidity of the US of attacking them all and forcing them to unite. Europe, India, Turkey make first steps in anti-American policy, forced to do this by the stupid US demands to participate in idiotic sanctions against Iran and Venezuela and to stop North Stream II. As a result, the dollar rule is weakened, because these states have to find ways to do business with these states which are not under control of the US. These are things one can be happy about. But, essentially, nothing has changed. In almost all aspects it is the globalist faction of the deep state which is in control now, it would have had the control from the start if Clinton would have won. Thus, the only result was two years of some confusion who rules foreign policy, with the result that no new war was started, instead of the globalist rule as before and now again, where one has to wait for the next war.
That is so dishonest. You have no proof that Hillary would have started a war. None whatever. It's like saying that from your posits it is evident that if you were elected to office you'd start a war somewhere. So it's a good thing you are not in any position of power, right?
A war in Syria is not the issue... The Russian election victory on USA sovereign soil may lead to something far more than a mere altercation in Syria.
I have her campaign promises. Of course, you can be cynical and say once she has promised this, she would certainly not do this in reality. The promise was about creating a no-fly zone in Syria, which means, an open act of aggression against Syria as well as against the Russian planes flying in this zone. Open aggression against Russian airplanes would be the start of a war. First of all, it should be clear from my posts that I do not plan to work in some office. Politicians are amoral criminals in my opinion, given that they live on taxes which have been taken from the people using the threat of force. Then, there is the no-fly zone in Syria, which was an election promise. And there have been the later comments, after Trump's attack against an empty Syrian airbase after the faked gas attack, that she not only supports this, but would have attacked in a much more serious way, really starting a war. See https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-assad/ The fact is that the Russian reaction would have been "against", and they were not afraid of such a development - if they were afraid, Russia would not have started to go to Syria. So, the result would have been war, predictable, because this constellation is the most dangerous one, Clinton thinking the Russians are afraid, but the Russians not being afraid. They have told Trump, in clear words, if some rocket hits something Russian, we will destroy the ship where that rocket started. Trump has understood and behaved appropriately. Clinton, thinking that "the Russians were afraid" would not have cared. But the Russians would have done it. So, there would have been a US ship destroyed by the Russians. Makes no sense. The "election meddling" is irrelevant propaganda for the sheeple, nothing more. It may have been invented to lead to something, like Gleiwitz, ok. In this case, it will indeed lead to something, but in this case the Russian behavior is irrelevant, something would have been invented as a justification for leading to the intended something. But in this case, the aim was only to impeach Trump, not to start a war with Russia.
The opposite of opposing Russia in Syria, pretty much a lost cause now, is the creation of a new world order between Iran, Russia, and China which would allow a parallel banking system designed to avoid sanctions, and a world of Capitalism without Democracy or human rights. The Cuban missile crisis was one such turning point. Syria is another. The US after WWI also became isolationist. Eventually there will be a price to pay for that.
So, from the history my conclusion is that the current state is no better and possible worse than it was before Trump took office. Moreover, Russia is now in South America. I am a fan of the game of Risk and I can see the Russian strategy unfolding as we speak.
a very good point and one I share.... Once the USA loses control over the money anarchy will be the outcome. Something Schmeltzer welcomes with baited breath, until he becomes a victim of such anarchy rotting in a jail somewhere or enjoying forced labor camps possibly for something "trivial" like downloading illicit material of the web or visiting a web site like this one. My grandfather spent a number of years digging salt due to such a system.... not good at all...
tell that to the CIA, the FBI , NSA and so on.... don't worry about Trump. When it comes to the constitution and the president is a dud* the people will decide.... The Mueller report is not a trivial document (whether true or not) and has far reaching implications for Russia. * a dud is a colloquial word that generally means that the object failed to do anything as intended.
So that Americans can better pick more ethically responsible and intelligent government officials. If Russian leaders want better relations with the US, they should promote an electoral processes that ensures more ethically responsible politicians have a chance to attain positions in government. So when Venezuelan officials rig elections in similar fashion to the Russians, the rest of the world is just supposed to sit back and accept it? Why is it in the best interest of the Russian and Venezuelan people to support dictators?
