Bye bye old investigations; hello new investigations
As far as the halting of the ongoing House investigations, goes, they can still continue till the end of the term. My sense of it is that a great deal has been uncovered so far—at least, enough to convince those who are paying attention that the rot goes deep. But the trouble is that so many aren’t paying attention, and/or so many are simply reading what the MSM has to say about it all. So those investigations could have gone on for many more years and much of America would have ignored their findings.
That’s how cynical I’ve become.
For the right to win any sort of meaningful and lasting victories, more has to change with our educational system and various other non-political institutions, because until that happens, everything is filtered through the lens of the left. Oops, I guess I’m repeating myself.
And of course, two can play at this game. The Senate, for example:
If the Democrats think they are going to waste Taxpayer Money investigating us at the House level, then we will likewise be forced to consider investigating them for all of the leaks of Classified Information, and much else, at the Senate level. Two can play that game!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2018
I think it’s been awhile since the Republicans have been called obstructionists on an almost daily basis. Things will change soon enough.
Meanwhile, Sessions has retired at the request of DJT.
At least Nunes was re-elected. I understand that Grassley plans to go on as many of the examples of misuse of FISA involve DOJ and his committee.
Also, Trump can get his appointments approved with a bigger majority.
if you didnt post right after i posted so that i end the thread..
you might have read this about 4 articles back
Artfldgr on November 7, 2018 at 2:38 pm at 2:38 pm said:
“If the Democrats think they are going to waste Taxpayer Money investigating us at the House level, then we will likewise be forced to consider investigating them for all of the leaks of Classified Information, and much else, at the Senate level.”
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
“Two can play that game!”
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
“It’s not like we’re going to go drunk-crazy with subpoenas. But it may seem that way because we are coming off a two-year drought of no subpoenas,” said Representative Gerald Connolly of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Oversight subcommittee on government operations.
why bother to post or participate?
let me know the reason..
because certainly its not for hat tips for being first
and purposefully putting up new articles to bury comments
[run some software analysis on your actions over 10 years and see. its much like register girls making mistakes… but never in your favor.]
im done wasting time..
its the same way they punk me at work
wasting my time rather than just letting me go and do something of value
locking up the issue
I gather the new House will try to get Trump’s tax returns. They have not a shred of legal basis for doing that. They’ll set themselves up to be demolished if they do.
And Trump’s new acting AG is now Mueller’s supervisor.
Nadler has announced that he plans to try to impeach Kavanaugh, as well as Trump.
That should be fun.
MikeK:
Wouldn’t you just love to see the impeachment trial of Kavanaugh in the Senate, if the Democrats are stupid enough to vote to impeach him (I don’t think they will do that, by the way)? What would the charges be? All the accusers have been thoroughly discredited. And there is, quite literally, zero evidence against him.
Not to mention the fact that the Senate is controlled by Republicans.
Of course, Nadler may be planning ahead to the time when he thinks the Democrats will not only control the House but have 2/3 of the Senate.
Art:
It’s not all about you.
Artfldgr:
You have made this charge before and I have answered it before. Perhaps you missed my previous answer.
I repeat essentially what I wrote before, which is that I don’t read all the comments here. I certainly don’t read all of your comments. In fact, I probably don’t read most of your comments—maybe I read about a third of them? Hard to say the exact figure. Often even the comments of yours I shorten for length I have not read for content.
Sorry if that seems harsh, but if I read all the comments here I would have much less time for myself, and I already spend a good deal of time writing my posts.
On some days I do read all of the comments, however, or at least skim them. It just depends on how pressed for time I am.
I do not ordinarily base anything I write on whether you or any other commenter mentions it, and on the occasions when I do, I give credit. Many stories and topics are in the air and I read about them elsewhere. When I am writing about something a commenter has suggested or brought up, if it’s not something I already was aware of and planning to write about I will give that person credit and mention them by name. I have done that with you on many occasions.
Just because two things are related in time it does not mean that one causes the other. Surely you are quite aware of that.
You’d think that if the president had reason to believe crimes were committed, he’d suggest an investigation irrespective of political one-upmanship. But, instead, he’s only threatening investigations to stop investigations into himself. Which probably means either that he lacks evidence, or he views investigations into crimes purely in terms of political rivalry and not at all in terms of his constitutional role.
I see no reason why Senate committees can’t pick up the investigations begun by the House and pursue them to their conclusion.
Thank you, Liberal Troll, for reminding us of something we noticed during the 2016 primaries. Trump’s personality traits are by now well known to most on the right. A few Never-Trumpers (poor dears) still take offense. Trump was not the first choice for most conservatives, but we were able to vote for him in the general election because we came to understand his core supporters and their motives. So we eventually cast out lot with those who wanted a champion sworn to defend them and strike back at the demonization they had suffered from Obama, which continues from the mainstream media.
Hope that helps.
You are not paranoid if someone really is out to get you. Similarly, if a cynical viewpoint brings you into a more accurate understanding of how something is, or predicting how it will be, then you are just being smarter and wiser.
____
Operação Lava Jato, aka Operation Car Wash
A few hours ago I was thinking about Jair (Zha-ear) Bolsonaro and his big win with more than 55% of the vote in Brazil. How did that happen anyway? Yeah, there was this big corruption scandal, but was that really it?
I didn’t remember it well, but there was a Netflix drama called “The Mechanism” that I had seen a year or two ago, based on Operation Car Wash. Wikipedia tells us that 179 people were indicted and 93 convicted, AND president Dilma Rousseff was impeached AND convicted and removed. One billion US$ in misappropriated funds.
Then the admittedly oversimplified thought hit me; it’s Jeff Sessions that’s largely to blame for where we are politically. Imagine if every provable crime associated with Hillary’s email server was fully prosecuted. What about Eric Holder’s illegal gun running operation? Don’t signed documents exist somewhere? Then there’s the falsified FISA warrant applications?
Now we are in the post Sessions world. Will anything change? Should I be cynical?
Always be cynical, it is the arc of history. 😉 A person may be intelligent, but people are uninformed and emotional. I look forward to the House democrate majority being stupid and banging their heads on the wall of djt.
“So we eventually cast out lot with those who wanted a champion sworn to defend them and strike back at the demonization they had suffered from Obama, which continues from the mainstream media.”
So just so I understand, you’re arguing that Trump NOT investigating Democrats in the House unless there’s something in it for him personally constitutes, in your boom, Trump defending you from demonization started by Obama?
Got it.
I guess I get this from a weirdly partisan angle. But man, that’s taking partisan tribalism to a pretty high level.
Partisan tribalism’ really? What a weird collection of tribal partisans the left relies upon. Muslims (Calypso Louie), confused puppies (lgbtqy 52 or is it 57 genders?), the narcissists of Hollyweird, the msm, and the special snowflakes of academia. You, liberal troll must be older than 12 but younger than 32. Respect your elders, we have seen deja vu all over again. Your shallow awareness of the past puts the blinders on your eyes. Heck, you confuse up with down, reality with fantasy, and most of all Zim with Hayek. Growing up is hard to do. Search on youtube.
Liberal Troll: If you really want to understand the general viewpoint here — though it’s hardly one size fits all — read the posts and comments for a week with a somewhat open mind, that is to say, without leaping to conclusions like “high-level partisan tribalism.” Then try us again.
As a Nobel Prize winner once sang:
If you don’t underestimate me, I won’t underestimate you.
–Bob Dylan, “Dear Landlord”
Hmm…the comment re-edit feature seems to have dropped out.
@parker That’s one hell of an incantation! But what’s the point of mindlessly repeating talking points like talismans? Does it make you feel better? Does it reassure you? Do you think that, like a cross with a vampire, that they will drive me away? Are you chanting shibboleths so everyone knows you belong in the group?
(Oh but sick burn. Liberals have identity politics! So do conservatives! Every trans ban in the military, every effort by the White House, every rally to support every baker who refuses to bake any cake for any gays: this is identity politics too. It’s easy to forget when you assume your own identity is default, and identity politics only start with someone else’s identity.)
I really don’t get the Louis Farrakhan reference. He’s a reactionary anti-semite who has repeatedly endorsed Trump. If he’s anyone’s baggage, he’s not mine.
@huxley I was specifically responding to banned lizard, and wasn’t trying to impugn everyone. I have spent more than a week reading comments here, and was trying with my original comment to understand Neo’s original post, which passed along, uncritically, Trump’s treatment of criminal investigations as a political bargaining chip to benefit himself personally instead of a law enforcement obligation.
Libby Troll:
You better up your game if you can. Manju sets the bar for you folks in these parts.
Citing anything said by Louis Farrakhan is pathetic, you no doubt would claim Linda SowSewer as one of your leaders.
Calypso Louie has endorsed the trumpinator? So you have sound, reliable sources to back up that claim? Oh, no… you find growing up hard to do. Not unusual for your generation brainwashed by the leftist tribal cabal. BTW, you are not a ‘liberal troll’. You are an antifafascist troll. Yugely confused, sad, and dangerous. Start CW2, go ahead, but be prepared for unintended consequences.
Why do I say that? Because the left is violent and stupid to believe they can dominate when metal meets the soft tissue. I have seen the violence of the left 40 years ago and now since 2016. You and yours never learn. Goodnight and someday growup.
Liberal Troll: OK. Well, maybe this isn’t as good a venue for discussion as I thought.
Anyway, returning to your concern, my impression is that Trump, as well as most commenters here, don’t consider the Mueller probe a serious criminal investigation so much as a bad faith fishing expedition seeking a ham sandwich to indict.
It didn’t start with a criminal charge. What little has been turned up seems to have been nothing more than perjury traps or unrelated to the Trump 2016 campaign. As I recall, Mueller did indict several Russians and then was unprepared to make a case in court.
However, much more substantial apparent crimes of leaking and lying and shenanigans with the FISA court have been revealed that deserve further serious investigation — not to stop the Mueller project but for their own sake.
I think Trump would prefer to move on with his projects, but if Democrats insist on pursuing this bad faith investigation, he is saying he can play that game too, and only with some real dirt and real crime. I approve that response.
To Liberal Troll, “Sheperd,” and all your other sock-puppets:
You’ve become a humorist, I see, in addition to being a troll.
Louis Farrakhan “repeatedly endorsed Trump!!!”
Oh, absolutely!!! Doesn’t everybody know how much Farrakhan loves Donald Trump?
Actually, for anyone who’s interested in knowing the talking-point-germ of Liberal Troll’s bizarre claim, please see some remarks Farrakhan made over two and a half years ago, in March of 2016, during the campaign, that went like this:
Not even remotely an endorsement of Trump. Mostly a way for Farrakhan to diss the Jews, as usual.
Here’s another of Farrakhan’s multiple and repeated “endorsements” of Trump. This one is from December of 2015:
And then, much more recently from Trump’s big (maybe biggest!) fan, Louis Farrakhan:
I said Farrakhan endorsed Trump because Farrakham has repeatedly, publicly endorsed Trump. It is trivially easy to demonstrate this via google search. Even Breitbart crowed about Farrakhan’s suppirt for Trump, burying his antisemitism in the final graph. (“Louis Farrakhan on Trump: ‘He Is Destroying Our Enemies'”)
While the articles you cite are from 2015 and 2017, the Breitbart article is from this year. But that’s not particularly relevant: you cite as evidence that Farrakhan dislikes Trump an article in which he praises Trump, but…for the wrong reasons or something I guess? But all that really proves is a) Farrakhan is an unhinged antisemitic lunatic and b) Farrakhan has repeatedly endorsed Trump in public (for many of the same things I’ve seen Trump praised for here, such as Trump’s battles with the FBI and the media).
Anyway, this is a weird tangent that we went down only because Parker made the weird assertion that Farrakhan was somehow an example of liberal identity politics. Again, Farrakahn is a reactionary antisemite who has repeatedly endorsed Trump. That doesn’t make him conservative baggage either–not everyone is responsible for every lunatic that gloms on to them–but Trump has this weird habbit of receiving endorsements from racists and antisemites, for some inexplicable reason.
And man, I gotta say the kneejerk “you’re an antifa!” thing is genuinely befuddling. I don’t assume that anyone here is a member of, say, the Fancy Boys or a lone wolf terrorist mailing bombs to people; it’s just not the first place my mind goes to when I think about blog commenters. But hey, sure! I’ve served my country but never thrown a punch. I’ve never been arrested and I’ve never worn a black mask, been a member of antifa, or even know anyone from antifa. I’m white, straight, cis, and married. I pay my taxes and hold down a blandly middle class job. I work every day with active duty service members and veterans. I pay my taxes and take my kids to school every day.
And I live every day in a world where Nazis marched in Charlottesville, murdered a woman, and Trump couldn’t even unequivocably denounce those Nazis. Where a Trump supporter is mailing bombs to people, where the Proud Boys are re-enacting the murder of left wing politicians at Republican events and then beating people in the streets of New York after, where an antisemite extremist parroting Trump rhetoric about migrant caravans and Jewish financiers shoots up a synagogue, where the presideng is openly calling for violence against his critics and political opponents, where I’m watching my country and wondering if this is what Germany felt like in the 1930s. And yeah, the antifa, a trivial footnote of American society, surely a guy posting snarky comments on a blog is antifa. Sure! Makes about as much sense as anything else these days.
Liberal Troll aka all your other names:
If Farrakhan has “repeatedly endorsed” Trump, and it is “trivially easy to demonstrate this via google search,” it’s so very interesting that you don’t offer a single link.
I gave three links and lengthy quotes. A perusal of even one of them gives the reader a clear picture of the sort of “endorsement” and “praise” you’re talking about. Ever hear of a left-handed compliment? That’s what the “he doesn’t take money from Jews” statement of Farrakhan’s was, not an emdorsement, a word that has a very specific political meaning, as you no doubt know.
Farrakhan thinks Trump is a destructive Satanic force, and the only sort of nice things he can say about him are that during Trump’s campaign he didn’t take money from the dirty Jews, and that America deserves the destruction to which Trump the thug will lead it, and that Trump has inadvertently and unintentionally helped “destroy” Farrakhan’s enemies such as the DOJ and FBI.
Some endorsement.
Oh, and that article you mention “Farrakhan Praises Trump for Destroying His Enemies – the FBI and Justice Department” is another one of those examples of left-handed praise. I’ll offer the quotes here not for you, but for other readers, to see how risible your statements about “endorsement” are:
Maybe you don’t understand sarcasm, although I’m pretty sure that you do. “He’s destroyed my enemies even though he didn’t mean to” is not an endorsement.
Oh, and by the way—of course you are aware that Bowers, who shot up that synagogue, absolutely hated Trump:
Anyway, I have no intention of wasting any more time on you.
The warlock trials and other violations of civil rights will progress.
Libby Troll:
In this part of the internet we already know you are a dog, and we don’t confuse you with man’s best friend. Hint, we’re not giving you a compliment.
I took Liberal Troll as a new guy/gal with a self-referential sense of humor. Apparently neo notes IP addresses and knows better.
Too bad. I would enjoy more liberals or some liberals (preferably not trolls) with which to debate. It’s sad that liberals have abandoned open debate for “deplatforming”.
I kinda miss Mitsu, a progressive, mostly non-troller, who showed up here from time to time, though not in a while. However, his blog “Synthetic Zero” is for some reason labeled by my browser as a “malicious attack site” and he has only posted there once since 2015.
TommyJay on November 7, 2018 at 6:58 pm at 6:58 pm said:
You are not paranoid if someone really is out to get you. Similarly, if a cynical viewpoint brings you into a more accurate understanding of how something is, or predicting how it will be, then you are just being smarter and wiser.
…
Then the admittedly oversimplified thought hit me; it’s Jeff Sessions that’s largely to blame for where we are politically. Imagine if every provable crime associated with Hillary’s email server was fully prosecuted. What about Eric Holder’s illegal gun running operation? Don’t signed documents exist somewhere? Then there’s the falsified FISA warrant applications?
Now we are in the post Sessions world. Will anything change? Should I be cynical?
* * *
You bring up things that have puzzled me for two years.
What’s the good of having the AG from your party if you don’t prosecute all the criminals from the other party?
And I also support prosecuting any criminals from your own party, given that they actually committed some, you know, crimes.
What was holding Sessions back? Was there simply no evidence that could lead to indictments and convictions? How well did they cover their tracks anyway, given that the Mueller probe partisans made no effort at all to hide theirs (Strzok et al) because they just knew Clinton would win.
Maybe he’s been working on them, but there sure isn’t much to show for his two years in office; if there were, I think Trump would look past the recusal business (although he might still talk about it), but recusal AND nothing else of note is just poor business.
Wait a sec. It’s indisputable that Farrakhan supports DJT. The logic’s impeccable:
A. “Farrakhan leads ‘Death to America’ chant in Iran”
https://www.foxnews.com/world/farrakhan-chants-death-to-america-in-iran
B. “Trump is Destroying America”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2018/07/17/while_trump_is_destroying_america_dems_call_for_civility_447713.html )
C. Ergo…Farrakhan hearts Donald Trump.
(Can’t get more impeccably logical than that!)
Bonus points:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/louis_farrakhan_mr_trump_is_destroying_every_enemy_that_was_an_enemy_of_our_rise.html
As for Trump not receiving any money from Jewish groups, that sounds really, incredibly, extraordinarily admirable, yes it does…
…though it just might come as a bit of a surprise to Sheldon Adelson.
(On the other hand, I’m pretty sure that Sheldon Adelson can’t really be defined as a “Jewish group”….)
Actually, what I’d really love to find is a photo of Trump together with oh, say, David Duke or some Grand Wizard or other of the latest, greatest, sassiest, sexiest KKK coven (is that what they’re called?) that the US of A has to offer.
You know, something along the lines of Obama’s being photographed together with that silky-voiced, sharp-dressing, MAGA-loving man of principles from Chicago.
Yep, that’s what I’m looking for….