Jump to content

US Politics: Mueller....Mueller....Mueller...


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

So basically no consequence.  No way he's going to serve a jail sentence if he can plea and pay the full fine. I feel sick.  For 500 bucks a politician can bodyslam a reporter in Montana if they don't want to answer a question.  Then they can be elected the next day.

 

This is why it's so horrifying to me.  It now gives people permission to behave this way.  It will definitely become the new norm.  I can't decide if I should flee now or wait until they shut me off from my bank account.

I know how you feel. If the army had given me any skills I'd already be gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fookin' Hell...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?pushid=5928b4602e12651d00000008&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.41cede643343

Quote

 

Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports.

Ambassador Sergei Kislyak reported to his superiors in Moscow that Kushner, son-in-law and confidant to then-President-elect Trump, made the proposal during a meeting on Dec. 1 or 2 at Trump Tower, according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials. Kislyak said Kushner suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications.

The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser.

The White House disclosed the fact of the meeting only in March, playing down its significance. But people familiar with the matter say the FBI now considers the encounter, as well as another meeting Kushner had with a Russian banker, to be of investigative interest.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

So basically no consequence.  No way he's going to serve a jail sentence if he can plea and pay the full fine. I feel sick.  For 500 bucks a politician can bodyslam a reporter in Montana if they don't want to answer a question.  Then they can be elected the next day.

 

This is why it's so horrifying to me.  It now gives people permission to behave this way.  It will definitely become the new norm.  I can't decide if I should flee now or wait until they shut me off from my bank account.

If it's his first offense of this type, he probably shouldn't do time. I think how injured the reporter was should probably factor into this as well. I'm not sure what his status is, but if the charge of misdemeanor assault is reasonable, it's likely that his injuries were superficial. I would have to imagine that he'll get the fine and some manner of probation, but I guess we'll have to wait and see how that plays out.

 I think the biggest deterrent here that can be employed is the potential Civil damages that this reporter can collect. If I'm this guy I start a GoFundMe page for my legal bills. Then I seek out the biggest shark personal injury lawyer I can find. Then I compile a laundry list of both physical and psychological damages that can reasonably applied to this incident. Sue this asshole's pants off, and the next asshole will think twice before pulling this shit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

It's starting to seem like the Russkies want this to go to impeachment. 

Like, on the one hand this seems incredibly, horribly bad. It violates the Logan act in an incredible way, it goes against every single principle we have about how to deal with foreign affairs and violates something like all of the Espionage Act (or at least is trying to). The biggest problem of all of this is that the US party was trying to actually use Russian communication devices to do this, which is...well, it's super insane.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that it's actually that horrible because I don't know what the intent is, and simply having a backchannel to other countries is not by itself necessarily bad; IIRC, Kennedy essentially had one with Kruschev that stopped the Cuban Missile Crisis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Like, on the one hand this seems incredibly, horribly bad. It violates the Logan act in an incredible way, it goes against every single principle we have about how to deal with foreign affairs and violates something like all of the Espionage Act (or at least is trying to). The biggest problem of all of this is that the US party was trying to actually use Russian communication devices to do this, which is...well, it's super insane.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that it's actually that horrible because I don't know what the intent is, and simply having a backchannel to other countries is not by itself necessarily bad; IIRC, Kennedy essentially had one with Kruschev that stopped the Cuban Missile Crisis. 

Yes, it was the Dobrynin-RFK meeting.  As you said, there are reasonable reasons for this.  I just have a hard time giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

Yes, it was the Dobrynin-RFK meeting.  As you said, there are reasonable reasons for this.  I just have a hard time giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Though reading on that, this isn't that at all. That was an actual offically documented meeting between two officials in an official area. It wasn't precisely the same protocol, but it wasn't hidden in any way and was, as it turns out, absurdly well-documented (as was their relationship). 

This...I don't know what this is. This is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the US intelligence community to establish communications with a group that had literally stolen information from our country. I just...argh.

Like, the best I can say is that they were trying to do this for the good of the country and did it without deliberate malice, but it is still an incredibly stupid, insecure (in the security sense) act. And that's at best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, commiedore said:

man, before this who thing is done, we're going to read about some trump adjacent dipshit, shot dead in a georgetown townhouse closet

What a goddamn prophetic movie that was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I have no clue to what you think you were doing here. First, the reporter in question did not as you say “ insult someone and find fault with their actions no matter what they do. ” He asked Gianforte a question of great public interest. But, even if the Reporter had asked him something a bit more trivial in nature, it does not justify or excuse Gianforte’s actions. Nor does severe criticism of Gianfortes actions or policies.

If the reporter's comments immediately prior to the scuffle were the entirety of Gianforte's cause, then of course there is no excuse. However, I think it is much, much more likely that those comments were merely the straw that broke the camel's back. I agree with you that Gianforte still should not have reacted as he did, but in that case it is understandable why he did it and why people would excuse him.

5 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

It seems to me you're trying to impose some kind of limitation here on the freedom of the press that doesn’t exist in law, nor should it.

You are right that it does not exist in law. Should it? I suppose not, but this is contingent on the press behaving at least somewhat reasonably and at the moment they're not doing that.

5 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Notice she doesn’t really say, “Ya we know Gianforte fucked up. And we forgive knowing he fucked up.” Instead what does she do? She tries to justify his actions by saying “There comes a point where stop it.” That’s not merely forgiving somebody for fucking up, it’s trying to excuse him for fucking up.

If you don’t think his actions were excusable, then I’m not sure how you “understand” others finding his actions excusable. Understanding them for forgiving him, yes. But understanding them excusing him, no.

She is absolutely trying to justify his actions and I fully understand her even though I disagree. Imagine that the press followed everything a specific individual did and cast all of it in as negative a light as possible without running afoul of defamation laws. Under our system, the individual has no recourse against such treatment -- he or she can ignore them or ask friends (or pay neutrals) to propagate a competing perspective, but there's no way to stop the sludge. Would it be wrong to retaliate in the old fashioned way? I personally think that it would, but I can see the other side of the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Altherion said:

You are right that it does not exist in law. Should it? I suppose not, but this is contingent on the press behaving at least somewhat reasonably and at the moment they're not doing that.

How the hell are they not being somewhat reasonable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, listening to Ben Jacobs talk makes me want to punch him too. Such a whiner.

In one interview he is going on about how is is typing one handed as his shoulder feels a bit uncomfortable. Clearly laying down the foundation for some kind of civil claim for "loss of ability to do his work" due to the supposed grievous injury he suffered.

He is going to maximise the mileage from this. Excuse me while I wipe the tears from my eyes. Frankly, there are much bigger things to worry about in the world than one pushy little hipster reporter being dumped on his ass by some provincial politician.

Of course, it will probably move North Korea's nuclear missiles or China's South China Sea annexation off the top of CNN's headline priority list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

If the reporter's comments immediately prior to the scuffle were the entirety of Gianforte's cause, then of course there is no excuse. However, I think it is much, much more likely that those comments were merely the straw that broke the camel's back. I agree with you that Gianforte still should not have reacted as he did, but in that case it is understandable why he did it and why people would excuse him.

Is it also understandable when a horny guy who's been rejected all night sees a woman in a short skirt and assaults her? It is also understandable when a parent has a horrible day at work with customers yelling at him and hits the two year old because he also begins screaming as soon as he walks in the door? I get that you're not saying Gianforte's action was excusable, but by saying it was understandable is only a hair better than saying it was excusable, IMO. It normalizes it and makes it seem 'not really that bad'.

And I had more to say about Northman's rant, but I'm just gonna leave it at wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Frankly, listening to Ben Jacobs talk makes me want to punch him too. Such a whiner.

In one interview he is going on about how is is typing one handed as his shoulder feels a bit uncomfortable. Clearly laying down the foundation for some kind of civil claim for "loss of ability to do his work" due to the supposed grievous injury he suffered.

He is going to maximise the mileage from this. Excuse me while I wipe the tears from my eyes. Frankly, there are much bigger things to worry about in the world than one pushy little hipster reporter being dumped on his ass by some provincial politician.

Of course, it will probably move North Korea's nuclear missiles or China's South China Sea annexation off the top of CNN's headline priority list.

I think one of the bigger things to worry about in the world is witnessing a large part of the electorate of the most powerful nation in the world practically reveling in a congressman (not some random dude) from "their side" assaulting a persistent reporter who they consider to be on "the other side."  Seems like a dark path we're treading.

And yes, it's wrong to sucker punch Richard Spencer too, but it's not like some Dem congressman did that.  And has the press really become less sympathetic than a Nazi to Trump supporters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Frankly, listening to Ben Jacobs talk makes me want to punch him too. Such a whiner.

In one interview he is going on about how is is typing one handed as his shoulder feels a bit uncomfortable. Clearly laying down the foundation for some kind of civil claim for "loss of ability to do his work" due to the supposed grievous injury he suffered.

He is going to maximise the mileage from this. Excuse me while I wipe the tears from my eyes. Frankly, there are much bigger things to worry about in the world than one pushy little hipster reporter being dumped on his ass by some provincial politician.

Of course, it will probably move North Korea's nuclear missiles or China's South China Sea annexation off the top of CNN's headline priority list.

Let me get this straight.  Bodyslamming a pushy little shit is allowed and even condoned in your circle. There is a pushy big shit occupying real estate in Washington. Do we have the right to bodyslam  him whenever he gets out of line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Frankly, listening to Ben Jacobs talk makes me want to punch him too. Such a whiner.

If conservative sorts of people want to go around hitting people, then I think I'd like to clock Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and Ted Nugent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, denstorebog said:

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott showed off his target sheet at a gun range and appeared to joke about shooting reporters, saying "I’m gonna carry this around in case I see any reporters."

That's right, Gianforte has just shown Republicans that promoting one of the central steps towards a fascist state is an effective way to curry favor with the voters. This is gonna be a new norm.

Can you imagine if someone made this "joke" in the other direction? You'd get a visit from some people in uniform right quick.

 

5 hours ago, Altherion said:

If the reporter's comments immediately prior to the scuffle were the entirety of Gianforte's cause, then of course there is no excuse. However, I think it is much, much more likely that those comments were merely the straw that broke the camel's back. I agree with you that Gianforte still should not have reacted as he did, but in that case it is understandable why he did it and why people would excuse him.

You are right that it does not exist in law. Should it? I suppose not, but this is contingent on the press behaving at least somewhat reasonably and at the moment they're not doing that.

She is absolutely trying to justify his actions and I fully understand her even though I disagree. Imagine that the press followed everything a specific individual did and cast all of it in as negative a light as possible without running afoul of defamation laws. Under our system, the individual has no recourse against such treatment -- he or she can ignore them or ask friends (or pay neutrals) to propagate a competing perspective, but there's no way to stop the sludge. Would it be wrong to retaliate in the old fashioned way? I personally think that it would, but I can see the other side of the argument.


You are an absolute fascist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...