Making Sense of the Never-Ending, Never-Availing Trump Investigation

[Maddy]

It finally occurred to me that the reason why this investigation goes on and on, and that nothing of import is ever found, is that the Mueller-Rosenstein team doesn't want to find anything. At least nothing that we'll ever hear about. The whole purpose of this exercise is not to discredit, handicap, or (God forbid) unseat Trump, but rather to control him. To cause him to submit to the will of the Corporate Elite. You do that by always holding something back, always having something in the vest pocket that could be found. This would, by the way, explain a whole lot of things, including Syria.

[dualstow]

I was just going to ask how you're feeling about the ongoing investigation, and here you are!

[dualstow]

WASHINGTON—The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Wednesday his panel would take up a bill to protect special counsel Robert Mueller from being dismissed without cause, the first major congressional action designed to protect the integrity of the criminal investigation into Russian activity during the 2016 election.

A spokesman for Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, said that he would put a bipartisan bill that would prevent Mr. Mueller from being dismissed without cause on the committee’s agenda. It is expected to be considered, debated and amended next week, which would set up a vote on the measure on April 26.

— from the WSJ, Apr 12.

[dualstow]

My favorite quote of the week:

And the president’s adding to the sort of annals of American presidential rhetoric this week, along with malice toward none and charity toward all, and the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, to a weak and untruthful slimeball is what he’s called James Comey.

- Mark Shields

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/shiel ... retirement

[stuper1]

Trump doesn't sugarcoat things like most politicians. He just calls a spade a spade.

Any president could have been subject to an investigation like this, and certainly they would have found something on any one of them, including Washington (seriously).

I can't keep track of these things anymore, but I think this investigation is supposed to be about Russians influencing the election. If it is, then probably the Russians did try to influence the election, because they thought, not without reason, that Hillary would sic the military-industrial-complex dog on them more than Trump would. So what? That is just reasonable behavior on the Russians part. More power to them is what I say. But where is the evidence of collusion on Trump's part?

[dualstow]

That is just reasonable behavior on the Russians part. More power to them is what I say.

That’s like saying more power to Satan.

[stuper1]

A lot of people in this world (most of them outside of the U.S., but a few of them inside, such as myself) would view our military/industrial complex as a lot closer to Satanic than any threat posed by the Russians.

My point is that, even if the Russians were trying to influence the election, there isn't necessarily collusion involved. More likely to me is that they made a rationale choice of thinking that Trump would be more reasonable to deal with than Clinton. Foreign governments make such decisions all the time and act accordingly. Certainly the U.S. does when it tries to influence foreign elections. The Russians knew that Clinton would be in the pocket of the Lockheed-Martin-type corporations, which are constantly agitating for trouble to prop up their profits. The Russians hoped that Trump might be different. It looks now like he really isn't much different, but I doubt he's any worse on this issue than Clinton would have been. So, there wasn't any collusion involved here, just normal foreign relations stuff, but made more complex by Internet-era technologies like Facebook, etc.

[WiseOne]

I think it's pretty obvious that the goal of the investigation is to find something - anything - to use to start impeachment proceedings. That's what was done in the Clinton administration and the Dems are just repaying the favor. The GOP should blame itself for having set that unfortunate precedent.

The Russians are merely a convenient scapegoat. I also find it hard to believe that they did anything that hasn't been going on everywhere for decades. Given the number of countries where the US played some pretty heavy handed interference (ranging from diplomatic games to $$ to outright invasion) in the last 50 years, it's more than a little hypocritical to complain about Russia hacking one friggin' poorly protected server. Amazing how suddenly no one remembers Oliver North/Guatemala, Panama/Noriega, Vietnam, the Shah of Iran, and countless other examples that were WAY more egregious than anything that might have happened in 2016.

[dualstow]

stuper, WiseOne,

I was thinking more about Russia in general, and I'm not saying that their mere hacking or Facebook bot campaign is so evil. Yes we (the U.S. gov't) have done some terrible things. We keep despots in power until they no longer serve our needs. We all know it. But, we are still the best thing out there. We have helped to spread a liberal world order in spite of those puppets. Even the citizens of the countries we have invaded send their kids to school here, so that they can have better opportunities. That's not a glib daydream on my part. It's reality.

Who takes refuge in Russia? Persecuted religious people? Intellectual dissidents? Homosexuals? Ethnic minorities? No. They get Lee Harvey Oswald and Edward Snowden. That's about it.

As crazy as Trump is, we can say whatever we want to about him, as loudly as we like, all day every day. Try that with Putin in Russia. Or try scrawling some anti-Assad graffiti in Syria.

Do you want to live in world where Russia exerts the same influence around the world that the U.S. currently puts out? I don't.

[stuper1]

I'm not saying I'd rather live in Russia than here.

I'm saying that I'd rather live in a world where our foreign policy wasn't influenced by the Lockheed-Martin-type corporations who just want to foment trouble so they can sell more missiles and buy more yachts for their CEOs. Every time you hear something in the news about Russia being a bad guy, just realize who is behind that getting on the news. The reason it is on the news is so the CEO can get a new yacht. That is basically it.

[dualstow]

The new yacht is just a by-product. It's not cool, but Russia's antics are news.

[stuper1]

That Russia tried to influence the US election may have been news for about 30 days after November of 2016. That it remains news today in April of 2018 is because of the yachts for CEOs.

[dualstow]

That Russia tried to influence the US election may have been news for about 30 days after November of 2016. That it remains news today in April of 2018 is because of the yachts for CEOs.

I agree, partially. The other half is because Trump is a polarizing figure. He knows how to stay in the news, good or bad. Those who hate him, hate him with a passion. Russian influence is one part of that, and as long as an official investigation continues, that is most definitely news. It is covered by plenty of outlets with no money, and who will make no money.

That said, I admit that if Mueller dropped everything today, I wouldn't really care.

[stuper1]

It is covered by plenty of outlets with no money, and who will make no money.

I don't understand this point. How does a news outlet stay in business if it makes no money. As I understand it, the news media in this country is controlled by just a few major companies, all of whom make their money based on advertising from Big Business of which a large part is the Military Industrial Complex. It's all about the dollars, of course. Always has been, always will be. It makes me sick when it ends up with the US "liberating" another far-off country, with huge concomitant civilian casualties, when it's really just about making more money for the MIC. We don't have to be the world's policeman. It seems to be a job for which we volunteered.

[dualstow]

It makes me sick when it ends up with the US "liberating" another far-off country, with huge concomitant civilian casualties, when it's really just about making more money for the MIC. We don't have to be the world's policeman. It seems to be a job for which we volunteered.

You sound like Harry Browne. Your point is valid, and I'm torn on the issue myself. There are many misadventures of which I'm not proud, and at the same time I really dislike the idea of us becoming isolationist.

I think the whole military-industrial complex gets too much "airplay." We live in an imperfect world. I don't mean to sound defeatist. We already have to contend with countries run by autocrats and thus very little red tape. We're doing okay with our shaky little democracy and our system of checks and balances.

Perhaps our role in the world will be diminished whether we stay on this course or whether we, by some miracle, become a more moral, non-interventionist, ideal society & nation. China will become the world police and a good part of the rest of the world will say that the United States wasn't so bad, in retrospect. But why didn't they save us?

It is covered by plenty of outlets with no money, and who will make no money.

I don't understand this point. How does a news outlet stay in business if it makes no money. As I understand it, the news media in this country is controlled by just a few major companies,

Well, the television and radio channels are, but the Internet has afforded us alternatives.

[stuper1]

I think the whole military-industrial complex gets too much "airplay."

Follow the money, baby, follow the money. Who benefits when we shoot off 100 missiles at Syria? How many millions of dollars of profit to the missile maker does that one salvo represent? And by many accounts, that salvo basically accomplished nothing. Not that I wish it had accomplished anything. I just wish it hadn't been made in the first place. Let the Syrians figure out how to run their country. What business is it of ours? We should just dial back the foreign interventions from the present 8 to about a 2. But it won't happen, because the MIC won't allow it, and they control the purse strings to our representatives.

And then there's the whole "invade the world, invite the world" issue. We get involved in foreign affairs too much, and then we feel like we have to take in all the refugees, etc. Of course, Big Business likes that too, because it provides more "growth" opportunities, which is what business needs, basically cheap labor and lots of consumers.

[dualstow]

The top three countries of origin are Mexico, India and China.
Immigrants are important, but you’re right. I do wish we could be more selective. Friendlier tham Trump, but more discriminating than Merkel.

[Kriegsspiel]

It makes me sick when it ends up with the US "liberating" another far-off country, with huge concomitant civilian casualties, when it's really just about making more money for the MIC. We don't have to be the world's policeman. It seems to be a job for which we volunteered.

One of the best quips from CPL Person, in Generation Kill, when they're driving through a devastated landscape littered with smoking corpses.

"Yup, they're pretty much liberated around here."

[stuper1]

Because it's unremarkable, to be expected, and probably has been going on since 1776.

[moda0306]

Because it's unremarkable, to be expected, and probably has been going on since 1776.

It's hard for someone like me to become "outraged" at Russia doing these things. It's totally standard operating "World Power" procedure.

That said, this is in no way an argument that it shouldn't be investigated to wherever it leads, especially if American "leaders" were involved.

In-fact, it's the ubiquitous nature of some of the nastier aspects of human nature that make problems that are "unremarkable and to be expected" some of the most important ones to address. Some might say the movement of poor brown people into a rich white settler colony. Others might say preventing pollution. Depends on what your priorities are.

[stuper1]

How do you feel about that investigation being used, either explicitly or implicitly, as part of the justification to continue spending billions of dollars on our military-industrial complex, because you just never know when those Russkies might invade our homeland?

[dualstow]

That's not really fair. We're going to keep our military upgraded no matter what. We don't need Russia's antics as a pretext. And if anything, it's China's military that's going to pose a threat someday.

[stuper1]

That's not really fair. We're going to keep our military upgraded no matter what. We don't need Russia's antics as a pretext. And if anything, it's China's military that's going to pose a threat someday.

As soon as one bogeyman starts to look less dangerous, the MIC invents another one to justify keeping up the military spending. The current one is Russia, which actually poses very little threat to our national interests. The thing that's "not really fair" is that our MIC keeps getting bigger, our taxes keep going up, and collateral damage in various countries around the world never stops. The MIC uses a small portion of their profits to fund political campaigns, and the cycle never ends.

[Cortopassi]

I really don't think we need to spend more....





But it seems as % of GDP, not as bad:

[dualstow]

Stuper, I would agree that our defense budget is out of whack, as Gates suggested years ago.
I don’t know that Russia is a bogeyman to be feared. Their military is no match for ours, although I’ve read that their air defense capabilities are far superior to what Trump imagines.
I think the invasion of the Ukraine and annexation of the Crimea speaks volumes. Don’t need a speech from Netanyahu or talk of yellowcake uranium.

I guess I’m somewhere in between the Neocon push to assert our dominance everywhere and the totally non-interventionist sticking our head in the sand. One would have the kind of fallout you mentioned, but the other would see a world dominated by China, Russia and Iran. Best we can do is intervene here and there with allies.