Enjoy President Trump, Courtesy of The Kremlin

[Brian Peacock]

the much of a flunky?

Sessions' 'Number One' at the Department of Justice.

[Svartalf]

Trump cultists live in a hermetically sealed bubble through which facts and truth from the outside world cannot pass. It is as fascinating as it is terrifying.

What is fascinating is that people are only noticing now that feature of Elephants... it started at least under Reagan, possibly even under Nixon.

[Svartalf]

the much of a flunky?

Sessions' 'Number One' at the Department of Justice.

ok... I apparently did not look in the proper places, my google, and even my wiki fu are deplorable.

[Seabass]

Trump cultists live in a hermetically sealed bubble through which facts and truth from the outside world cannot pass. It is as fascinating as it is terrifying.

What is fascinating is that people are only noticing now that feature of Elephants... it started at least under Reagan, possibly even under Nixon.

We all knew it before; it's just that with Trump, it's reached a level of surreal that's difficult for a normal brain to process. How these Trumplings can be so completely divorced from reality... it is truly mind-boggling.

[Tero]

I once worked with a summer with my dad’s only employee, Donald. Barely literate, he could do most daily math in his head. He didn’t believe in much anything. All the TV, newspapers etc were made up. He just wanted to go fishing. 1974. Way ahead of his time. At the time I believed it was just limited to Florida trailer park folks.

[Tero]

Brilliant strategy. They went after a sitting president, so we will go after some people that no longer hold office

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – White House Chief of Staff John Kelly said on Monday a special counsel should be appointed to investigate Democrats over a uranium deal during the Obama administration and a dossier compiled on Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.

“I think probably as a layman looking at this kind of thing we need to find someone who is very, very objective who can get to the bottom of these accusations,” Kelly said in an interview on Fox News.

A special counsel would be appointed by the Justice Department.

Republicans in Congress last week launched an investigation into an Obama-era deal in which a Russian company bought a Canadian firm that owned some 20 percent of U.S. uranium supplies.

[Tyrannical]

Brilliant strategy. They went after a sitting president, so we will go after some people that no longer hold office

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – White House Chief of Staff John Kelly said on Monday a special counsel should be appointed to investigate Democrats over a uranium deal during the Obama administration and a dossier compiled on Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.

“I think probably as a layman looking at this kind of thing we need to find someone who is very, very objective who can get to the bottom of these accusations,” Kelly said in an interview on Fox News.

A special counsel would be appointed by the Justice Department.

Republicans in Congress last week launched an investigation into an Obama-era deal in which a Russian company bought a Canadian firm that owned some 20 percent of U.S. uranium supplies.

It is a Brilliant strategy, since Mueller will be a key focus of that investigation since he was head of the FBI at the time

[Brian Peacock]

Brilliant strategy. They went after a sitting president, so we will go after some people that no longer hold office

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – White House Chief of Staff John Kelly said on Monday a special counsel should be appointed to investigate Democrats over a uranium deal during the Obama administration and a dossier compiled on Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.

“I think probably as a layman looking at this kind of thing we need to find someone who is very, very objective who can get to the bottom of these accusations,” Kelly said in an interview on Fox News.

A special counsel would be appointed by the Justice Department.

Republicans in Congress last week launched an investigation into an Obama-era deal in which a Russian company bought a Canadian firm that owned some 20 percent of U.S. uranium supplies.

It is a Brilliant strategy, since Mueller will be a key focus of that investigation since he was head of the FBI at the time

You know, it's almost as if Republican and Trumpistas don't want to know the truth about the Trump-Russia thing or if and how the Russian government tried to undermine and corrupt US democratic processes - even if in the end it turns out there's nothing to connect the President to the Kremlin. 'Running scared' is the phrase that springs to mind, and it's a poor excuse for putting petty party politics before one's patriotic duty to one's own country.

[Sean Hayden]

The average Republican thinks of it the same way we thought of the birther movement.

--//--

I don't have any faith in our government, and frankly I'm surprised we're still standing. It won't be long now though.

[Forty Two]

Well, here's a good summation of what the earth-shattering indictments brought us regarding Trump-Russia - - http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the ... -eye-22990

And, you know, folks who say that it's almost as if Trumpistas don't want to know the truth about Trump-Russia, well, you're the same folks who poo-poo and hand-wave every allegation against Hillary Clinton. You don't want to know the truth, except about your political opposition.

In my view, yes, indeed, we should always know the truth. But, that doesn't mean we accept allegations as proved without evidence. So, take it from the top. What did Trump and russia collude about, and what laws were broken? Ads placed on facebook? A meeting with a lawyer who happened to be advance paroled into the US by the Obama Justice Department, for some unknown reason? Misstatements about meeting with an Ambassador?

This is what we're talking about, isn't it?

Hacking of the DNC, right? Serious allegation, I agree. But, there's no evidence of any hacking, right? Except the allegation of the DNC people.... the same people who refused to turn over their servers for examination by the FBI. Would that be taken seriously if it was the RNC doing that? Oh, yes, we were hacked! O.k., FBI is opening investigation - and they want your servers to examine to see how the hacking occurred.... RNC responds "oh, no, FBI, we will take care of that. We'll let you know if we find anything. But we were hacked!"

Sounds legit.

[Sean Hayden]

It would be wiser and safer to purge. We can let the need for definitive proof save you from the hangman. But it's not enough to allow you stay in Washington, time to fuck off me thinks.

[Tero]

I'm kind of curious. Since Trump and his most fervent supporters believe in all sorts of conspiracies and some "deep state", what are Trump's views on conspiracies in US gov't now that he is in power? are there hints in his tweets? He is after all now the most powerful man on the planet. Only limited by the weak congress and pro Trump courts (he will continue naming racist judges) and by Putin.

[Forty Two]

You should have put the 'bullshit' warning at the start of your reply, Forty Two. It would have been much more appropriate, since every one of your points are nothing but bullshit.

You know perfectly well that the meeting that was brought together on the premise that 'the crown prosecutor of Russia' was offering information that 'would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to' Trump. Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner believed they were meeting with a representative of the Russian government in order to get assistance in defeating Clinton. If nothing else, this was clearly an attempt to collude with the Russian government.

It's not unlawful or even unethical to meet with a former lawyer from Russia, who was lawfully in the US under advance parole approved by the Obama Administration, who said they had dirt on Hillary Clinton. There isn't even anything wrong with doing that.

And Russia does not have a "crown prosecutor." Rob Goldstone, a former British tabloid journalist, told Trump Jr. that “the Crown prosecutor of Russia met with … Aras [Agalarov] this morning and in their meeting offered to provide some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father."

Errr.... so what? O.k. Rob Goldstone, how do we get our hands on that incriminating information?

It wasn't 'a few thousand dollars,' it was over $100,000.

In a world where Presidential races cost billions, a $100,000 ad buy, most of which appeared after the election, and only some of which related to the election rather than "issues," is "a few thousand dollars." That's not a lot of money. And, even if it was $100,000,000 - russia is allowed to buy ads on Facebook, even political ads about the US election. It's not illegal. It's not unethical. It's not even "questionable." And, Facebook is perfectly lawfully entitled to take that business and place the ads, and it has nothing to do with Trump.

What if the US government placed ads on Facebook to promote the "Remain" position in the Brexit situation? Or what if they placed ads on Facebook suggesting that the US prefers one candidate or another in the latest Venezuelan elections? What if the British government placed an ad on Facebook opining about Gibralter independence, or Catalan independence? Or, the next Russian election, supporting Putin's opponent?

What is the problem?

This wasn't Russia honestly expressing a position on the US election. Using an intermediary to disguise its involvement, the Russian government was spreading divisiveness and ginning up support for Trump,

You think that they weren't honestly expressing support for Trump? And, so what if they were spreading "divisiveness"? Your assertion that they they weren't "honest" and/or that they were spreading divisiveness and "ginning up support" for Trump - well, that's a fine view on it. But, it certainly isn't something that's established. So what if "Russian actors" helped organize pro-Trump rallies? Is that illegal? Unethical? Immoral?

Hacking of the DNC, which nobody has yet concluded was "hacking" and not "leaking?"

Every single US intelligence agency has concluded that the Russians were responsible for the hacking, and your continued denial of that fact is not going to change it. The only 'leaking' story is the Seth Rich lie pushed by the lickspittle dingbat Hannity.

They have NOT concluded that. Go head - produce the statement where US intelligence agencies "concluded that the Russias were responsible for the hacking..." - go on. Which US agency inspected the DNC servers?

Suspicious meetings with Russian officials? You mean, like Sessions, along with every other Washington elected official, met with the Russian Ambassador at various events and parties? Lawful meetings with a Russian official whose job it is to meet with people?

Despite Sessions' claims to the contrary, there is evidence that he 'discussed matters related to the Trump campaign with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian Ambassador to the United States, while the 2016 U.S. presidential race was ongoing.'

First of all, that's not established. But, let's assume that he did "discuss matters related to the Trump campaign with Sergey Kislyak, Russian Ambassador to the US..." so? Was that illegal? Was that unethical? Was that immoral? What charges can be brought against Sessions if that's true? There is a law that says people can't discuss the 2016 Election, during the election, with any foreign ambassadors?

[pErvinalia]

Colluding with a foreign power to subvert US democracy is illegal. That's what they are investigating. Stop pretending otherwise.

[Forty Two]

Stop pretending this isn't political.

Look - colluding with a foreign power to "subvert US democracy" is NOT illegal.

And a former Moscow prosecutor whose working as a lobbyist on Magitsky Act matters is not a "foreign power." It's not illegal or unethical to meet with fucking Russians. That same Russian could meet with Congresspeople and talk about all sorts of political stuff. That's not illegal.

It's not illegal to be against democracy. It's illegal to work to make the US something other than a democracy.

Now, if you engage in correspondence with a foreign government "with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States," - i.e. if you're doublecrossing the US by dealing with a foreign power - working against the US in a "dispute or controversy" or to "defeat the measures" of the US, then you are guilty of a crime punishable by up to 3 years in jail.

But talking to foreigners who are not part of the foreign government about "dirt" on a political opponent is not that. Even if one was talking to an official of a foreign government about "dirt" on a political opponent, that is not in relation to a dispute or controvesy WITH THE US or to defeat the measures OF THE US. Hillary Clinton is not the US.

There is a law against a foreign power making contributions to political campaigns - but, that is not Facebook issue-ad buys, and it's not "information." There has been some talk about whether "opposition research" constitutes a contribution to a political campaign - however, if that's true, then the British foreign national, Mr. Steele, who prepared the "dossier" made a contribution of a "thing of value" .....