The Swamp

Seth Abramson with some perspective:

Seth Abramson is definitely not the person to turn to for perspective. He’s built himself a large following by peddling sensationalistic stories about how Russiagate would be the end of Trump. But his 15 minutes are up now that it’s clear that will not be the case. Yes, Trump is going to take a victory lap now. Frankly, many Democratic politicians and media members set him up for that victory lap by spending 2.5 years pushing facially implausible conspiracy theories about Russia and Putin controlling Trump.

Joe K wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:39 am Seth Abramson is definitely not the person to turn to for perspective. He’s built himself a large following by peddling sensationalistic stories about how Russiagate would be the end of Trump. But his 15 minutes are up now that it’s clear that will not be the case. Yes, Trump is going to take a victory lap now. Frankly, many Democratic politicians and media members set him up for that victory lap by spending 2.5 years pushing facially implausible conspiracy theories about Russia and Putin controlling Trump.

What's sensationalistic about it? All he did was map out what's still left to be done.

Let me break this down for you a bit:

Mueller hasn't been indicting and prosecuting everyone in these cases. His team is handling some of them, but he has tied ribbons on a bunch of cases and handed them off to other agencies for further investigation or prosecution.

It shouldn't be surprising that he isn't dropping a load of indictments. He is handing the results of the investigation to DOJ and, through the procedure, to Congress so that they can pick up the ball and run.

But yeah, false narratives and conspiracy theories. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yeah. Ok, Joe. Between this and all the anecdotal evidence they are "implausible conspiracy theories."

Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:47 am Yeah. Ok, Joe. Between this and all the anecdotal evidence they are "implausible conspiracy theories."

Meeting with Russian people isn’t a crime. It’s the 9th most populous country in Earth, has a ton of geopolitical significance and is a party to crucial arms control treaties with the US. It would be shocking if an American President *didn’t* meet with Russian leaders. The implausible conspiracy theories are that Trump is beholden to Russia when he’s taken action worldwide that Russia strongly opposes. See: Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Ukraine, etc.

Joe K wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:06 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:47 am Yeah. Ok, Joe. Between this and all the anecdotal evidence they are "implausible conspiracy theories."

Meeting with Russian people isn’t a crime. It’s the 9th most populous country in Earth, has a ton of geopolitical significance and is a party to crucial arms control treaties with the US. It would be shocking if an American President *didn’t* meet with Russian leaders. The implausible conspiracy theories are that Trump is beholden to Russia when he’s taken action worldwide that Russia strongly opposes. See: Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Ukraine, etc.

Was this the meeting where he prohibited the Press of the United States of America from entering, and allowed the Russian Press access, or was it the one where he barred his note taker from documenting the conversation?

Asking for a friend.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:22 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:06 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:47 am Yeah. Ok, Joe. Between this and all the anecdotal evidence they are "implausible conspiracy theories."

Meeting with Russian people isn’t a crime. It’s the 9th most populous country in Earth, has a ton of geopolitical significance and is a party to crucial arms control treaties with the US. It would be shocking if an American President *didn’t* meet with Russian leaders. The implausible conspiracy theories are that Trump is beholden to Russia when he’s taken action worldwide that Russia strongly opposes. See: Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Ukraine, etc.

Was this the meeting where he prohibited the Press of the United States of America from entering, and allowed the Russian Press access, or was it the one where he barred his note taker from documenting the conversation?

Asking for a friend.

Are you aware that Reagan did the same thing during some of his meetings with Gorbachev? Probably not because there’s never been any attempt to place Teump’s actions towards Russia in any type of historical context.

You guys should read Matt Taibbi (who lived in Russia for years and understands its politics well) on this:

Joe K wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:29 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:22 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:06 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:47 am Yeah. Ok, Joe. Between this and all the anecdotal evidence they are "implausible conspiracy theories."

Meeting with Russian people isn’t a crime. It’s the 9th most populous country in Earth, has a ton of geopolitical significance and is a party to crucial arms control treaties with the US. It would be shocking if an American President *didn’t* meet with Russian leaders. The implausible conspiracy theories are that Trump is beholden to Russia when he’s taken action worldwide that Russia strongly opposes. See: Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Ukraine, etc.

Was this the meeting where he prohibited the Press of the United States of America from entering, and allowed the Russian Press access, or was it the one where he barred his note taker from documenting the conversation?

Asking for a friend.

Are you aware that Reagan did the same thing during some of his meetings with Gorbachev? Probably not because there’s never been any attempt to place Teump’s actions towards Russia in any type of historical context.

You guys should read Matt Taibbi (who lived in Russia for years and understands its politics well) on this:

Did Reagan have loans floated to him by Russian oligarchy, or maybe he had a tower project he wanted to get underway in downtown Moscow? No. He had an arms race to mitigate with the other biggest leader of the world, where maybe a man-to-man conversation might be in order. Nah. And Trump's providing his own historical context. Maybe in your rush towards objectivity, you're too blind to see that?

It was literally a day after he fired Comey when that photo was taken by the photographer from Russian owned TASS media.

And of course Comey was fired because he wouldn't let Flynn go because of his communications involving Russia.

But yes. Totally above board and some batshit conspiracy theory pushed by lefty fanatics.

Joe K wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:06 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:47 am Yeah. Ok, Joe. Between this and all the anecdotal evidence they are "implausible conspiracy theories."

Meeting with Russian people isn’t a crime. It’s the 9th most populous country in Earth, has a ton of geopolitical significance and is a party to crucial arms control treaties with the US. It would be shocking if an American President *didn’t* meet with Russian leaders. The implausible conspiracy theories are that Trump is beholden to Russia when he’s taken action worldwide that Russia strongly opposes. See: Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Ukraine, etc.

He hasn’t really taken action against Russian interests outside of Venezuela. He has ended Russian sanctions, did nothing to them after they were found to have interfered with an election, and freed up a whole bunch of frozen Russian money.

He has had the most pro-Russian policy of any president. Just because it isn’t illegal while he’s president doesn’t mean he isn’t advancing Russian interests in most areas of foreign policy.

Degen, What’s your source for the claim that he had “ended Russian sanctions”? A quick Twitter search found these links from within just the past 10 days:




The Trump Administration has also sold weapons to anti-Russian forces in Ukraine, a step that Obama did not take for fear of escalating tension. It has also opposed the Nord Stream pipeline in Europe, pulled out of an arms control treaty and pushed for a buildup of NATO forces in Eastern Europe — again, steps that Russia opposes.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/27/politi ... ect.org%2F

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/14/politi ... ect.org%2F

Some new ones from this year. We will see the Senate and Trumps position on the newest round of proposed sanctions shortly especially with the Mueller investigation complete.

Giff wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:30 am I've always wondered what JoeK looked like:

Bump.

Good. They should release the whole thing to the public to own the libs, especially since Barr said the report stated no collusion.

The disinformation campaign is upon us.



Because, ya know:

Manafort shared polling data on 2016 election with elusive Russian – Mueller

And

President Admits Trump Tower Meeting Was Meant to Get Dirt on Clinton

means this was all just politicians playing politics.

Fucking whatever.

Barr was hired to do exactly what he did: whitewash whatever was in the Mueller Report. He’s poisoned the well.

In his scramble to clear Trump he essentially usurped Congress' primary authority - and now the door needs to be kicked down to obtain the entire report. He’s basically punted to Congress.

And we have a clown show trying to “own the libs” right here in the Swamp.

Glorious.

My sarcasm didn’t play well I take it.

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:57 pm My sarcasm didn’t play well I take it.

I suspected you were, but JoeK’s running a victory lap here without recognizing it’s basically the end of the beginning.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:54 pm And we have a clown show trying to “own the libs” right here in the Swamp.

Glorious.

Ha. For over two years people on this board acted like I was crazy for being a skeptic of the Russia conspiracies. So you know damn well I’m going to point out that this finding shows that my skepticism was completely justified:

The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

But you can go back over my posts on the various politics threads and see if you think I’m a MAGA-head trying to “own the libs.”

Joe K wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:01 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:54 pm And we have a clown show trying to “own the libs” right here in the Swamp.

Glorious.

Ha. For over two years people on this board acted like I was crazy for being a skeptic of the Russia conspiracies. So you know damn well I’m going to point out that this finding shows that my skepticism was completely justified:

The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

But you can go back over my posts on the various politics threads and see if you think I’m a MAGA-head trying to “own the libs.”

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:54 pm Barr was hired to do exactly what he did: whitewash whatever was in the Mueller Report. He’s poisoned the well.

Period.

William Barr Did What He Was Hired to Do

From Charles P. Pierce.

It’s just all so depressing seeing fuckheads take victory laps.

I get this doesn’t happen in the 24-hour news cycle, but we can pump the brakes a bit. The Attorney General, who got his job because the prior AG was fired for recusing himself, just summarized a report on a 20-month investigation into a four-page letter saying his boss wasn’t proven collusive. Consider the source.

Of course they’re going to do a victory lap. Ask those same people celebrating if they feel vindicated enough that they want the entire report made public.

And besides. This is Trump we’re talking about. He’ll find a way to fuck it up. Failure is his brand.

This summary doesn’t move the needle to anyone on either side. The only thing that matters is that 100K more people vote in PA, OH, MI, and WI. Focus on that.

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:55 am I get this doesn’t happen in the 24-hour news cycle, but we can pump the brakes a bit. The Attorney General, who got his job because the prior AG was fired for recusing himself, just summarized a report on a 20-month investigation into a four-page letter saying his boss wasn’t proven collusive. Consider the source.

Of course they’re going to do a victory lap. Ask those same people celebrating if they feel vindicated enough that they want the entire report made public.

Did you guys read Barr’s letter? It strongly implies that the full report will be released to the public, subject to the redaction of confidential grand jury information. So I highly doubt that Barr is mischaracterizing the key findings. Another reason that’s very unlikely is that it would be easy for Mueller, or any of the 20 or so members of his team, to just speak up if Barr is pulling a fast one. Also, these key statements in Barr’s letter contain *direct quotes* from the report:

As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an “agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”

Barr also strongly implied a lot of things about this letter when he wrote what he did about the mueller report before becoming AG so let's have those implications cancel each other out and call it a wash and wait for the full report

Joe K wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:39 am
Did you guys read Barr’s letter? It strongly implies that the full report will be released to the public, subject to the redaction of confidential grand jury information. So I highly doubt that Barr is mischaracterizing the key findings. Another reason that’s very unlikely is that it would be easy for Mueller, or any of the 20 or so members of his team, to just speak up if Barr is pulling a fast one. Also, these key statements in Barr’s letter contain *direct quotes* from the report:

JoeK, I totally get what your saying. And if we were talking about a normal president, or a normal person, I'd tend to agree with this wholeheartedly.

But this is Trump we're talking about. I wouldn't put it past them or anyone in this administration that they would work to mischaracterize the key findings. Trump and this administration has become the boy who cried wolf. We're so conditioned that everything he and they say is a lie that we just automatically assume what they say is patently false.

I for one am looking forward to him releasing the report in full. Any pushback or delay will automatically give rise to doubt in the majority of the population who disapproves of Trump. And if pushback mobilizes voters to come out in 2020 and say "I don't care who the Democrats are running, fuck Trump!", then all the better.

Trump strongly implied that he would release his tax returns. He also strongly implied that he would investigate voter fraud.

I don't see any downside for the following:

Pelosi: You can release the report unfiltered, or we can subpoena it. Your choice, Mr. Barr.

Good summary of the Dem party here (legal weed in NJ): The vote fell apart after Gov. Phil Murphy and fellow Democratic state leaders spent more than a week feverishly trying to wrangle enough votes in the Democratic-controlled Legislature to pass the Democratic-sponsored measure.

mister d wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:50 am Good summary of the Dem party here (legal weed in NJ): The vote fell apart after Gov. Phil Murphy and fellow Democratic state leaders spent more than a week feverishly trying to wrangle enough votes in the Democratic-controlled Legislature to pass the Democratic-sponsored measure.

That's so embarrassing. How hard is it to write words to codify into law the decriminalization and legalization of marijuana when all parties agree on the principle?

The only explanation is that they couldn't agree on a big enough slice for themselves first before letting us plebians have benefits because we don't know any better. Politicians gonna politick.

I'd love to know the split of that, moral objections and other lobbies.

mister d wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:35 pm I'd love to know the split of that, moral objections and other lobbies.

This was in Sunday's paper.

Fucking boomers, man. Undeniably the worst generational cohort ever for America.

rass wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:48 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:35 pm I'd love to know the split of that, moral objections and other lobbies.

This was in Sunday's paper.

According to the article Rass posted, a major stumbling block is coming from Black legislators. I'm surprised the Black Caucus is so staunchly against legalization, since so much of the basis for the criminalizing marijuana was based in racism, and the War on Drugs was a means of disenfranchising minorities by making them felons.

I haven't followed the issue nearly as closely as I should have, but my understanding is that disagreements over how to tax, and how much to tax recreational weed has been the major stumbling block.

I do get a kick out of the periodic debates on the Town FB page when someone periodically throws out the question of whether our town should have weed shops. Old people freak the fuck out, describing the inevitable streets filled with passed out junkies and exorbitant crime, while others dream of the boon to local restaurants and food stores, and how our town will be a mecca for artisanal food establishments. The latter is more of a legit possibility, but I would be thrilled with the influx of tax dollars.

For the love of God - legalization is a whole new tax-revenue source. How could ANY politician be against it?

(Other than the obvious religious freaks of course.)

Can I bet on later finding out the pharmaceutical lobby was involved?

mister d wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:50 pm Can I bet on later finding out the pharmaceutical lobby was involved?

Sometimes my inability to see the obvious is really disturbing.

mister d wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:50 pm Can I bet on later finding out the pharmaceutical lobby was involved?

And the liquor/beer/alcohol lobby.

sancarlos wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:55 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:50 pm Can I bet on later finding out the pharmaceutical lobby was involved?

And the liquor/beer/alcohol lobby.

And don't forget the cotton industry.