Crime Clinton Lawyer finally charged over Russia-gate hoax.

[Jack V Savage]

Coming from a State Department bootlicker that still believes in Syrian Gas Attacks, WMDs and Russiagate, I'll take that as a compliment.

"State Department bootlicker" is pretty funny. And, yeah, your willingness to tell lies to defend fascists says it all about your character.

It's sad that Liberals in this country think anyone who criticizes the Democratic party from the left (anti-illegal wars, anti-government bribery, pro-expansion of social safety nets) is a right-wing looney because they don't spend all day bashing Republicans like a good partisan shill.

No, but you don't criticize anyone from the left. You just lie on behalf of fascists while claiming to be on the left. Funny that you'd call anyone else a partisan shill when your whole account is devoted to Republican propaganda and defending rightist dictators in other countries.

Lefties know the Republican party is bad; but we know what's worse is the insane number of democrats that talk one way and vote another, especially when it aligns with the interests of their donors.

Trying to do good things and getting blocked is worse than blocking people from doing good things. Smart take.

 

[kahiljabroni]

In the indictment, Sussmann is accused of falsely telling Baker that he did not represent any client when he met him to give the FBI white papers and other data files containing evidence of questionable cyber links between the Trump Organization and a Russia-based bank.

The indictment alleges that in fact Sussmann had turned over this information not as a “good citizen” but rather, as an attorney representing a US technology executive, an internet company and Clinton’s presidential campaign.

So they're accusing him of not disclosing who he was representing as an attorney when he handed over information to the FBI? He'll probably just keep saying he was lawyer, with many clients, and data given to the FBI was not related to any particular client representation. The end.



Sorry, no. This isn't a get out of jail free card. Who this Sussman guy was working for when he handed over a small piece of evidence has no bearing on whether or not Russia interfered with our election and whether Trump & Co participated in it. Vladimir Putin still ordered The DNC cyber attacks and the leaks of the stolen material. Paul Manafort's sharing of information with Russian intel still took place. Etc. This story has nothing to do with that and doesn't change that.

"Interfered" is the most purposefully improperly used term in history. And its no coincidence that parrots like yourself can't discuss the topic without using it as well.
There was no interference. Not a person was interfered with in the voting both. They attempted to INFLUENCE how individuals vote. An attemp that paled in comparison to countless left wing attempts at influencing.

 

[emefer]

Also, the grand juries that charged the various Russians with crimes. They would have to be in on it too. And all the investigations forwarded to other prosecutors by the Special Counsel's office. They'd have to be involved as well.

So think about this. The CIA, NSA, DNI, FBI, Special Counsel's team with all those elite lawyers, Grand Juries, both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, outside prosecutors etc etc etc are in cahoots, right? Imagine the effort that must have taken! Sounds like they were pretty determined! It's the DeEp StAtE! They're out for blood! They wanted Trump gone!

Except...wet fart. Mueller won't indict a sitting president because of an office of legal counsel opinion. "Does not conclude that the President committed a crime... also does not exonerate." Doh! Mueller lists 10 episodes of obstruction of justice and then says hey congress you want to do something about it go ahead. Some deep state, huh?

If the conspiracy ran that deep, Trump would have been removed. Obviously. It would be like spending years planning breaking into billionaire's house, because he has a giant vault full gold bars. But then once you get inside you just microwave one of his hotpockets and call it a day. Huh?

Remember, "this is it!" i.e. Trump has plot armor that's like Brotherhood Of Steel power armor, and nothing is going to happen to him? How do you mesh that with the belief that a nefarious, ubiquitous, nearly omnipotent power is hellbent on his destruction? I know how!


https://www.openculture.com/2016/11...ist-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html

8. The enemy is both strong and weak
By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.

Don’t you get it? It’s a giant conspiracy that everyone is in on.

 

[emefer]

Seeing as how you just wrote liberals are shook and in damage control over the Arizona bamboo ballot audit results, I don't think you're judgement is too sound.

He’s been bamboozled

 

[ultramanhyata]

Meanwhile, the bipartisan Senate Intel committee, the Mueller Report and the intelligence community assessment in 2017, issued by the DNI, with confirmation by the CIA, NSA and FBI, all state, definitively, that it was done by Russia on Putin's orders. All lying?

Imagine if that all-star lineup had agreed that the election was stolen from Trump. The cultists absolutely refuse to engage with this evidence but swallow whole an entirely unproven, incredible fantasy. It's delusion on a scale no amount of reasoning can surmount. They are, truly, a lost-cause basket of deplorables.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Imagine if that all-star lineup had agreed that the election was stolen from Trump. The cultists absolutely refuse to engage with this evidence but swallow whole an entirely unproven, incredible fantasy. It's delusion on a scale no amount of reasoning can surmount. They are, truly, a lost-cause basket of deplorables.

I don't even know if it's legitimately a delusion, as much as just outright denialism. Like Sartre on antisemites:

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

 

[giusti825]

"State Department bootlicker" is pretty funny. And, yeah, your willingness to tell lies to defend fascists says it all about your character.

The State Department is basically a PR firm for the intelligence community at this point. Is it really 'diplomacy' if there is an invasion, coup or assassination for those who don't cooperate?

No, but you don't criticize anyone from the left. You just lie on behalf of fascists while claiming to be on the left. Funny that you'd call anyone else a partisan shill when your whole account is devoted to Republican propaganda and defending rightist dictators in other countries.

Republican propaganda? Because I could tell Russiagate was bullshit from the beginning? Because I saw an intelligence 'assertion' that lacked evidence? You really need to put your critical thinking cap on. Anyone who fell for Russiagate should be ashamed of themselves and learn from it. Don't blindly trust those who regularly lie, especially based on ridiculous media campaigns that started based on fabricated opposition research.

Trying to do good things and getting blocked is worse than blocking people from doing good things. Smart take.

Wake up. They don't want to pass the things they campaigned on. They have a majority in the house and the senate. They have the white house. They have the power to end the filibuster and pass whatever they want.

They blamed the parliamentarian because they didn't WANT to pass the $15 minimum wage. It was all lip service. Kamala Harris could have easily overruled the parliamentarian and passed the agenda that Biden "wanted." She didn't because they dont care. Just another right wing corporatist party.

We're not going to get student loan relief. We're not going to get the $15 minimum wage. We're not going to get free public college. We're not going to get the public option for healthcare. We're not going to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal. Biden will deport more immigrants by the end of his third year than Trump did his entire presidency. ICE will not be abolished. We're not going to stop helping the Saudi's commit a genocide in Yemen.

The democrats HATE having control of congress and the White House at the same time because it takes away the 'obstructionis republican' excuse. They are just biding their time and waiting for their 2 years of actual power to run out so they can go back to blaming republicans for voting against the agenda that they 'want'. Just like obama. Wash, rinse, repeat.

When the republicans have power, they move us two steps right; when democrats have power, they move us a half step to the left with the understanding that they'll let the republicans keep doing the same dance. They're both right wing and this is just how they keep moving us slowly farther and farther to the right because its in the interest of their donors and themselves. Its pro wrestling at this point. They cut promos on each other by day and go out to dinner parties together at night. Its a sham.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Republican propaganda? Because I could tell Russiagate was bullshit from the beginning? Because I saw an intelligence 'assertion' that lacked evidence? You really need to put your critical thinking cap on. Anyone who fell for Russiagate should be ashamed of themselves and learn from it. Don't blindly trust those who regularly lie, especially based on ridiculous media campaigns that started based on fabricated opposition research.

I agree that you should be ashamed of falling for "Russiagate" (i.e., a propaganda term used to dismiss corruption). I think that you're largely aware, though, and you're openly flaunting your disregard for reason.

Wake up. They don't want to pass the things they campaigned on. They have a majority in the house and the senate. They have the white house. They have the power to end the filibuster and pass whatever they want.

"They" as if everyone who isn't a Republican is one person. If you want to criticize Sinema and Manchin for fighting against liberal goals, sure. But it's absurd to pretend that everyone fighting for those goals is secretly a double agent (how are they even coordinating such a massive conspiracy, and with no whistleblowers?). I think you know it's absurd but you don't really care. And you're ignoring significant progress, too. Again, I don't think you have any real interest in anything but spreading lies and chaos because your own life is so pathetic.

 

[Ophydian]

@HOLA These guys wouldn't believe it if Putin himself said he was involved. They are so enlightened and can see things others can't that they are blinded by their own egos. These are the type of people who would choose a dictator over democracy because the guy they like says the things they want to hear. They don't care about the truth as is obvious.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

We've come to a point where criticizing the left from the left is right-wing. I don't think the Republicans are any better, but goddamn the Democrats have lost their way.

Exactly. Some people on the left get so riled up when their side is called out by people like Dore. These people aren't left but simply Democrats that are loyal to their party before everything else. They are afraid of criticism because it hurts their party and their chances for re-election while helping the Republicans. That's why any attack is seen as right wing by these people.

I think the issue is that you tend to care more about when your side messes up. If I elect AOC to "bring the ruckus" and vote for M4A and a $15 minimum wage and she doesn't, I'm going to criticize her for it. When she hob nobs with the elites instead of fighting against them, I'm going to say something. Does it help the Republicans? Probably but that doesn't mean you should keep quiet.

I do think people like Dore and others who call out the left need to do a better job of balancing it with calling out the right but to my previous point, you are going to care more when your side messes up.

 

[Ophydian]

I agree that you should be ashamed of falling for "Russiagate" (i.e., a propaganda term used to dismiss corruption). I think that you're largely aware, though, and you're openly flaunting your disregard for reason.



"They" as if everyone who isn't a Republican is one person. If you want to criticize Sinema and Manchin for fighting against liberal goals, sure. But it's absurd to pretend that everyone fighting for those goals is secretly a double agent (how are they even coordinating such a massive conspiracy, and with no whistleblowers?). I think you know it's absurd but you don't really care. And you're ignoring significant progress, too. Again, I don't think you have any real interest in anything but spreading lies and chaos because your own life is so pathetic.

@giusti825 would take 14 investigations into Benghazi that went nowhere and believe what he heard than the multiple independent Intel/Senate/SC reports about Russia.

 

[giusti825]

Yeah, the TS's whole schtick is that he's a "lefty" who believes every bit of crazy propaganda from Greenwald and Carlson types. Weak troll act or if he's serious, it's pretty pathetic.

Lol at lumping Greenwald and Carlson in together. I agree with Carlson about Assange because I believe in press freedom, as it is a left position. Censorship and suppressing a free speech/press is a right wing position, as it reinforces hierarchies and power disparities. I agree with Carlson about ending wars against countries that pose us no threat. I believe avoiding needless killing is about as left wing a position as there is. I can't think of anything else in which I agree with Carlson.

As far as Greenwald, he is a lefty's lefty. I have never heard him attack anyone from the right, with the exception of some of his stances on LBGT issues.

See....when you're a partisan hack, you hear "left" and you think "democrat"; you hear "right" and you think republican. Left and right are positions on political philosophies relating to hierarchal structures, democracy and disparities in power and opportunity.

Whether someone is a democrat or republican, I believe censorship is wrong. Its not right when the democrats do it but wrong when the republicans do it.

When someone starts or continues and illegal offensive war, I believe its wrong whether its a democrat or a republican doing it.

When someone is scapegoating or attacking the disenfranchised, like refugees for instance, i think its wrong whether its a republican or democrat doing it.

Do you understand this?? I have these strange things called principles. Some things are right and some are wrong; who is doing it doesn't matter.

You are so caught up in the red team vs blue team game that you cant see that both teams are capable of and do right-wing shit all the time.

Find your principles; your own core beliefs. From there you can hold both major parties to an objective standard. Its possible for either party to do wrong or right. Its a case by case situation. That said, as of now, they're both absolute dogshit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@giusti825 would take 14 investigations into Benghazi that went nowhere and believe what he heard than the multiple independent Intel/Senate/SC reports about Russia.

I think people in general tend to have two different standards, depending on what they want to be true: 1. Is there any way to deny this? and 2. Is there any basis at all to accept this? Everyone should be on the lookout for that tendency in themselves. But these guys take it to a comical degree. There was someone in another thread who was pushing the idea that Russia was framed for the hacking. The sole basis of his argument was that one of the people involved in looking into it said he thinks it was Russia but he didn't have hard proof (while his organization made stronger claims and everyone else who looked at it also did). As I put it, one outlier guy saying, "I think it's X, but I can't prove it," is proof of not-X in his mind. It's bananas what partisanship does to people's brains.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Lol at lumping Greenwald and Carlson in together.

Well, one of them has a talk show and the other has a blog, but they cater to the same audience with the same type of propaganda.

I agree with Carlson about Assange because I believe in press freedom, as it is a left position.

WTF? I'm not saying that Assad apologists should be arrested for lying. I'm saying that they're lying. Press freedom is a non-issue here.

As far as Greenwald, he is a lefty's lefty. I have never heard him attack anyone from the right, with the exception of some of his stances on LBGT issues.

He's a stooge for the international right. He describes himself as a libertarian, but he regularly defends oppressive rightist regimes and the American right.

Do you understand this?? I have these strange things called principles. Some things are right and some are wrong; who is doing it doesn't matter.

That's what I think, but your think is that as long as someone has the wrong letter next to their name, they're an evil monster. And you blindly defend brutal attacks on people as long as they are orchestrated by the right people.

You are so caught up in the red team vs blue team game that you cant see that both teams are capable of and do right-wing shit all the time.

This is projection. And is it your belief that only Democrats think that gassing people and lying is wrong? That shouldn't be a partisan issue. You just reflexively attack anything non-Republicans do because you're an unprincipled hack.

 

[giusti825]

Exactly. Some people on the left get so riled up when their side is called out by people like Dore. These people aren't left but simply Democrats that are loyal to their party before everything else. They are afraid of criticism because it hurts their party and their chances for re-election while helping the Republicans. That's why any attack is seen as right wing by these people.

They call people with principles hacks because they dont know what hack means. Some people would literally vote for "their team" if that team ran on a platform of mandatory solitary confinement for all americans.

No principles.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

They call people with principles hacks because they dont know what hack means. Some people would literally vote for "their team" if that team ran on a platform of mandatory solitary confinement for all americans.

No principles.

I saw an interesting study that said Democrats are more likely to support their party over policy while Republicans are more principle over party. I think that's true to some extent.

If you have a Republican that comes out that is for abortion, you are going to have a large number of Republicans that just can't vote for someone. Meanwhile, if you have a war hawk president on the left like Hillary, they'll vote for her because she's a Democrat.

Both sides are incredibly guilty of tribalism though. My #1 pet peeve in all of politics is hypocrisy. We are seeing that now with Afghanistan.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I saw an interesting study that said Democrats are more likely to support their party over policy while Republicans are more principle over party. I think that's true to some extent.

Link? That seems insane, as most Republicans don't even agree with their own party on policy. And Republicans spent four years defending open corruption, while changing at least their rhetoric on most issues.

 

[Jack V Savage]

They call people with principles hacks because they dont know what hack means. Some people would literally vote for "their team" if that team ran on a platform of mandatory solitary confinement for all americans.

No principles.

A hack is someone who will literally defend a dictator gassing people if he thinks it helps his "side." Or someone who claims to support a certain policy but then attacks people who fight for that policy more than the people they're fighting against or claims that they're the same. What principle would you not renounce if a liberal politician supported it?

 

[bobgeese]

defending open corruption.

Jack, please address the Fbi falsifying evidence.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Jack, please address the Fbi falsifying evidence.

The FBI did not falsify evidence. Now, please address, for example, the president trying to extort another gov't into smearing his opponent? How is that morally defensible?