Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Mueller found there was not adequate evidence on conspiracy.

You've been so thoroughly stupid on this, I can't tell if you're even aware that you're narrowing the field of wrongdoing so you can declare that the narrow thing didn't happen.

The campaign's handling of Russian election interference is an astounding controversy and a major deal even if there was not criminal conspiracy involved.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I am running for Congress. Russians, acting in concert with Wikileaks, start leaking all sorts of nasty shit about my opponent. I decide to take a political risk and welcome this, even encourage more of it. But I do not directly coordinate with the Russians. I simply receive info from them and use it to my advantage. I also telecast to these Russians that I understand they want me in office over my opponent. To get more info into the public sphere of the sort these Russians are peddling, I even state overtly that I want better relations with them, so they'll keep leaking such info through Wikileaks.

Is this "dancing from afar" a crime?

Had the Trump campaign directly received any of the hacked materials from the Russians, I'd assume someone would have been charged.

And "crime" is hardly the only consideration here. Anyone with even a shred of sense about how this activity leaves them compromised and subject to blackmail would have been smart enough to run away from the situation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Had the Trump campaign directly received any of the hacked materials from the Russians, I'd assume someone would have been charged.

I don't think that would be have been enough to establish a conspiracy to hack.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You've been so thoroughly stupid on this, I can't tell if you're even aware that you're narrowing the field of wrongdoing so you can declare that the narrow thing didn't happen.

The campaign's handling of Russian election interference is an astounding controversy and a major deal even if there was not criminal conspiracy involved.

The investigation was oversold from the start. Many prominent Ds, Never Trumpers, and a load of media outlets created the perception that a criminal conspiracy would be found.

And then it wasn't.

If you don't get that from a messaging perspective, lack of finding of a criminally chargeable conspiracy = effective exoneration on the conspiracy, I can't help you. The Adam Schiffs of this debacle promised a hanging. They never even got past the preliminary hearing.

The controversy you describe has been known forever. Trump danced from afar with the Russians in plain sight. We didn't need this investigation to tell us that. The desire among most of the people who want to see Trump go down was to see this investigation take him out with a finding of a criminal activity. There was a lot of over-promising, and a lot of hope, and a lot of people now feeling let down at the ultimate result.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't think that would be have been enough to establish a conspiracy to hack.

The next step is the interesting phase. I thought Barr was speaking loosely when he used "spying." I was wrong. He was actually delivering a precise message. That message explains why Pelosi and Hoyer have been lukewarm on impeachment. If the House impeaches, the leaks of material about improprieties in the 2016 investigation of Trump campaign start.

The bluffing behind the scenes in this shitshow must be amazing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I don't have a lot of patience for the Democrats who want to write off impeachment entirely because Republican Senators will never vote for it. Hold hearings. Tell the story. Build the case. Make Republican Senators talk about it, bind the GOP to Trump's worst corruption, and make them pay a political price for defending him. The legal process is the means to the political conversation, not an end in itself.

eta:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If the House impeaches, the leaks of material about improprieties in the 2016 investigation of Trump campaign start.

I don't know what sources you rely on, but you seriously ought to consider some new ones.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

And "crime" is hardly the only consideration here. Anyone with even a shred of sense about how this activity leaves them compromised and subject to blackmail would have been smart enough to run away from the situation.

Is there anyone alive who doesn't think Trump has terrible judgment?

The armies of pundits and politicians who trafficked in predictions of how Mueller's investigation would find a criminal conspiracy with Russians simply over-promised. Over-promising is dangerous. It's near impossible to walk back 22 months of hyperbole. And trying only makes it worse.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't have a lot of patience for the Democrats who want to write off impeachment entirely because Republican Senators will never vote for it. Hold hearings. Tell the story. Build the case. Make Republican Senators talk about it, bind the GOP to Trump's worst corruption, and make them pay a political price for defending him. The legal process is the means to the political conversation, not an end in itself.

Unless the GOP's got more than a bluff up its sleeve regarding malfeasance in the investigation of the Trump campaign. If Barr's as compromised as you suggest, would you at all doubt his willingness to offer a veiled threat/message in his testimony before Congress?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't know what sources you rely on, but you seriously ought to consider some new ones.

I'll update on Thursday. It sounds a bit too saucy to be true to me as well. I'm going to press about it in person.

Makes sense though, given Barr's unusual comment during his testimony.

But then one wonders, how many laws did the people who uncovered this proof of malfeasance break acquiring that information?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It is dumb. A number of people here wish to relitigate conspiracy.

Mueller found there was not adequate evidence on conspiracy. Period.

You know what you've got when you can't adduce adequate evidence to sustain a charge? Nothing. You have nothing.

It would help if you removed your head from your ass.

There are two issues here. Whether the President has engaged in criminal conspiracy for which he or anyone else should be charged. You're stuck on this because, for some weird reason, you think that no evidence of criminal conspiracy means no collusion and everyone should pack up their shit and move--despite the fact that the reason why Mueller presumably didn't have enough for a criminal charge was the fact that the President didn't cooperate, his henchman have lied and/or refused to cooperate, and he doesn't have access to the Russians with whom the Administration has been dealing. But that is neither here nor there, because:

The other issue is whether the collusion (dictionary definition) he and his Administration are guilty of (again, not the statutory definition) and the clear obstruction of justice the President has engaged in amount to impeachable offenses (read: high crimes and misdemeanors).

We all know where you stand on 1. So, enough. If you have an opinion on 2 (and I'm sure I know what it is already, but whatever), fine. But shut the fuck up about 1 already.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't have a lot of patience for the Democrats who want to write off impeachment entirely because Republican Senators will never vote for it. Hold hearings. Tell the story. Build the case. Make Republican Senators talk about it, bind the GOP to Trump's worst corruption, and make them pay a political price for defending him. The legal process is the means to the political conversation, not an end in itself.

I agree. Don't shirk your duties because Republicans have completely sold out any ounce of integrity they've ever had.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But then one wonders, how many laws did the people who uncovered this proof of malfeasance break acquiring that information?

What. the. fuck.

Only you and Hannity are wondering this. Holy shit.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Unless the GOP's got more than a bluff up its sleeve regarding malfeasance in the investigation of the Trump campaign. If Barr's as compromised as you suggest, would you at all doubt his willingness to offer a veiled threat/message in his testimony before Congress?

It's not a bluff, it's a bullshit message that the base sucks up and even believes. Why do you think any Democrat in Congress would feel threatened? It's totally inane.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I agree. Don't shirk your duties because Republicans have completely sold out any ounce of integrity they've ever had.

It's not even about duty. It's about politics. If you can't take what Trump has done and turn it into a message about why the country needs new leadership, you oughtn't be in politics.

eta: Josh Marshall knows how:

"The simple takeaway from the Mueller Report is the President betrayed his country and spent two years lying and breaking the law to try to hide that fact. He should resign and be tried for his crimes."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't have a lot of patience for the Democrats who want to write off impeachment entirely because Republican Senators will never vote for it. Hold hearings. Tell the story. Build the case. Make Republican Senators talk about it, bind the GOP to Trump's worst corruption, and make them pay a political price for defending him. The legal process is the means to the political conversation, not an end in itself.

All of that and also: show that you stand for something and are willing to fight for it.