I distinguish the illegality detailed in the Mueller Report and the actions of Barr and Congressional Republicans in stymieing efforts to hold Trump accountable from corruption. I think it amounts to another kind of wrongdoing.
Trump's actions concerning the 2016 Campaign and his multiple attempts to obstruct justice amount to criminal conduct in my opinion, but not corruption. Trump being influenced in the discharge of his duties by people who spend large amounts of money at his related businesses is corruption and a criminal offence. Trump requiring the White House and other branches of the executive to use his businesses is corruption.
I don't know whether Barr's misrepresentation of the Mueller report is criminal. I imagine Barr was well aware of what he was doing and he was careful to set up a pretty solid defence to any potential criminal action. I imagine the defence he set up will be contentious enough to avoid prosecution. That's not corruption. That's what good lawyers have been doing since the days of Cromwell. That's what I did in the 90's for clients who wanted to sack people. I set up processes for them to follow which managed the risk. If that's corruption, then I have no problem with that sort of corruption. But its not.
Similarly, Mr Turtle and his Republican mates using every lawful trick in the book to protect the President from himself and justice is entirely proper. They can even do what Mr Barr probably did and design a course of action that weaves its way through the grey areas of the law and they are above prosecution, but not of course criticism. This is politics. This is the way it is played in places where the military is unlikely to interfere. No corruption, but plenty of collusion.
That bastard Democratic senator from New Jersey. Have a look at what he did. That's corruption, and his presence in the Democratic caucus is IMHO much more damaging to the institutions of Congress and the Democratic Party that the Republicans being soft on racism. I know he was acquitted, but the Democratic party does not need to apply the criminal burden of proof here. They should have kicked that bloke to the kerb. Money politics is not the problem if you keep toadies like that senator in your tent.
I'd find a relevant article but its 2am. Bob Menendez? I think that's his name.
Trump's actions concerning the 2016 Campaign and his multiple attempts to obstruct justice amount to criminal conduct in my opinion, but not corruption.
Really? Using the power of your office for personal benefit in contravention of law would seem to be the textbook definition of "corruption". I think that applies just as well if that benefit is avoiding criminal penalties (i.e. obstruction of justice) as it does to acquiring personal wealth at public expense.
Trump's actions concerning the 2016 Campaign and his multiple attempts to obstruct justice amount to criminal conduct in my opinion, but not corruption.
Really? Using the power of your office for personal benefit in contravention of law would seem to be the textbook definition of "corruption". I think that applies just as well if that benefit is avoiding criminal penalties (i.e. obstruction of justice) as it does to acquiring personal wealth at public expense.
No. It's not corruption. It's obstruction of justice, a different category of wrongdoing. I think its important to be careful about these things. They are both heinous crimes but they are different. Its important to be precise about the criminality of our overlords.
Simon Toad, I must strongly disagree. Using public office to enrich yourself at the expense of the voters/taxpayers who put you into that office is the textbook definition of corruption. It's defrauding the public by diverting their fees, taxes, etc, intended for the public good into your own personal pocket.
Obstruction of justice is exactly what it sounds like: preventing, or attempting to prevent, justice from being carried out by, for example, refusing to support a thorough investigation into exactly how and to what extent Russia meddled in the 2016 election, and refusing to take actions that might help prevent future meddling.
Simon Toad, I must strongly disagree. Using public office to enrich yourself at the expense of the voters/taxpayers who put you into that office is the textbook definition of corruption. It's defrauding the public by diverting their fees, taxes, etc, intended for the public good into your own personal pocket.
I'm pretty sure that was @Simon Toad's point. He seems to have a very narrow view of corruption and views it solely in terms of personal financial gain. By this definition it is not "corrupt" to misuse the powers of office for non-financial reasons, like destroying evidence or punishing your personal enemies. I take a more expansive view that it's the misuse of power itself that counts as "corrupt", not just if power is misused for material gain.
My worry is that abuse of power in the sense of obstruction, or closing bridges to make your enemies look bad is easy to confuse with lawyerly dancing between the grey areas. Leave that stuff to when you have someone bang to rights, like Mueller has Trump.
Admittedly there are heaps of things you can do to hide the loot you pinch off the public purse, like run it through a Casino in Atlantic City. But the act of obtaining the loot is harder to hide, viz. the public knowledge of Trump's various thefts. I trust he, like Bibi, and Andrietti in Italy, and Obeid over here will spend his last years in jail once his political opponents control the paper trail.
How is it that your president cannot understand that an endorsement from him for any British politician is the kiss of death in the eyes of a majority of the UK electorate?
How is it that your president cannot understand that an endorsement from him for any British politician is the kiss of death in the eyes of a majority of the UK electorate?
How is it that, after 2.5 years observing this walking, talking cesspit in action, you have yet to notice that it understands almost nothing?
I happen to be doing file review and admin work today. I'm listening a bit to the USA congress questioning of investigator Mueller. I'm reminded of listening to another testimony while on a car trip sometime in the 1970s re Nixon. There appears to be clear parallels, notwithstanding trumpy's witch hunt and "very innocent president" twittering. I remember the sense during the Nixon times that it was a matter of time only before the clown would leave the circus. Some of the congress people questioning Mueller are very good in their questions, some are very poor. Mueller is not a good speaker, and the sense is that there are a number of these Republican people who want to die in the Alamo with trumpy, who no doubt would arrange to survive.
The thing rhymes with Nixon, but it's not nearly as good a remake.
I happen to be doing file review and admin work today. I'm listening a bit to the USA congress questioning of investigator Mueller. I'm reminded of listening to another testimony while on a car trip sometime in the 1970s re Nixon. There appears to be clear parallels, notwithstanding trumpy's witch hunt and "very innocent president" twittering. I remember the sense during the Nixon times that it was a matter of time only before the clown would leave the circus. Some of the congress people questioning Mueller are very good in their questions, some are very poor. Mueller is not a good speaker, and the sense is that there are a number of these Republican people who want to die in the Alamo with trumpy, who no doubt would arrange to survive.
The thing rhymes with Nixon, but it's not nearly as good a remake.
Aye, no Watergate. No Coulson. No G. Gordon Liddy. Even less than Contragate. Zip. Nada. Bupkiss. A license to print money at the taxpayer's expense.
I happen to be doing file review and admin work today. I'm listening a bit to the USA congress questioning of investigator Mueller. I'm reminded of listening to another testimony while on a car trip sometime in the 1970s re Nixon. There appears to be clear parallels, notwithstanding trumpy's witch hunt and "very innocent president" twittering. I remember the sense during the Nixon times that it was a matter of time only before the clown would leave the circus. Some of the congress people questioning Mueller are very good in their questions, some are very poor. Mueller is not a good speaker, and the sense is that there are a number of these Republican people who want to die in the Alamo with trumpy, who no doubt would arrange to survive.
The thing rhymes with Nixon, but it's not nearly as good a remake.
Aye, no Watergate. No Coulson. No G. Gordon Liddy. Even less than Contragate. Zip. Nada. Bupkiss. A license to print money at the taxpayer's expense.
No idea what a bupkiss is.
When I said it was remake, I meant that it is remake. Which means that he gets almost impeached after he wins the 2020 election, but gets out of it. In the remake, not by resigning. Maybe he dies from the stress. Then Pencey the new presidente pardons him posthumously
I had a look at F*x news... apparently Ken Starr thinks Mueller did the nation a disservice because he did not ensure his staff was 'fair and balanced.'
I know that people have thought satire was dead for a while but if there was any doubt....
For the record Robert Mueller is himself a Republican, which makes Republican claims that there were no Republicans on his "team" particularly baffling. Unless you consider "Republican" to now be a synonym for "Trump loyalist", which in itself is telling.
An interesting historical tidbit to chew over: the last Democrat to serve as independent counsel or special prosecutor in an investigation involving the president was Archibald Cox. Make of that what you will.
I don't think this can be blamed on Trump. Republicans were, at best, indifferent about foreign election interference before the election. They seem to have come to the conclusion that such interference will always be to their benefit, which seems like a very interesting conclusion to have reached.
Seems to be a lot of that, and always the fault of some intern or otherwise easily dismissible young person. I recall during the primary Trump blamed the fact that he tweeted out an image of soldiers in Waffen-SS uniforms under the MakeAmericaGreatAgain hashtag on an "intern".
I happen to be doing file review and admin work today. I'm listening a bit to the USA congress questioning of investigator Mueller. I'm reminded of listening to another testimony while on a car trip sometime in the 1970s re Nixon. There appears to be clear parallels, notwithstanding trumpy's witch hunt and "very innocent president" twittering. I remember the sense during the Nixon times that it was a matter of time only before the clown would leave the circus. Some of the congress people questioning Mueller are very good in their questions, some are very poor. Mueller is not a good speaker, and the sense is that there are a number of these Republican people who want to die in the Alamo with trumpy, who no doubt would arrange to survive.
The thing rhymes with Nixon, but it's not nearly as good a remake.
Aye, no Watergate. No Coulson. No G. Gordon Liddy. Even less than Contragate. Zip. Nada. Bupkiss. A license to print money at the taxpayer's expense.
No idea what a bupkiss is.
When I said it was remake, I meant that it is remake. Which means that he gets almost impeached after he wins the 2020 election, but gets out of it. In the remake, not by resigning. Maybe he dies from the stress. Then Pencey the new presidente pardons him posthumously
I don't think this can be blamed on Trump. Republicans were, at best, indifferent about foreign election interference before the election. They seem to have come to the conclusion that such interference will always be to their benefit, which seems like a very interesting conclusion to have reached.
So how does someone interfere in American elections? Is there an online guide? Is it sort of like doping in sports? It evolves as methods are detected?
Didn’t the CIA actually write a manual or something for sowing political instability? They got quite adept at that. A bit of cosmic irony there.
Yeah the lack of self-consciousness among Americans about this sort of thing is insurmountable. And when the Americans want to mess with your politics... they’re not going to use Twitter trolls.
Well you identify and use the method that is going to be most effective in getting the outcome you want with a low chance of detection. It is a perfectly permissible tool of international relations to use these tactics. Nations have been doing this since the days of the Xia Dynasty, using the tools available to screw with foreign Governments. It is not permissible to get caught. Back in the day, they would tie each limb to one of four horses and have you pulled into four or more bits, or another culturally specific and inventive punishment for spies and traitors. The Russians got caught and should be paying the penalty. But you know, Trump.
I don't think Americans lack self-consciousness of this at all. I reckon they think that if you spy on the US, you should suffer an appropriate penalty. They don't think, or many of them don't, that just because the US interferes in elections of other countries, people who interfere in their elections shouldn't be hung drawn and quartered (or similar). They don't give a stuff about moral equivalence and neither do I (unless it suits my purpose to feign concern )Their concern is for the integrity of American elections and mine is for the integrity of Australian elections.
I don't think this can be blamed on Trump. Republicans were, at best, indifferent about foreign election interference before the election. They seem to have come to the conclusion that such interference will always be to their benefit, which seems like a very interesting conclusion to have reached.
So how does someone interfere in American elections? Is there an online guide? Is it sort of like doping in sports? It evolves as methods are detected?
If you read the right sections of the Mueller report (sections II and III of volume 1) it will tell you how to do it.
However, there's a much more worrying possibility. Many states have voting machines with no paper counting. These machines can be hacked and if they were, there's no way to check if the vote count has been falsified. Hacking these machines is no small undertaking but there are several actors with considerable capability and the companies who make these machines are not subject to proper congressional oversight.
In a democracy, what could be more vital than protecting the integrity of elections? Oh, yeah, that's right, maintaining power for the right-wing. Silly me....
Many Americans are aware that the US has messed around with the elections of other countries, and don't like it. Doesn't mean we should let people mess around with *our* elections.
A lot of Americans are aware of things like the School of the Americas. (Search on it.)
Many Americans are aware that the US has messed around with the elections of other countries, and don't like it. Doesn't mean we should let people mess around with *our* elections.
A lot of Americans are aware of things like the School of the Americas. (Search on it.)
But it’s completely incommensurate. Look at, for instance, how the US basically ransacked Russia, economically and politically, throughout the 90’s.
Once you look past the hype, the very few proven examples of Russian “interference” in 2016 were utterly amateurish and with no discernible effect on the outcome.
Have you actually read the Mueller Report? The evidence disproves any assertion of "utterly amateurish".
Discernible influence on outcome? I guess that's harder to prove. I'd be surprised if it was zero and it didn't need to be all that much to swing the election to Trump. One or two people in a hundred changing their minds in key states. How do you know that didn't happen?
Ah, okay, so twitter trolls loaded with highly advanced weapons-grade memes developed in secret Soviet laboratories in Kamchatka. Oh and that guy in a Santa suit.
1. A sizable portion of voting Americans wanted him to be president. Not because of Facebook memes but because white Americans are at heart dumb, mean, and racist. No foreign encouragement needed.
2. The Democrats ran a horrible campaign with a horrible candidate.
Much of the McCarthyist slapstick Russia hysteria is aimed at shielding Dems from the horror of 1 and the shame of 2.
Ah, okay, so twitter trolls loaded with highly advanced weapons-grade memes developed in secret Soviet laboratories in Kamchatka. Oh and that guy in a Santa suit.
What evidence do you have that your James Bond concept of foreign intelligence operations is more effective in the real world than social media?
1. A sizable portion of voting Americans wanted him to be president. Not because of Facebook memes but because white Americans are at heart dumb, mean, and racist. No foreign encouragement needed.
2. The Democrats ran a horrible campaign with a horrible candidate.
Much of the McCarthyist slapstick Russia hysteria is aimed at shielding Dems from the horror of 1 and the shame of 2.
Bliss. She slagged off the folk right. Love them or lose.
Once you look past the hype, the very few proven examples of Russian “interference” in 2016 were utterly amateurish and with no discernible effect on the outcome.
This seems like the equivalent of Trump's claim that the DNC might have been hacked by "somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds". Despite your protestations of Russian innocence that seems like the modern equivalent of the Watergate burglary, with the difference that this time the burglars actually stole a bunch of documents.
1. A sizable portion of voting Americans wanted him to be president. Not because of Facebook memes but because white Americans are at heart dumb, mean, and racist. No foreign encouragement needed.
2. The Democrats ran a horrible campaign with a horrible candidate.
Much of the McCarthyist slapstick Russia hysteria is aimed at shielding Dems from the horror of 1 and the shame of 2.
Host hat on @SirPalomides, lumping all white Americans together for negative stereotyping is itself a form of racism, and not permitted on the Ship. Please don’t. Host hat off
BroJames Purgatory Host
Ah, okay, so twitter trolls loaded with highly advanced weapons-grade memes developed in secret Soviet laboratories in Kamchatka. Oh and that guy in a Santa suit.
What evidence do you have that your James Bond concept of foreign intelligence operations is more effective in the real world than social media?
Once you look past the hype, the very few proven examples of Russian “interference” in 2016 were utterly amateurish and with no discernible effect on the outcome.
This seems like the equivalent of Trump's claim that the DNC might have been hacked by "somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds". Despite your protestations of Russian innocence that seems like the modern equivalent of the Watergate burglary, with the difference that this time the burglars actually stole a bunch of documents.
I suppose if Trump were to declare the sky to be blue you would react with an impassioned treatise on why it is a subtle shade of indigo.
Not sure if Congressional candidates count for this thread, but Ilhan Omar's Republican opponent is in some hot water.
Comparing her current social media presence and the fact that she's an actual candidate for office with her previous resumé under her former name tells you quite a bit about the power of social media.
1. A sizable portion of voting Americans wanted him to be president. Not because of Facebook memes but because white Americans are at heart dumb, mean, and racist. No foreign encouragement needed.
2. The Democrats ran a horrible campaign with a horrible candidate.
Much of the McCarthyist slapstick Russia hysteria is aimed at shielding Dems from the horror of 1 and the shame of 2.
Host post cross posted with BroJames Host Post so I have deleted content.
2. The Democrats ran a horrible campaign with a horrible candidate.
Much of the McCarthyist slapstick Russia hysteria is aimed at shielding Dems from the horror of 1 and the shame of 2.
Sure, just keep telling yourself that. The candidate and the campaign were both so horrible that 3 million more people voted for her than for Trump.
Brilliant. So Putin used his secret TARDIS (it looks like a bust of Lenin instead of a police box) to zap back to the 1780’s and plant the electoral college in the constitution. This is more nefarious than we could have imagined!
People should have a read of the Mueller report. I am having it read to me when I drive courtesy of AFZ. It puts the proponents of batshit crazy anti-democrat theories to shame.
Considering, A. how the Dems were incessantly shrieking since 2016 that Trump conspired with the Russian government to skew the election and B. worked themselves into an orgiastic frenzy in anticipation of the Mueller report as proving this, I would say the Mueller report is quite an embarrassment for them.
Yes, it does document that Trump and his team are thoroughly corrupt, unethical, stupid, deceitful, etc. but everybody already knew that, even his supporters (who love him for it).
Comments
Trump's actions concerning the 2016 Campaign and his multiple attempts to obstruct justice amount to criminal conduct in my opinion, but not corruption. Trump being influenced in the discharge of his duties by people who spend large amounts of money at his related businesses is corruption and a criminal offence. Trump requiring the White House and other branches of the executive to use his businesses is corruption.
I don't know whether Barr's misrepresentation of the Mueller report is criminal. I imagine Barr was well aware of what he was doing and he was careful to set up a pretty solid defence to any potential criminal action. I imagine the defence he set up will be contentious enough to avoid prosecution. That's not corruption. That's what good lawyers have been doing since the days of Cromwell. That's what I did in the 90's for clients who wanted to sack people. I set up processes for them to follow which managed the risk. If that's corruption, then I have no problem with that sort of corruption. But its not.
Similarly, Mr Turtle and his Republican mates using every lawful trick in the book to protect the President from himself and justice is entirely proper. They can even do what Mr Barr probably did and design a course of action that weaves its way through the grey areas of the law and they are above prosecution, but not of course criticism. This is politics. This is the way it is played in places where the military is unlikely to interfere. No corruption, but plenty of collusion.
That bastard Democratic senator from New Jersey. Have a look at what he did. That's corruption, and his presence in the Democratic caucus is IMHO much more damaging to the institutions of Congress and the Democratic Party that the Republicans being soft on racism. I know he was acquitted, but the Democratic party does not need to apply the criminal burden of proof here. They should have kicked that bloke to the kerb. Money politics is not the problem if you keep toadies like that senator in your tent.
I'd find a relevant article but its 2am. Bob Menendez? I think that's his name.
Really? Using the power of your office for personal benefit in contravention of law would seem to be the textbook definition of "corruption". I think that applies just as well if that benefit is avoiding criminal penalties (i.e. obstruction of justice) as it does to acquiring personal wealth at public expense.
No. It's not corruption. It's obstruction of justice, a different category of wrongdoing. I think its important to be careful about these things. They are both heinous crimes but they are different. Its important to be precise about the criminality of our overlords.
Obstruction of justice is exactly what it sounds like: preventing, or attempting to prevent, justice from being carried out by, for example, refusing to support a thorough investigation into exactly how and to what extent Russia meddled in the 2016 election, and refusing to take actions that might help prevent future meddling.
I'm pretty sure that was @Simon Toad's point. He seems to have a very narrow view of corruption and views it solely in terms of personal financial gain. By this definition it is not "corrupt" to misuse the powers of office for non-financial reasons, like destroying evidence or punishing your personal enemies. I take a more expansive view that it's the misuse of power itself that counts as "corrupt", not just if power is misused for material gain.
Admittedly there are heaps of things you can do to hide the loot you pinch off the public purse, like run it through a Casino in Atlantic City. But the act of obtaining the loot is harder to hide, viz. the public knowledge of Trump's various thefts. I trust he, like Bibi, and Andrietti in Italy, and Obeid over here will spend his last years in jail once his political opponents control the paper trail.
How is it that, after 2.5 years observing this walking, talking cesspit in action, you have yet to notice that it understands almost nothing?
The thing rhymes with Nixon, but it's not nearly as good a remake.
Aye, no Watergate. No Coulson. No G. Gordon Liddy. Even less than Contragate. Zip. Nada. Bupkiss. A license to print money at the taxpayer's expense.
When I said it was remake, I meant that it is remake. Which means that he gets almost impeached after he wins the 2020 election, but gets out of it. In the remake, not by resigning. Maybe he dies from the stress. Then Pencey the new presidente pardons him posthumously
I know that people have thought satire was dead for a while but if there was any doubt....
AFZ
An interesting historical tidbit to chew over: the last Democrat to serve as independent counsel or special prosecutor in an investigation involving the president was Archibald Cox. Make of that what you will.
Time to get Republican congressfolk and senators on record on Trump. Let's fire the starters pistol Nancy.
Republicans block legislation to protect elections from foreign interference.
AFZ
I don't think this can be blamed on Trump. Republicans were, at best, indifferent about foreign election interference before the election. They seem to have come to the conclusion that such interference will always be to their benefit, which seems like a very interesting conclusion to have reached.
Seems to be a lot of that, and always the fault of some intern or otherwise easily dismissible young person. I recall during the primary Trump blamed the fact that he tweeted out an image of soldiers in Waffen-SS uniforms under the MakeAmericaGreatAgain hashtag on an "intern".
Indeed, one 'ess'.
So how does someone interfere in American elections? Is there an online guide? Is it sort of like doping in sports? It evolves as methods are detected?
Yeah the lack of self-consciousness among Americans about this sort of thing is insurmountable. And when the Americans want to mess with your politics... they’re not going to use Twitter trolls.
I don't think Americans lack self-consciousness of this at all. I reckon they think that if you spy on the US, you should suffer an appropriate penalty. They don't think, or many of them don't, that just because the US interferes in elections of other countries, people who interfere in their elections shouldn't be hung drawn and quartered (or similar). They don't give a stuff about moral equivalence and neither do I (unless it suits my purpose to feign concern
If you read the right sections of the Mueller report (sections II and III of volume 1) it will tell you how to do it.
However, there's a much more worrying possibility. Many states have voting machines with no paper counting. These machines can be hacked and if they were, there's no way to check if the vote count has been falsified. Hacking these machines is no small undertaking but there are several actors with considerable capability and the companies who make these machines are not subject to proper congressional oversight.
In a democracy, what could be more vital than protecting the integrity of elections? Oh, yeah, that's right, maintaining power for the right-wing. Silly me....
AFZ
A lot of Americans are aware of things like the School of the Americas. (Search on it.)
That does seem to be the case...
But it’s completely incommensurate. Look at, for instance, how the US basically ransacked Russia, economically and politically, throughout the 90’s.
Once you look past the hype, the very few proven examples of Russian “interference” in 2016 were utterly amateurish and with no discernible effect on the outcome.
Discernible influence on outcome? I guess that's harder to prove. I'd be surprised if it was zero and it didn't need to be all that much to swing the election to Trump. One or two people in a hundred changing their minds in key states. How do you know that didn't happen?
Not a lot.
Here again is that depressing xkcd guide to why that vector is also highly cost-effective.
1. A sizable portion of voting Americans wanted him to be president. Not because of Facebook memes but because white Americans are at heart dumb, mean, and racist. No foreign encouragement needed.
2. The Democrats ran a horrible campaign with a horrible candidate.
Much of the McCarthyist slapstick Russia hysteria is aimed at shielding Dems from the horror of 1 and the shame of 2.
What evidence do you have that your James Bond concept of foreign intelligence operations is more effective in the real world than social media?
Bliss. She slagged off the folk right. Love them or lose.
And is the U.S. particularly beloved in countries where it used those tactics? No. So why would you expect Americans to react any differently?
This seems like the equivalent of Trump's claim that the DNC might have been hacked by "somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds". Despite your protestations of Russian innocence that seems like the modern equivalent of the Watergate burglary, with the difference that this time the burglars actually stole a bunch of documents.
Sure, just keep telling yourself that. The candidate and the campaign were both so horrible that 3 million more people voted for her than for Trump.
@SirPalomides, lumping all white Americans together for negative stereotyping is itself a form of racism, and not permitted on the Ship. Please don’t.
Host hat off
BroJames Purgatory Host
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
I suppose if Trump were to declare the sky to be blue you would react with an impassioned treatise on why it is a subtle shade of indigo.
Comparing her current social media presence and the fact that she's an actual candidate for office with her previous resumé under her former name tells you quite a bit about the power of social media.
Brilliant. So Putin used his secret TARDIS (it looks like a bust of Lenin instead of a police box) to zap back to the 1780’s and plant the electoral college in the constitution. This is more nefarious than we could have imagined!
Yes, it does document that Trump and his team are thoroughly corrupt, unethical, stupid, deceitful, etc. but everybody already knew that, even his supporters (who love him for it).