US Politics: A Farewell to Arms

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Mexal said:

Well, it seems like we're not going to get the report but a summary of it written by the DOJ. So who the hell knows what will be in there and what was left out. We still don't have any idea how long it is. The below point feels very relevant right now.

That's been bugging me. Mueller filed an 800 page sentencing memo in the Manafort trial. I've got to believe his final report, combined with all the underlying documents, is massive. I have no idea how Barr got his four page summary out so quickly, even while knowing that he got a three weeks heads up.

Also, Trump's former legal spokesman is dishing on Hope Hicks, and this article ends with what I fear may have happened:

Quote

Special Counsel Robert Mueller‘s team questioned Corallo about the saga, and told him Hicks denied it ever happened. “They asked me how sure I was, and I said 100 percent,” Corallo said.

“It was reckless,” he added.

Corallo also explained that what might have seemed like obstruction of justice to the public, could have been seen as mere incompetence by the special counsel: “I think that Bob Mueller realized that these were just people who were naive,” he said.

It will be infuriating if we learn that Mueller let them off because they were naive idiots who didn't understand that they were acting immorally and some times criminally. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

8 hours ago, aceluby said:

Being critical of the current iteration of the Israeli govt, which is conservative and war-mongering with a large financial backing of the US, and also happens to be led by a corrupt leader who is under indictment, doesn't automatically make one an anti-semite.  There also seems to be a strong bi-partisan push to shut down any of these criticisms via anti-free speech laws that have been proposed and are actively being considered.  

I'd approach the conversation by first understanding the criticisms this person has with the Israeli govt and see if their critiques are based on actions and policies of that govt, or if they are truly rooted in anti-semitism.  Start by not coming in that whatever argument they have must be shitty and based on Jewish hatred would be probably be good as well.

I agree. This is a very fine line that seems to dip into problematic conspiracies (as noted below). I work with a Holocaust scholar, and she isn't religious, but the way she speaks of Israel as a sanctuary for a group of people who were betrayed by their countries makes a lot of sense. U.S. doesn't seem so good a refuge at the moment either. I know the relations of Israel/Palestine are far too complicated to dismiss.

18 hours ago, Triskele said:

Without at all arguing that there's any simple answer to this, I definitely think that a big part of it is simply identifying Palestinians as a suppressed minority and Israel as a powerful oppressor.  That's just one viewpoint of a complicated situation, many would retort.  But that narrative is out there for sure.  

I see. This is a fair argument about Palestinians. But I think what is occurring to me with these good, rational explanations of the phenomenon is that declaring someone unfit because they are an ally of Israel may be where someone begins shifting into problematic territory. It's too broad a brush.

16 hours ago, Lollygag said:

I've been looking at the connection between the far left and anti-Semitism as it didn't make sense. Seems to be the case that populism and socialism have a certain susceptibility to it if it gets interwoven with the stereotype that Jews control a lot of a country's money and institutions. It leap-frogs from the elites/rich are the problem to Jews are the problem. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/opinion/populism-racism-anti-semitism.html

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rachelshabi/democrats-avoid-uk-antisemitism-crisis?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1938-nazi-law-forced-jews-register-their-wealthmaking-it-easier-steal-180968894/

Hitler's The National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi for short) exhibited this leap-frog thinking slipping from elites are the problem to Jews are the problem. 

 

This is interesting to me too. I'm a socialist through and through, and I talk about a ruling class/elite conspiracy against the rest of us, but I always thought of it as the Donald Trumps, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs--if I had to label the elites in my mind, it'd just be rich white men. But I can see how easily these types of stereotypes can lead back to antisemitism. It seems like anti-zionism can sometimes function on covert levels to lead a person to antisemitism. People have to be careful not to be swept up in hateful ideologies.

It reminds me of what Arnold Schwarzenegger said to Trump after Charlottesville. “Believe me, I know the original Nazis. I was born in Austria in 1947, shortly after the Second World War, and growing up I was surrounded by broken men,” he continued. “Men who came home from the war filled with shrapnel and guilt, men who were misled into a losing ideology. And I can tell you that these ghosts that you idolize spent the rest of their lives living in shame. And right now, they’re resting in hell.”

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 hours ago, Mudguard said:

I was also thinking about that press conference where Trump asked Russia to find the missing emails, and I went back and examined exactly what was said.  It's close, but not quite.  I don't think there was any agreement between Trump and any particular person (or country).  If instead he had discussed the same with Putin (or some other Russian operative), and Putin agreed to hack the DNC's servers and then had his minions hack the DNC's servers, then yes, that would be a clear case of conspiracy with Russia to commit a crime.  Trump's actions were often deplorable, but just not quite criminal. 

There was so much shady behavior throughout the entire Trump campaign, that it's reasonable to assume that Trump was a bad actor.  The problem has been finding enough evidence to support such a claim beyond a reasonable doubt.  I want to see the full (or minimally redacted) Mueller report to see if he found a substantial amount of evidence, but just not enough to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a high standard.  However, I think it's unlikely that Mueller found something really good, otherwise he wouldn't have cleared Trump on conspiracy.

That's why I was asking where the bar is. I have no delusions that Trump had a hand shake agreement with Putin, but as you said, there was a lot of shadiness throughout the campaign and the organization. I never thought we'd get a smoking gun directly incriminating Trump, but I still think there's enough bad behavior that occurred to demand that Trump had to talk on the record, as well as his kids. I know Jared did, but from what I could find from a quick search, what he discussed was very limited in scope. And I don't even think Jr. was interviewed. Mueller's team could have easily forced them to talk about the meeting and contrast their interviews with those of other participants of said meetings. 

With regards to the last sentence, see my post above.

Quote

Trump was never going to sit down for an interview, despite his claims to the public that he really wanted to do the interview, and I doubt that Mueller would have been able to compel it, not after Trump submitted written responses to their questions.  If they couldn't make the case without interviewing Trump in person, then it's likely that their case just wasn't that strong.  I don't think it's reasonable to assume that Trump was just going to admit to a crime in a sit down interview.  People like to claim that Trump is a moron, but if he's as dirty as people think, he's been able to avoid criminal prosecution despite having a very high public profile for many decades now.  And if you are still convinced that he's guilty of conspiracy with Russia, he's been smart enough to evade an indictment from Mueller, who was supposed to be one of the best investigators in the country.

That said, I wish Mueller did try and compel the sit down interview, even if he felt that he'd lose the court fight.  It would have been much better for the investigation to have stretched out to the 2020 elections, than come up empty.  But Mueller wasn't doing this to help one side or another, so no interview.

Trump literally blurted out that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation on a national T.V. interview. I'd bet every dollar I have that his lawyers were terrified that he'd do the same with Mueller. And with regards to needing the interview, part of the problem with investigating Trump is that you'll never have a paper trail. He doesn't text or use email and I highly doubt he keeps some kind of log or journal. Additionally, is circle is very small, very tight and very loyal. He behaves like a mob Don. Dons don't get taken down easily despite openly engaging in criminal behavior. And perhaps it's that openness that's been saving Trump this entire time.

[Mudguard]

23 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Trump literally blurted out that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation on a national T.V. interview. I'd bet every dollar I have that his lawyers were terrified that he'd do the same with Mueller. And with regards to needing the interview, part of the problem with investigating Trump is that you'll never have a paper trail. He doesn't text or use email and I highly doubt he keeps some kind of log or journal. Additionally, is circle is very small, very tight and very loyal. He behaves like a mob Don. Dons don't get taken down easily despite openly engaging in criminal behavior. And perhaps it's that openness that's been saving Trump this entire time.

In a hypothetical sit down interview with Mueller, Trump would be extensively prepped by a team of lawyers, who would also be right beside him during the interview.  The main concern was looking bad by pleading the fifth to some questions, or be caught in telling a lie (perjury).  I doubt that Trump would just admit to a crime.  The TV interview was a very different situation, and I doubt that he did much or any prep work for it.

[Gertrude]

2 hours ago, Mudguard said:

In a hypothetical sit down interview with Mueller, Trump would be extensively prepped by a team of lawyers, who would also be right beside him during the interview.  The main concern was looking bad by pleading the fifth to some questions, or be caught in telling a lie (perjury).  I doubt that Trump would just admit to a crime.  The TV interview was a very different situation, and I doubt that he did much or any prep work for it.

And you think he'd do prep work for a Mueller interview? His lawyers would damn well try, but then Trump would be distracted by Fox news in the background, or Ivanka wandering into his office, or a shiny object on the floor. I do agree that the biggest problem would be perjury, and I think he would perjure himself whether he was innocent or guilty - he says whatever comes to mind in the moment, true or not, because he's a bullshitter. That's just who he is and he always knows better than anyone else, obviously.

[Martell Spy]

Federal judge blocks Medicaid work requirements in Kentucky and Arkansas

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/federal-judge-blocks-medicaid-work-requirements-in-kentucky-and-arkansas/2019/03/27/34dab2c8-50a8-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c9c6fa1d4049

Quote

 

A federal judge in Washington threw a significant roadblock into the Trump administration’s efforts to compel poor people on Medicaid to work in exchange for health benefits, rejecting a Kentucky program for a second time while saying that rules in effect in Arkansas “cannot stand.”

The twinned opinions Wednesday afternoon, in a pair of states that have been national leaders in the move toward Medicaid work requirements, cast doubt on the Trump administration’s approvals of efforts to re-envision the public insurance program. The opinions undo the permissions that the U.S. Health and Human Services Department gave those two states, telling the agency it must reconsider the applications with an eye on the effect on poor people who depend on the coverage.

Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia concluded that in letting Kentucky go forward with its requirements, HHS had been “arbitrary and capricious” — the same criticism he leveled once before. He wrote that he “cannot concur” that Medicaid law leaves the HHS secretary “so unconstrained, nor that the states are so armed to refashion the program Congress designed in any way they choose.”

 

 

[OldGimletEye]

On 3/27/2019 at 1:55 AM, Lollygag said:

Hitler's The National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi for short) exhibited this leap-frog thinking slipping from elites are the problem to Jews are the problem. 

I think I have to quibble with this somewhat. I don' think there was any leapfrogging or transitioning or whatever from blaming the elites to blaming the Jews within the Nazi party. Not at least when Hitler basically took control of the party from Anton Drexler. If I recall correctly, at the end of World War I, Hitler was recovering in a hospital from a mustard gas attack. Upon hearing Germany's surrender I believe he was heard going into tirade about the Jews being responsible for Germany's surrender. He was believer in the old stab in the back theory. His antisemitism had well preceded his first meeting with the Nazi Party in 1919 or 1920. He was not a socialist that transitioned from disliking wealthy elites to disliking Jews.

The stab in the back theory was repeated by Paul von Ludendorff when he advanced that as the reason for Germany's loss (which was bullshit. The German Army had simply been bled white after 4 years of fighting. And of course his statement was against his own actions, because he basically launched about four or five offensives in a desperate attempt to break through allied lines before the arrival of American forces) to the Reichstag. And Ludendorff was an elite being born into the old Prussian nobility.

Hitler had a problem with the "elites".  But it wasn't the kind of problem that socialists or left leaning people have with wealthy people. Hitler's problem was largely with the mainly old Prussian officer corp who he saw as too reactionary and conservative and resistant to what he was trying to accomplish. Hence, his joke that he had a Prussian Army, an Imperial Navy, and a Nationalist Socialist Air force. In short Hitler didn't have a problem with elitism, but with a certain kind of elite that he thought was sandbagging him.

I'm not in denial that that there has been some antisemitism on the left (though,there is a lot of bullshit on the right about pointing that out. I think there are legitimate criticism to made of current policy with regard to the Palestinians and Netanyahu is an asshole. And let's recall when right wingers used to call the New Deal, the Jew Deal, which is one example of the right having antisemitism within its ranks). But, I think bringing the Nazis into it to make the point, doesn't quite fit.

[Martell Spy]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think I have to quibble with this somewhat. I don' think there was any leapfrogging or transitioning or whatever from blaming the elites to blaming the Jews within Nazi party. Not at least when Hitler basically took control of the party from Anton Drexler. If I recall correctly, at the end of World War I, Hitler was recovering in a hospital from a mustard gas attack. Upon hearing Germany's surrender I believe he was heard going into tirade about the Jews being responsible for Germany's surrender. He was believer in the old stab in the back theory. His antisemitism had well preceded his first meeting with the Nazi Party 1919 or 1920. He was not a socialist that transitioned from disliking wealthy elites to disliking Jews.

The stab in the back theory was repeated by Paul von Ludendorff when he advanced that as the reason for Germany's loss (which was bullshit. The Germany Army had simply bled white after 4 years of fighting. And of course was against his own actions, when he basically launched about four or five offensives in a desperate attempt to break through allied lines before the arrival of American forces) to the Reichstag. And Ludendorff was an elite being born into the old Prussian Nobility.

Hitler had a problem with the "elites".  But it wasn't the kind of problem that socialist or left leaning people have with wealthy people. Hitler's problem was largely with the mainly old Prussian officer corp who he saw as too reactionary and conservative and resistant to what he was trying to accomplish. Hence, his he his joke that he had a Prussian Army, an Imperial Navy, and a Nationalist Socialist Air force. In short Hitler didn't have a problem with elitism, but with a certain kind of elite that he thought was sandbagging him.

I'm not in denial that that there has been and is some antisemitism on the left (though,there is a lot of bullshit on the right about pointing that out. I think there are legitimate criticism to made of current policy with regard to the Palestinians and Netanyahu is an asshole. And let's recall when right wingers used to call the New Deal, the Jew Deal). But, I think bringing the Nazis into it to make the point, doesn't quite fit.

Not to mention Trump's decision to applaud the tiki-Nazis. It don't know why he did that, but he bought it and completely owns them.

[The Anti-Targ]

Is it too soon to draw a MJ parallel? MJ is surely exhonerated since there has never been sufficient evidence to charge him with a crime.

Perhaps the Dems should pick up the whole collusion isn't crime thing. Sure, collusion isn't a crime against the law, but it's a crime against democracy. It's just a pity such crimes against the core principles of democracy can't be prosecuted under the law.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Triskele said:

They need to get all of the other anti-corruption talking points going and then rope Trump into them.

Right, that's why the House should go all out on investigations with a death by a thousand cuts approach.  I mean, what else do they have to do?  Pass going nowhere bills?

[DMC]

Agreeing with you.  Guess I should knock that off, don't' wanna turn into Randy after inventing Sarcastaball.  "Help me, Sharon!"

[Varysblackfyre321]

Four Democratic candidates met with AIPAC after saying they’ll skip the annual convention.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.haaretz.com/amp/us-news/after-boycott-claims-four-democratic-presidential-hopefuls-meet-aipac-delegates-1.7063905

Don’t these meetings kinda make not going to the convention kinda pointless? 

[DMC]

28 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Four Democratic candidates met with AIPAC after saying they’ll skip the annual convention.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.haaretz.com/amp/us-news/after-boycott-claims-four-democratic-presidential-hopefuls-meet-aipac-delegates-1.7063905

Don’t these meetings kinda make not going to the convention kinda pointless? 

This depiction just demonstrates a broad misunderstanding of your own link.  They didn't go because presidential candidates usually don't go until the year they are running - neither Hillary nor Trump went in 2015, but did in 2016.  They're also all a little busy running for president.  Gillibrand and Klobuchar met with constituents because that's what they do every year.  Harris probably too but I can't quickly find a record on that.  Booker actually was at AIPAC, as that link notes:

Quote

Booker met with the group at the convention center where the AIPAC conference took place.

Beto was busy with events far away, understandable considering he just kicked off his campaign.  Buttigieg says he wasn't invited at all.  And again, it's general AIPAC policy not to invite candidates to speak until the year of the election - Howard Schultz just randomly showed up, but didn't speak.  Also, btw, AIPAC shouldn't have invited all (and therefore none) of the candidates to speak.  That woulda created a circus anyway with all the candidates.  The link you're referring to is just pointing out Pence's total bullshit in claiming 8 Dem candidates "boycotted" the conference.  No.  The only two that boycotted were Sanders and Warren.  Here's a WaPo fact-checker running this all down.

[Jace, Extat]

So I'm not gonna be drawn into this Buttigieg folly, but I saw a thing with him and I gotta say he's a tasty little piece.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, Mudguard said:

In a hypothetical sit down interview with Mueller, Trump would be extensively prepped by a team of lawyers, who would also be right beside him during the interview.  The main concern was looking bad by pleading the fifth to some questions, or be caught in telling a lie (perjury).  I doubt that Trump would just admit to a crime.  The TV interview was a very different situation, and I doubt that he did much or any prep work for it.

 

12 hours ago, Gertrude said:

And you think he'd do prep work for a Mueller interview? His lawyers would damn well try, but then Trump would be distracted by Fox news in the background, or Ivanka wandering into his office, or a shiny object on the floor. I do agree that the biggest problem would be perjury, and I think he would perjure himself whether he was innocent or guilty - he says whatever comes to mind in the moment, true or not, because he's a bullshitter. That's just who he is and he always knows better than anyone else, obviously.

Gertrude has the right of it. No amount of prepping is going to help Trump, and that’s assuming he even pays attention. Mueller, if he is so pleased, could easily bait Trump into admitting various crimes and/or perjuring himself. Trump is fundamentally incapable of being honest, even if he’s entirely innocent. And besides, god knows what others in his orbit have revealed in their interviews. There are more snakes there than in the Well of Souls.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

So I'm not gonna be drawn into this Buttigieg folly, but I saw a thing with him and I gotta say he's a tasty little piece.

I must admit, while I still think he has no chance, he is absolutely the most likable candidate. And probably the sharpest too. There’s no doubt that he has a future in the party.

Also, you brought up Betsy Umbridge cutting the Special Olympics. As a former part time teacher who worked with kids with learning disorders, I find it abhorrent, and this makes it all the more worse.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/27/five-trump-trips-to-mar-a-lago-would-cover-betsy-devoss-proposed-special-olympics-cuts/

[Larry of the Lawn]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

Gertrude has the right of it. No amount of prepping is going to help Trump, and that’s assuming he even pays attention. Mueller, if he is so pleased, could easily bait Trump into admitting various crimes and/or perjuring himself. Trump is fundamentally incapable of being honest, even if he’s entirely innocent. And besides, god knows what others in his orbit have revealed in their interviews. There are more snakes there than in the Well of Souls.

I'm not so sure.  I heard footage of him from a deposition from an old lawsuit and he did a pretty good job of "I don't recall" "don't remember" and basically just giving zero info.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I'm not so sure.  I heard footage of him from a deposition from an old lawsuit and he did a pretty good job of "I don't recall" "don't remember" and basically just giving zero info.

How old was it? You can see footage of Trump from the early 2000’s and he’s totally lucid, but he’s changed so much since then. His cognitive decline is pronounced.   

[Maithanet]

One worry I have about Mayor Pete is just that while it's hard to imagine in my social circles, but a huge portion of the country is still uncomfortable with gay people.  For example, this WaPo article cites the number of people who think that same sex adults having sexual relations is "not wrong at all".  Among DEMOCRATS that number is just under 60%.  That is 40% of democrats think that gay sex is at least somewhat wrong.  With Republicans, it's even worse, with only 41% saying not wrong.  So on the whole, it's about an even split of whether gay sex is wrong. 

That's really disappointing.

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

How old was it? You can see footage of Trump from the early 2000’s and he’s totally lucid, but he’s changed so much since then. His cognitive decline is pronounced.   

I find myself willing to give this much more credence now than I was when it was popular to discuss during his first six months or so.

It was always obvious that Trump has some personality disorders (you can argue which one to your little hearts content) and also obvious that the horrible caricature of a man we got in teens was a dramatically less palatable one than in the 'aughts when nobody outside of New York gave a fuck about him

I don't think this is cognitive decline (not a psychiatrist) in the way folks like to talk about dementia or alzheimers. It could be, but I have learned to be slow in questioning the unending fortunes which grace one Donald J Trump.

I think that he's been regressing socially and emotionally his entire adult life. Regardless of where his capacities were after whatever psycho-fuck silver spoon childhood he had, since his father died he's been retreating further into a pattern of self-delusion and paranoia that can only be appeased by praise. Gun to my head, I think he's incapable of handling the fact that he's going to get old and die some day. Since himself is the only thing he cares about apart from Ivanka (which he sees as an extension of himself), this fear is the fulcrum of our intrepid leader. 

Now though, whoa! Yeah, I kinda think it's weird the media isn't biting at that bone again. I know it didn't ride last time, but it's obvious now! You're absolutely right in effect, Ty. The dude has been under so much stress, he cracked like an egg months ago. I can't even remember exactly when, but at some point in 2018 he went full word salad. Now when he speaks "normally" it's his sad pathetic mumble but with the coherence of his worst rally speeches. I seriously just get depressed whenever Trevor Noah shows a clip of him now. It's fucking sad. The dude must be a goddamn wreck. I hope those golf trips I'm paying for really help.