Trump as tragicomedy

[Maddy]

But what do you make of Flynn’s statement about his faith in God and needing to set things right and the legal analysis that says prosecutors don’t give a deal like his unless they get real dirt on someone higher up the chain?

Your guess is as good as mine. I would surmise from what's transpired to date that the same characters who appear to have set a perjury trap for Flynn are not beyond manufacturing evidence of even bigger and better crimes. Or maybe there's something in his personal life that he's being blackmailed with. Can anyone seriously doubt that, once targeted by these lawless sociopaths, you either do things their way or you're done?

This government is not what we thought it was.

[Libertarian666]

But what do you make of Flynn’s statement about his faith in God and needing to set things right and the legal analysis that says prosecutors don’t give a deal like his unless they get real dirt on someone higher up the chain?

Your guess is as good as mine. I would surmise from what's transpired to date that the same characters who appear to have set a perjury trap for Flynn are not beyond manufacturing evidence of even bigger and better crimes. Or maybe there's something in his personal life that he's being blackmailed with. Can anyone seriously doubt that, once targeted by these lawless sociopaths, you either do things their way or you're done?

This government is not what we thought it was.

It is what I thought it was.

[Maddy]

And if all this doesn't make your morning crazy enough, it seems Kim Jong Un is one of Time Magazine's nominees for Man of the Year. Even more bizarre is the fact that this stroke of utter genius could, standing alone, avert a worldwide nuclear crisis.

[Libertarian666]

And if all this doesn't make your morning crazy enough, it seems Kim Jong Un is one of Time Magazine's nominees for Man of the Year. Even more bizarre is the fact that this stroke of utter genius could, standing alone, avert a worldwide nuclear crisis.

Hitler was Man of the Year too. Time explains that this doesn't mean the best person, just the most important person (or now, possibly thing or group).

[Maddy]

And if all this doesn't make your morning crazy enough, it seems Kim Jong Un is one of Time Magazine's nominees for Man of the Year. Even more bizarre is the fact that this stroke of utter genius could, standing alone, avert a worldwide nuclear crisis.

Hitler was Man of the Year too. Time explains that this doesn't mean the best person, just the most important person (or now, possibly thing or group).

Exactly. I'm thinking that a recording contract, replete with Michael Jackson costume, might be just the thing to top it off.

[Maddy]

Okay Moda, I didn't go looking for a source establishing the absence of a crime or any evidence of a crime, but I couldn't help but notice this article, which just appeared in the headlines this evening.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy says there is still no discernible evidence of any conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, and he said special counsel Robert Mueller is effectively on a “fishing expedition” to find criminal behavior of some kind.
* * *
“The usual thing in the United States is that there’s a crime, so we assign a prosecutor,” he explained. “Here, there’s no crime. We assign a prosecutor. We tell him to go find a crime.”

And thus far, McCarthy said Mueller hasn’t found what he was hired to find.

“He’s gone about his investigation as a kind of broad fishing expedition within those very broad parameters,” McCarthy said. “If they had a crime that was the predicate for this investigation, it would have been conducted a different way. But he wasn’t directed to investigate a crime. He was given this very broad mandate.”

The investigation is receiving enormous coverage in the wake of Mueller indicting former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn for making false statements to the FBI in January.

McCarthy said many people assume this is a sign that bigger charges are coming for the likes of Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., and possibly even the president himself for colluding with Russia. He said that assumption is based on a flawed understanding of law.

“Collusion is kind of a loaded word. All it means is concerted activity. What prosecutors care about is conspiracy, not collusion. Conspiracy is an agreement to violate a particular federal law. In this case, the law that they’re most likely talking about is some form of espionage by the Russians targeting the 2016 election,” McCarthy said.

“I never thought they had a case on that. I haven’t seen anything to suggest it. What we’ve seen with the three sets of charges is quite the opposite.”

http://www.wnd.com/2017/12/mccarthy-zer ... mp-russia/

[stuper1]

The whole idea that Russia is a credible threat to the U.S. is laughable on its face, and thus it seems obvious to me that it's just another bogeyman manufactured by the establishment media on behalf of the military-industrial complex.

[WiseOne]

It's well known that Russia did work to support Trump in the election...

Then you must have access to information not available to the rest of us. "Well known" is not the same as "there are hints that", and neither meet the required standard of "evidence of criminal activity." It's too easy to forget these nuances when the convenient assumption that hints = truth serves your purpose.

I'm not crazy about Trump either, but unlike most of the world I'm not willing to trash every democratic principle left standing in order to remove him. Furthermore, the negatives to having him in office mostly involve current headlines that will be forgotten in a few months or years. The good things he may yet accomplish, on the other hand, could have lasting positive effects. Things like streamlined regulations, a level playing field with the rest of the First World for corporate taxation, and a sensible immigration policy would be completely worth having to deal with the Twitter posts and crude behavior. And frankly, getting us out of the TPP has already been worth it. It just depends on what you choose to focus on.

[Kriegsspiel]

The whole idea that Russia is a credible threat to the U.S. is laughable on its face, and thus it seems obvious to me that it's just another bogeyman manufactured by the establishment media on behalf of the military-industrial complex.

In capability, or intent?

Seems like a curious statement, regardless.

[stuper1]

The whole idea that Russia is a credible threat to the U.S. is laughable on its face, and thus it seems obvious to me that it's just another bogeyman manufactured by the establishment media on behalf of the military-industrial complex.

In capability, or intent?

Seems like a curious statement, regardless.

Both. What is their annual budget for military spending versus ours? Of course, they still have nuclear weapons, and so do we. Mutually Assured Destruction still applies.

Regarding intent, are we seriously afraid that Putin is going to invade America? It's just laughable. Of course, they are tinkering around the edges to try to get an advantage militarily and/or economically, but we do the same to them, and every other major country in the world does it too, even to their allies.

The Cold War is over. We aren't fighting the specter of worldwide Communism anymore, although even that was mainly just a pretense. We actually have a lot in common culturally with Russia. There is no reason for us to be in conflict with them.

This whole Trump-Russia thing is just a big joke.

[stuper1]

Just for fun, I quickly looked up the military spending for 2016 for the US and Russia. One was at $69 billion and the other at $611 billion. I'm pretty sure everybody knows which country has the larger budget.

An old but good book on the subject: War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler.

[Maddy]

Just for fun, I quickly looked up the military spending for 2016 for the US and Russia. One was at $69 billion and the other at $611 billion. I'm pretty sure everybody knows which country has the larger budget.

An old but good book on the subject: War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler.

Now take a look at the number of countries around the globe in which Russia has permanent military installations. (For the U.S., that number is 130, at last count.)

[Libertarian666]

Just for fun, I quickly looked up the military spending for 2016 for the US and Russia. One was at $69 billion and the other at $611 billion. I'm pretty sure everybody knows which country has the larger budget.

An old but good book on the subject: War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler.

Indeed it is. And he had first-hand experience in that subject.

[stuper1]

Right, and all this Trump-Russia hysteria is just more of the same racket, along with trying to bring down a duly elected president as you mentioned. It would seem to me that the military-industrial complex doesn't think Trump will be sufficiently hawkish to enable them to meet their growth targets.

[Maddy]

Right, and all this Trump-Russia hysteria is just more of the same racket, along with trying to bring down a duly elected president as you mentioned. It would seem to me that the military-industrial complex doesn't think Trump will be sufficiently hawkish to enable them to meet their growth targets.

That's just the surface. Underneath they are frightened that he is going to dismantle the deep state.

I agree. If you go back through the last half-century of history, a clear pattern emerges. In one form or another, some boogy-man gets trotted out on cue with the purpose of distracting the masses and of instilling such fear, uncertainty, and/or disdain for the manufactured enemy that the people will line up in support of whatever course of action the oligarchy is proposing to protect them--whether it be war, martial law, bank bail-outs, or something else.

[stuper1]

Right, and all this Trump-Russia hysteria is just more of the same racket, along with trying to bring down a duly elected president as you mentioned. It would seem to me that the military-industrial complex doesn't think Trump will be sufficiently hawkish to enable them to meet their growth targets.

That's just the surface. Underneath they are frightened that he is going to dismantle the deep state.

I agree. If you go back through the last half-century of history, a clear pattern emerges. In one form or another, some boogy-man gets trotted out on cue (N Korea) with the purpose of distracting the masses and of instilling such fear, uncertainty, and/or disdain for the manufactured enemy that the people will line up in support of whatever course of action the oligarchy is proposing to protect them--whether it be war, martial law, bank bail-outs, or something else.

the trump hawkishness toward N Korea gives me reason to doubt the MIC deep state is really worried about trump. the regulatory deep state and the political establishment corruption/pervert deep state seem to have more to worry about... and thats a good thing even if it doesn't strike at the heart of this countries deep state problems..

North Korea may be the real deal, and I don't blame Trump for being hawkish toward Kim Jong Un, but seriously, do we really think that KJU is going to nuke one American city and give up his stranglehold on power in NK?

He probably just wants to have a bargaining chip so he doesn't get offed like Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi. Who can blame him for that? Of course, he deserves a lot of blame for starving his own people, but unless we plan to go in and supposedly establish democracy there, there's not a whole lot we can do about that. Look how well that plan worked out in Iraq.

In my humble opinion, the biggest acute threat to US security by far is that Islamic terrorists get ahold of a nuclear weapon and detonate it in a large US city. I hope and pray that our people are much more focused on trying to stop that than worrying about Russia or North Korea attacking us. We should definitely be working with Russia to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists, because Russia has the same concern.

[ochotona]

In my humble opinion, the biggest acute threat to US security by far is that Islamic terrorists get ahold of a nuclear weapon and detonate it in a large US city. I hope and pray that our people are much more focused on trying to stop that than worrying about Russia or North Korea attacking us. We should definitely be working with Russia to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists, because Russia has the same concern.

Islamic terrorists would be buying it from North Korea, very likely. In exchange for a pallet loaded with gold.

or from N Korea by way of Iran for a pallet load of cash that they got from ...somewhere...

[Kriegsspiel]

The whole idea that Russia is a credible threat to the U.S. is laughable on its face, and thus it seems obvious to me that it's just another bogeyman manufactured by the establishment media on behalf of the military-industrial complex.

In capability, or intent?

Seems like a curious statement, regardless.

Both. What is their annual budget for military spending versus ours? Of course, they still have nuclear weapons, and so do we. Mutually Assured Destruction still applies.

A lot of US military spending is wasted (Smedley would agree, I think), whereas the Russian budget is more constrained and wisely spent. The Russians have good electronic warfare capabilities, and good psyops and information operations. They also have a lot of organized crime and computer geeks. Software, like bombs, can damage nuclear plants, electrical grids, corporations, government agencies. Basically, warfare probably won't look like it has in the past. So that's why I think it's naive to think Russia has laughable capabilities.

Regarding intent, are we seriously afraid that Putin is going to invade America? It's just laughable.

Of course, they are tinkering around the edges to try to get an advantage militarily and/or economically, but we do the same to them, and every other major country in the world does it too, even to their allies.

LOL, yes. They wouldn't charge into our teeth like retards. Russia is not capable of invading and occupying the US like they did with Crimea, and they certainly don't want to. If their intent is to damage the US, there are tactics with much lower risk and higher upside to employ. I think this is what you meant by "tinkering around the edges," but where our opinions differ is that I think the "tinkering" stuff has become powerful enough to be a viable tactic in its own right. Talking, again, about psyops, hacking/sabotage, special operations.

We might just be talking past each other in what our definitions of "threats" are.

The Cold War is over. We aren't fighting the specter of worldwide Communism anymore, although even that was mainly just a pretense.

It seems like you are still thinking like a Cold Warrior, wrt budgets, nuclear weapons.

We actually have a lot in common culturally with Russia. There is no reason for us to be in conflict with them.

Americans had a lot in common with Germany and Italy in the 1940s too I think we'd both agree that the US and Russia have common enemies (Islamists) that we could work together against.

[stuper1]

Americans had a lot in common with Germany and Italy in the 1940s too

There was no need for a war with Germany and Italy in the 1940s either. War is a racket.

[Libertarian666]

Americans had a lot in common with Germany and Italy in the 1940s too

There was no need for a war with Germany and Italy in the 1940s either. War is a racket.

Correct.

[dualstow]

LOL, yes. They wouldn't charge into our teeth like retards. Russia is not capable of invading and occupying the US like they did with Crimea

So no Red Dawn?

[Kriegsspiel]

It gets a Kriegsspielian "unlikely" rating

[Maddy]

Further to Moda's request for a "source" establishing the absence of evidence sufficient to initiate an investigation, the following testimony provided by FBI Director Christopher Wray at a House Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday would seem to pretty much settle the issue:

Two simple questions: How did the FBI's Russia investigation start? And was it started because the Trump "dossier" was presented to somebody at the FBI?

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) asked FBI director Christopher Wray those questions at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, but he got no answers:

"How did the Russia investigation start?" DeSantis asked Wray. "Did (FBI counterintelligence agent)Peter Strzok -- was he -- did he start it?"

Wray answered, "I'm not aware of who started the investigation within the FBI."

DeSantis followed up: "Was it started because the dossier was presented to somebody in the FBI?"

"I don't have the answer to that question," Wray said.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/su ... ump-russia

[Tyler]

Wray is either lying or totally incompetent.

Either way, he must be fired.

I'd bet decent money that he refused to answer the questions because he doesn't want to undercut the OIG report due to drop any day now that will tear it all down. Lots of recent anti-investigation news (FBI demotions, Strzok entanglements, judge recusals, etc) are probably direct results of early blowback from that report.

[Kriegsspiel]

Further to Moda's request for a "source" establishing the absence of evidence sufficient to initiate an investigation, the following testimony provided by FBI Director Christopher Wray at a House Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday would seem to pretty much settle the issue:

Two simple questions: How did the FBI's Russia investigation start? And was it started because the Trump "dossier" was presented to somebody at the FBI?

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) asked FBI director Christopher Wray those questions at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, but he got no answers:

"How did the Russia investigation start?" DeSantis asked Wray. "Did (FBI counterintelligence agent)Peter Strzok -- was he -- did he start it?"

Wray answered, "I'm not aware of who started the investigation within the FBI."

DeSantis followed up: "Was it started because the dossier was presented to somebody in the FBI?"

"I don't have the answer to that question," Wray said.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/su ... ump-russia

Wray is either lying or totally incompetent.

Either way, he must be fired.

But we know the answer to this question, don't we?

But if everyone in government who was incompetent or a liar was fired then there wouldnOH NOW I SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS