Has everyone gone insane?

[Maddy]

Where, in God's name, is Jeff Sessions? The Germans are at the border.

Huh? What are you implying he should do?

I can think of seven or eight treason/corruption/obstruction of justice cases that are ripe for prosecution. We all know what they are.

[clacy]

Dennis Kucinish weighing in on the dangerous state of affairs currently with the Deep State waging an internal war on Trump....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ithin.html


The Deep State (which Bush 41 built and Bush 43/Clinton/Obama grew exponentially) is the biggest existential threat to our country as we know it since the fall of the USSR.

[moda0306]

Dennis Kucinish weighing in on the dangerous state of affairs currently with the Deep State waging an internal war on Trump....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ithin.html


The Deep State (which Bush 41 built and Bush 43/Clinton/Obama grew exponentially) is the biggest existential threat to our country as we know it since the fall of the USSR.

Woah... while I agree completely with that general statement, the Deep State arguably existed post-WWII. It just didn't have a good pretext after the end of the Cold War.

If you read up on the shady stuff that the CIA was pulling pretty much since the dawn of its existence, it is downright chilling.

[Jack Jones]

Welcome to the United Deep States of America

Anyone who doesn't think exactly like the technocrats, media propagandists and spooks in DC is now an enemy of the state.

Reminds me of this quote I read the other day:

He’s in Washington for a meeting with Larry Summers, the former US treasury secretary and Obama confidant. Summers asks him point blank: do you want to be on the inside or the outside? “Outsiders prioritise their freedom to speak their version of the truth. The price is that they are ignored by the insiders, who make the important decisions,” Summers warns.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/ ... cal-memoir

Interestingly, a similar statement was attributed to Summers here:

http://billmoyers.com/2014/09/05/i-had-been-warned/

If this isn't the deep state declaring its existence, I don't know what is.

[Maddy]

If this isn't the deep state declaring its existence, I don't know what is.

The Deep State has been an organized force for many decades, as evidenced by the large number of books on my shelf authored in the '40s and '50s which describe in considerable detail its stepwise plan for transforming this country. Its agenda has never been particularly secret, but its movements have always been slow, methodical, and exceptionally discrete. It's only been in the last month or so that they've come to the fore and made known that they are embedded in every branch of government, that they control everything, and that they are above the law.

I can only speculate as to what has changed. Has the new generation of elites simply fallen victim to the same narcissism, impulsivity, and inability to delay gratification that has infected the rest of the country? Or are they running scared, perceiving that their agenda and/or power structure is at stake? Whatever the motivation, it does indeed appear that they've fast-forwarded to the end game.

[Jack Jones]

The Deep State has been an organized force for many decades, as evidenced by the large number of books on my shelf authored in the '40s and '50s which describe in considerable detail its stepwise plan for transforming this country.

Any that you would recommend?

[Maddy]

Any that you would recommend?

I'm not aware of a single book from that early era that sums it all up neatly. It really wouldn't be until the last few years that there's been any retrospective, comprehensive treatment of the subject. That said, you might take a look at the books by Cleon Skousen, a former FBI agent, and perhaps Samuel P. Huntington and C. Wright mills ("The Power Elite").

Oh, also "The Liberal Establishment" by Stanton Evans.

[moda0306]

I can't remember anything quite as insane as this witch hunt for something, anything, that they can pin on Trump to get him out of the Presidency. No, it's not at all like Watergate, because in that case it was abundantly clear that there had in fact been a coverup and obstruction of justice.

Of course it is theoretically possible that something like that has been going on in the Trump administration, but so far there is no, zero, nada, zilch, zip, evidence of anything even remotely corrupt.

Actually, I don't think the general public is buying the whole "Russiagate" story. I know the Trump voters are still happy that they voted for him, and the latest polls (done a week ago, to be sure), indicate that if the election had been held again, he would have beaten Hillary again.

So what are those pushing impeachment actually after, a civil war?

tech,

Can you provide us with a link or source of analysis for your conclusion that "so far there is no, zero, nada, zilch, zip, evidence of anything even remotely corrupt."

I don't follow the "mainstream" press, but nobody that I've read or heard in the collections of articles or analysis comes anywhere close to making that type of a claim of innocence. Many warn of exaggeration or hypocrisy from certain players on the left, but none go so far as to conclude that there is NO evidence of corruption... simply that there's lots of it, an independent investigation needs to be done, and we should be careful not to buy the narrative of establishment democrat/media narratives that parrot unproven leaks as facts.

I've literally heard from NOBODY that isn't a bombastic Trump-hack that carries that narrative you just laid out.

Further, the establishment is well-embedded in the Trump admin. It's like the worst of both worlds. All the negatives of having a rambling buffoon in the most powerful position in the world, but none of the destabilizing benefits to the status-quo that might allow newer-better ideas to float to the top as institutional inertia loosens its boot-grip on our necks.

[Maddy]

Can you provide us with a link or source of analysis for your conclusion that "so far there is no, zero, nada, zilch, zip, evidence of anything even remotely corrupt."

Whoa. . . You're asking for proof that there is no evidence of corruption?

Has the burden of production been turned completely on its head? What is the legal standard of guilt now--a boldly asserted allegation that cannot be convincingly proven to be false? This is exactly the thing that the article I posted earlier was condemning: "flexible" logic and a results-oriented ideology that is devoid of principle.

Hopefully I'm misunderstanding, but I doubt it in light of a radio program just yesterday where the (faux conservative) host kept hammering on the question, "Can you [any member of the listening audience] say with absolute certainty that there was no collusion with Russia?" I had to turn the radio off and go swing an axe for a while.

[stuper1]

This article seems appropriate:

http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/whatever ... ump-trump/

[stuper1]

The media wants us to have a Pavlovian response where every time we see the word Russia we think of nuclear missiles headed our way from over the horizon after a big red button is pushed by a cold, ruthless, monomaniacal leader.

I'm trying to condition myself to a far more realistic reflexive response: every time I see the word Russia I imagine hearing the cha-ching of a cash register while visualizing the words Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon passing in front of my eyes.

[moda0306]

Can you provide us with a link or source of analysis for your conclusion that "so far there is no, zero, nada, zilch, zip, evidence of anything even remotely corrupt."

Whoa. . . You're asking for proof that there is no evidence of corruption?

Has the burden of production been turned completely on its head? What is the legal standard of guilt now--a boldly asserted allegation that cannot be convincingly proven to be false? This is exactly the thing that the article I posted earlier was condemning: "flexible" logic and a results-oriented ideology that is devoid of principle.

Hopefully I'm misunderstanding, but I doubt it in light of a radio program just yesterday where the (faux conservative) host kept hammering on the question, "Can you [any member of the listening audience] say with absolute certainty that there was no collusion with Russia?" I had to turn the radio off and go swing an axe for a while.

I didn't say proof. But he said absolutely unequivocally that there was absolutely no evidence. I'm assuming that he's relying on some sort of review of the facts beyond the fact that he hasn't had the evidence dropped directly in his lap.

I'm not asking for proof. Just sound analysis of the facts we do have that would yield such a stark statement. Your article, no offense, didn't provide it. You probably weren't intending it to. But It just bitched about the "left" for paragraph after paragraph. It wreaked of partisan drivel in my eyes.

[moda0306]

The media wants us to have a Pavlovian response where every time we see the word Russia we think of nuclear missiles headed our way from over the horizon after a big red button is pushed by a cold, ruthless, monomaniacal leader.

I'm trying to condition myself to a far more realistic reflexive response: every time I see the word Russia I imagine hearing the cha-ching of a cash register while visualizing the words Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon passing in front of my eyes.

"The media" wants us to buy shit they advertise too. Is it a valid discussion? Sure. But only so valid when a serial-lying buffoon had as much power as trump does. Watching folks bend over backwards to try to defend Trump to fight "the left" or "the establishment" is as much of a joke as any of the "media" bias.

There are people out there that can simultaneously rightfully deride for being a dangerous buffoon and simultaneously deride the establishment dems, establishment media and radical leftist dipshits. I'd highly suggest avoiding the pro-Trump drivel and read them.

[Xan]

There are people out there that can simultaneously rightfully deride for being a dangerous buffoon and simultaneously deride the establishment dems, establishment media and radical leftist dipshits. I'd highly suggest avoiding the pro-Trump drivel and read them.

Peggy Noonan's column from yesterday is (I think) a good example:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democracy- ... 1495149082

[Maddy]

I didn't say proof. But he said absolutely unequivocally that there was absolutely no evidence. I'm assuming that he's relying on some sort of review of the facts beyond the fact that he hasn't had the evidence dropped directly in his lap.

I'm not asking for proof. Just sound analysis of the facts we do have that would yield such a stark statement.

Let's work through this logically. If Libertarian666 is correct and there is absolutely no evidence of the alleged collusion, what sort of "analysis" is there to be made? What sort of "facts" are capable of being brought forward?

On the other hand, if you know of facts--based upon actual evidence--that support the allegation of collusion, why aren't YOU making the case? Why isn't anyone?

Your article, no offense, didn't provide it. You probably weren't intending it to. But It just bitched about the "left" for paragraph after paragraph. It wreaked of partisan drivel in my eyes.

What struck me as particularly valuable about that article was that it pointed specifically to a large number of actual, specific instances in the recent past where the Left has abandoned all principle and engaged in wholesale intellectual dishonesty for the purpose of furthering an ideology. I'd be curious to know which of the specific examples cited in that article you take issue with.

[moda0306]

There are people out there that can simultaneously rightfully deride for being a dangerous buffoon and simultaneously deride the establishment dems, establishment media and radical leftist dipshits. I'd highly suggest avoiding the pro-Trump drivel and read them.

Peggy Noonan's column from yesterday is (I think) a good example:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democracy- ... 1495149082

Dang. Looks like they make you subscribe. I'm looking forward to reading this and the unz article posted. Probably gonna have to wait until tomorrow morning.

[moda0306]

I didn't say proof. But he said absolutely unequivocally that there was absolutely no evidence. I'm assuming that he's relying on some sort of review of the facts beyond the fact that he hasn't had the evidence dropped directly in his lap.

I'm not asking for proof. Just sound analysis of the facts we do have that would yield such a stark statement.

Let's work through this logically. If Libertarian666 is correct and there is absolutely no evidence of the alleged collusion, what sort of "analysis" is there to be made? What sort of "facts" are capable of being brought forward?

On the other hand, if you know of facts--based upon actual evidence--that support the allegation of collusion, why aren't YOU making the case? Why isn't anyone?

Your article, no offense, didn't provide it. You probably weren't intending it to. But It just bitched about the "left" for paragraph after paragraph. It wreaked of partisan drivel in my eyes.

What struck me as particularly valuable about that article was that it pointed specifically to a large number of actual, specific instances in the recent past where the Left has abandoned all principle and engaged in wholesale intellectual dishonesty for the purpose of furthering an ideology. I'd be curious to know which of the specific examples cited in that article you take issue with.

If tech is operating without published counter-analysis, but instead simply judging the facts as they are provided from the best sources (I'd hope we all agree that building your counter-arguments against the worst of your opposition is hardly sufficient) then I'd instead be curious the sources he's analyzed the claims evidence from.

Either way, something with some actual teeth would be nice.

[Maddy]

If tech is operating without published counter-analysis, but instead simply judging the facts as they are provided from the best sources (I'd hope we all agree that building your counter-arguments against the worst of your opposition is hardly sufficient) then I'd instead be curious the sources he's analyzed the claims evidence from. Either way, something with some actual teeth would be nice.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Tech has done absolutely nothing in the way of analysis. Let's say that he's come to his conclusion based solely upon the fact that none of the proponents of impeachment has come forward with anything even remotely sufficient to justify it. Wouldn't that be enough to make his case? [Channeling Celotex v. Catrett (when a defendant challenges, on summary judgment, a plaintiff's ability to prove one or more of the requisite elements of his case on which he bears the burden of proof, and the plaintiff fails to come forward with competent and admissible evidence sufficient to make out a prima facie case, summary judgment of dismissal is warranted since there can be no genuine issue of material fact when there is a complete failure of proof).]

Why don't we just cut to the chase and have you lay out what YOU think are the facts and evidence that justify these proceedings?

[moda0306]

If tech is operating without published counter-analysis, but instead simply judging the facts as they are provided from the best sources (I'd hope we all agree that building your counter-arguments against the worst of your opposition is hardly sufficient) then I'd instead be curious the sources he's analyzed the claims evidence from. Either way, something with some actual teeth would be nice.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Tech has done absolutely nothing in the way of analysis. Let's say that he's come to his conclusion based solely upon the fact that none of the proponents of impeachment has come forward with anything even remotely sufficient to justify it. Wouldn't that be enough to make his case? [Channeling Celotex v. Catrett (when a defendant challenges, on summary judgment, a plaintiff's ability to prove one or more of the requisite elements of his case on which he bears the burden of proof, and the plaintiff fails to come forward with competent and admissible evidence sufficient to make out a prima facie case, summary judgment of dismissal is warranted since there can be no genuine issue of material fact when there is a complete failure of proof).]

Why don't we just cut to the chase and have you lay out what YOU think are the facts and evidence that justify these proceedings?

Only some are calling for impeachment. That specifically limiting research to the most ardent opponents of Trump, and probably the most obvious players.

I'm trying to figure out who is worth reading or listening to. Not just observe tribal political banter devoid of research. The only evidence I could provide are the names of journalists and podcasters on these topics. Obviously limited of course. I am not smart or informed enough to be able to digest all the barrage of sources. Put another way, I can't perfectly identify really good analysis. But identifying bad or incomplete analysis isn't all that difficult, and that's all I seem to see on this board nowadays. I'm not saying I can do much better, mind you.

Most of my sources consist of Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, Noam Chomsky, Sam Harris (sorta... he's more of an indirect conduit to other sources I couldn't name), and put on the spot with a couple beers in me I couldn't name more off hand.

To simplify my "narrative," I guess I'd say I haven't seen one analysis that doesn't include trump being an inept, dangerous baffoon that I've found to be valuable. And that includes many that analyze Hillary and several other recent presidents and candidates as being awful apte natives in their own way. Most conclude that the president simply his way too much unilateral power. Hope that helps. :/

[Libertarian666]

If tech is operating without published counter-analysis, but instead simply judging the facts as they are provided from the best sources (I'd hope we all agree that building your counter-arguments against the worst of your opposition is hardly sufficient) then I'd instead be curious the sources he's analyzed the claims evidence from. Either way, something with some actual teeth would be nice.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Tech has done absolutely nothing in the way of analysis. Let's say that he's come to his conclusion based solely upon the fact that none of the proponents of impeachment has come forward with anything even remotely sufficient to justify it. Wouldn't that be enough to make his case? [Channeling Celotex v. Catrett (when a defendant challenges, on summary judgment, a plaintiff's ability to prove one or more of the requisite elements of his case on which he bears the burden of proof, and the plaintiff fails to come forward with competent and admissible evidence sufficient to make out a prima facie case, summary judgment of dismissal is warranted since there can be no genuine issue of material fact when there is a complete failure of proof).]

Why don't we just cut to the chase and have you lay out what YOU think are the facts and evidence that justify these proceedings?

Thank you.

[Maddy]

I was just perusing the news, and it seems that Alan Derschowitz--famed law professor and legal analyst of decidedly liberal persuasion--has gone on record stating that even if the allegations against Trump were true, there still would be no crime for the special prosecutor to charge. So it's not just an absence of evidence; it's the absence of even a legally consequential allegation. http://www.wnd.com/2017/05/dershowitz-s ... g=politics

[WiseOne]

Fascinating. Of course, Dershowitz may not realize that while this statement may be factually correct, it will in no way limit what a special prosecutor will go after:

a prosecutor is only allowed to look for evidence of a federal crime.

Just ask Ken Starr. This is the Clinton era all over again. Yes he came up with a perjury charge...but that was after spending years on nothing more than a witch hunt, and it wasn't the original motivation for pursing the Monica Lewinsky story. And note that even then, the impeachment failed.

I fully expect that exact scenario to play out, which is sad...it crippled the Clinton presidency and will cripple Trump as well. He had ideas that could do some real good in this country, but hey, who cares about that.

[Maddy]

This is interesting. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05 ... t-made-up/

It examines each of the individual allegations on which the call for impeachment and the appointment of a special prosecutor have been based. Not a one has held up to scrutiny.

You know, the really obvious problem with the normalization of this kind of witch hunt mentality is that it cuts both ways. When the state comes for your kids, making some outlandish, impossible-to-disprove allegation against you, you can thank these ideologues and their ilk for destroying yet another bedrock principle of the justice system.

[Maddy]

I'm trying to figure out who is worth reading or listening to. Not just observe tribal political banter devoid of research. The only evidence I could provide are the names of journalists and podcasters on these topics. Obviously limited of course. I am not smart or informed enough to be able to digest all the barrage of sources. Put another way, I can't perfectly identify really good analysis. But identifying bad or incomplete analysis isn't all that difficult, and that's all I seem to see on this board nowadays. I'm not saying I can do much better, mind you. . .
/

I think we're all struggling to find our bearings and to ferret out the truth. I can't think of a time when there's been so much misinformation, and so little reluctance on the part of the media to broadcast a lie in the interest of deceiving others. Although you and I find ourselves on pretty much opposite ends of the political spectrum, I do value your perspective and appreciate your emphasis on critical analysis. :)

[Xan]

There are people out there that can simultaneously rightfully deride for being a dangerous buffoon and simultaneously deride the establishment dems, establishment media and radical leftist dipshits. I'd highly suggest avoiding the pro-Trump drivel and read them.

Peggy Noonan's column from yesterday is (I think) a good example:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democracy- ... 1495149082

Dang. Looks like they make you subscribe. I'm looking forward to reading this and the unz article posted. Probably gonna have to wait until tomorrow morning.

Sorry... I'm not a subscriber myself, and it worked for me the other day. Maybe they show their really popular ones for free for a while.