Messing Around With Our Elections?!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Messing Around With Our Elections?!

  1. Chris says:

    I’m certainly not opposed to breaking up big corporations like Google. I believe Elizabeth Warren has discussed such a plan. As it stands, American corporations are well within their rights to spend as much money and exercise as much influence as they want to affect American elections; I believe that’s a result of Citizens United, a decision that was ironically praised by conservatives and pilloried by liberals. That corporations would quickly turn to chasing the dollars of millennials and people of color by publicly supporting liberal causes was perhaps a cultural change that many were unprepared for.

  2. Chris says:

    I am more concerned with foreign countries trying to affect our elections that American companies. So, today, is Robert Mueller. Who isn’t concerned about that? Let’s roll the tape:

    SCHIFF: Trump and his campaign welcomed & encouraged Russian interference?

    MUELLER: Yes.

    SCHIFF: And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?

    MUELLER: Yes.

    I ask all here on Post Scripts, in good faith: Why is this not an impeachable offense?

    • Peggy says:

      Watch all five hours of the hearings today and you’ll answer your own question.

      • Chris says:

        Watched it. Don’t know what you’re getting at. I’d like your answer, in your own words, please: why is the fact that the president lied about an attack on our country in order to protect his own ego and protect the hostile foreign dictator who ordered the attack from criticism and punishment not impeachable?

        • Peggy says:

          My answer is because our election wasn’t attacked in 2016 any more than it was before by a foreign country. It WAS attacked internally by the Obama administration, the Hillary campaign and the DNC. And it’s still going on.

          Remember also, Obama sent a team over to Israel to support Bebe’s opponent. Why wasn’t that illegal and why didn’t you speak out against it?

          • Chris says:

            Count the rationalizations above: It Wasn’t That Bad, Everybody Does It, and that old classic, Obama Did It Too. Which would be one thing if any of them were true, but literally every sentence is a lie. The intelligence community and other experts say this was a bigger intervention campaign than any they’ve seen. If Obama had wanted to intervene in the election, he would have leaked the fact that Trump was being investigated. And the Israel thing was not about the election and is easily fact checkable. But you won’t fact check it, or anything else; you’ll just believe whatever Sean Hannity or Breitbart or Wing Nut Daily tells you. Thank you for confirming that the only way one could be OK with the president’s acceptance of Russian interference is to just deny facts.

    • J Soden says:

      The one BIG question remains outta the Mueller performance yesterday – WHO
      ACTUALLY WROTE THE MUELLER “REPORT”??? as it certainly appears it was NOT Ferris Mueller!!!!!
      The biggest nail in yesterday’s testimony was Mueller’s claim he was not familiar with Fusion GPS!
      And where is all the “evidence” of Russian collusion that Pencil-Neck Schiff has been claiming he has seen for the last 2 years?

      • Chris says:

        The biggest nail in yesterday’s testimony was Mueller’s claim he was not familiar with Fusion GPS!

        That’s a pretty small nail. The Steele Dossier had absolutely nothing to do with Mueller’s investigation.

    • Peggy says:

      Just for you Chris, from October 2016.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L3mQaHTj7ow

      • Chris says:

        Good clip. Not only was Obama right about Trump, in hindsight Trump’s behavior was even worse: he was baselessly accusing minorities of “rigging” the election while knowingly and happily benefiting from the efforts of a hostile foreign government to intervene. This did not “rig” the election, but whatever effect it did have is beside the point; no president should allow such an attack on our electoral process without striking back, and Trump has tried to avoid doing that at every turn, even to the point of denying such an attack happened at all. I ask again: why is such a display of weakness acceptable? Perhaps this time you’ll actually answer.

        • Peggy says:

          Thanks for thinking it was a good clip. What you missed is the Russian attempt to interfere in the 2016 election took place when Obama was president and he did nothing to stop them. He didn’t because he and all of the pollsters believed Hillary would win. In other words the Russians were helping Hillary and that was just fine with them. But, since she lost they had to flip and blame them for Trump winning. Obama kicking out a bunch of Russians in December, after the election, only proved his doing nothing prior to the election.

          Blaming Trump for Obama’s wrongdoings isn’t going to work on informed people. It’s been almost three years since Hillary lost and Trump won, you need to get over it and answer your own questions, honestly.

          • Chris says:

            I agree that Obama should have done more to stop Russian interference. He underestimated the threat. So why don’t you have a problem with the fact that Trump will do nothing now, and even reversed many of the measures that Obama did take? Your claim that the Russians were trying to “help Hillary” is simply baseless and goes against everything the intelligence community has found–why should I believe you over them?

      • Peggy says:

        A couple of the best moments, I believe, from yesterday’s clown show.

        Rep. Ratcliffe to Mueller: You Didn’t Follow Special Counsel Rules, You Wrote About Decisions That Weren’t Reached:
        https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/07/24/rep_ratcliffe_to_mueller_you_didnt_follow_special_counsel_rules_you_wrote_about_decisions_that_werent_reached.html

        Rep. Turner says Mueller lacks power to ‘exonerate’ Trump:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXHi9OpdpY

        • Chris says:

          Collusion to do what? Are you arguing that Obama, while president, did not have the authority to negotiate with the Russian government? Are you arguing, without any evidence, that the Russian government intervened in our election process in 2012 to help Obama win? I have asked you these questions before when you have tried to draw this false equivalence and you have failed to answer them every time, but here you are again restarting this cycle. It must be nice having the kind of memory where every time the gaps in your logic are pointed out, you can just forget them and make the same bad arguments every few weeks, never having to rethink your positions.

  3. RHT447 says:

    Here’s my answer, equally in good faith.

    Roll tape? Oh, do let’s–

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKSKKLAStK0

    Mueller is a doddering 79 year third stringer old lucky to even know what day it is. He has never even read the report, let alone written it. His job is to be the face in front of the camera. Schiff would sell his own mother for a box of stale doughnuts.

    “Why is this not an impeachable offense?”
    Because it never happened.

    • RHT447 says:

      *79 year old third stringer…

    • Chris says:

      Help me out here, because right-wing conspiracy theories can sometimes be hard to follow–the theory here is that the FBI had Joseph Mifsud “set up” Papadopolous and the Trump campaign by having him tell Papadopolous that the Russian government had dirt on Hillary? How, exactly, does that lessen the severity of Papadopolous’ offense, or the offenses of any of the other Trump campaign aides who were charged by Mueller? Even if this theory is true, Joseph Mifsud did not pressure Papadopolous to lie about their conversations or the conversations he had with Australian intelligence. It doesn’t follow from this theory that Flynn, Manafort, Gates, and Cohen had to lie about all their contacts. It doesn’t change the fact that Russia did meddle and hacked the DNC. It doesn’t change the fact that Trump denied all of these facts and shows zero concern about the Russians meddling again. So Gym Jordan, as excited as he seems to be, seems to be circulating this theory to deflect from crimes, knowing that his target audience–you–will fall for it without asking any critical thinking questions. But then, that’s what Gym Jordan does.

  4. Chris says:

    Democrats tried to get consent to pass two bills that would require campaigns to alert the FBI and Federal Election Commission about foreign offers of assistance, as well as a bill to let the Senate Sergeant at Arms offer voluntary cyber assistance for personal devices and accounts of senators and staff.

    But Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) blocked each of the bills. She didn’t give reason for her objections, or say if she was objecting on behalf of herself or the Senate GOP caucus. A spokesman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/454635-gop-blocks-election-security-bills-after-mueller-testimony

    Can someone explain to me why Republicans would object to such bills? When Democrats have opposed Republican-led measures such as voter ID laws, it’s been because courts have found they have the effect (and often the intent) to depress turnout from non-white legal voters. I see no such compelling reasons to oppose the election security measures here, and Republicans seem unwilling to articulate any reasons. Is it just because they think such bills will be seen as a rebuke to Trump, and don’t want him to look bad? Or do they actually want foreign interference to happen again because it helped the Republican Party in 2016? This seems like an open invitation for Russia to meddle again. We know from Mueller’s report and testimony, as well as from Trump’s words and actions regarding Russia and his campaign’s reactions to offers of help, that he and his campaign were very happy to accept Russia’s help even without any formal collusion agreement. Remember when he “joked” that Russia would be “rewarded” by our media if they found Clinton’s emails? That was a clear signal that they would be “rewarded” by Trump through weakening sanctions and publicly questioning the fact that they meddled at all. Has this lack of concern for the integrity of our elections spread throughout the entire Republican Party? It would be nice to see some concern here to allay those fears of mine.

    • Chris says:

      This should have been a response to RHT447.

    • Chris says:

      I’ll note that not one person here has explained why it was right for Republicans to block these election security bills. It seems to me that is because the only explanation is that Republicans think passing such measures would put them at a disadvantage. They know that the intelligence community was right to conclude that Russian interference efforts were meant to help Trump and that Trump was happy to accept such help. And it looks like the plague is spreading; Republicans as a party are now happy to accept that kind of help again.

  5. Chris says:

    We all watched it happen. FACT: We saw Trump and members of his campaign constantly tell the American public that there were zero–zero!–contacts between the campaign and the Russian government. FACT: We know that the campaign was willing to accept Russian help because Trump’s son, son-in-law, and campaign manager all attended a meeting in the hopes of receiving intel on Hillary that they were told came directly from the Russian government. FACT: Trump constantly lied about having no business interests in Russia during the campaign while he was working on a deal for Trump Tower Moscow. FACT: Trump was briefed by the FBI that Russia had meddled in his favor in January 2016 (at this point, Mueller was not in charge of this investigation, so your attempts to assassinate his character are irrelevant; also, calling him “doddering” while defending Trump is rich). FACT: Trump repeatedly attempted to help Putin cast doubt on Russia’s involvement in the election meddling while weakening sanctions after being informed of their attack by his own intelligence community. The only way you can defend Trump is to pretend that none of these facts occurred. Gaslighting is the only option you have.

    • Chris says:

      Nolte makes about as good a case as the one he made for pederasty. If Mueller were half the Deep State, Trump-hating coup-attempter his more rabid critics make him out to be, he would have been far more aggressive in his answers yesterday. He could have said that he would have indicted Trump for obstruction were he not the president. He could have expressly argued for Congress to impeach based on his findings. He could have tweeted an all-caps rant about Trump’s criminality, as Trump often does against him. He does none of these things, because as legal experts in the center have long argued, Mueller is an extremely careful and conservative (in the legal sense) prosecutor. It’s deeply ironic that Nolte bashes him for not answering questions outside the scope of his investigation–doing so would have actually been a lot worse for Trump. But sites like Breitbart will continue to try and cast Mueller’s findings as somehow illegitimate to protect a deeply corrupt president who cares more about himself than this country.

  6. Peggy says:

    A couple of the best moments, I believe, from yesterday’s clown show.

    Rep. Ratcliffe to Mueller: You Didn’t Follow Special Counsel Rules, You Wrote About Decisions That Weren’t Reached:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/07/24/rep_ratcliffe_to_mueller_you_didnt_follow_special_counsel_rules_you_wrote_about_decisions_that_werent_reached.html

    Rep. Turner says Mueller lacks power to ‘exonerate’ Trump:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXHi9OpdpY

  7. Peggy says:

    Weissman up to his dirty tricks again.

    How Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann’s offer to an oligarch could boomerang on DOJ:
    “The ink was still drying on special counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment papers when his chief deputy, the famously aggressive and occasionally controversial prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, made a bold but secret overture in early June 2017.

    Weissmann quietly reached out to the American lawyers for Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash with a tempting offer: Give us some dirt on Donald Trump in the Russia case, and Team Mueller might make his 2014 U.S. criminal charges go away.”

    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/454185-how-mueller-deputy-andrew-weissmanns-offer-to-an-oligarch-could-boomerang

  8. J Soden says:

    Gonna be interesting to watch Chris twist himself into a pretzel again defending the Left and the Demwits after the reports come out on the FISA abuse, leaks from Mueller’s Miscreants, use of the Dodgy Dossier, and spying on TheDonald by the weaponized FBI.

    Chris is definitely gonna need a chiropractor!

    • Chris says:

      What? These are the same bogus claims you’ve been pushing for years now. There was no “FISA abuse”–the process was followed as it always is. I remember Republicans loved FISA when it was first passed under Bush–the argument was “If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?” But God forbid it’s used against a white Republican with suspicious ties to Russia–then it’s “abuse.” There were no “leaks” from Mueller’s team. There have been many from the White House, though. The dossier was relatively unimportant compared to all the other evidence the FBI had on Carter Page. And Donald Trump was never “spied on.” Literally all of these claims were demolished in the Schiff memo that came out to counter the Nunes memo over a year ago. But if there’s anything I’ve learned here, it’s that facts won’t change your mind.

  9. Chris says:

    Question: if Mueller is so corrupt and discredited, why does the president keep feeling the need to spread lies about what’s in the report? Trump tweets today: ““Mueller was asked whether or not the investigation was impeded in any way, and he said no.” In other words, there was NO OBSTRUCTION. @KatiePavlich @FoxNews” But this is the opposite of what Mueller said. His own report describes multiple ways in which he was impeded by the Trump administration and members of the campaign; people went to jail for telling lies that impeded! Pick a strategy, Trumpers: are you going to lie about what’s in the report, or are you gonna lie about Robert Mueller to discredit him? Ugh, who am I talking to: you’ll just do both.

    • Peggy says:

      FYI – Chris, no one here is lying. You’re just not informed.

      https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/nadler-misrepresents-mueller-testimony/

      • Chris says:

        Peggy, that link does not show I am misinformed at all, nor does it contradict the fact that Trump spread a lie by Katie Pavlich when he quoted her false claim that Mueller said his investigation was never impeded. The fact check you linked to does not address that claim at all, but rather a separate claim by many on the left that Mueller said the OLC memo is the only reason he didn’t indict Trump. I already knew that claim was wrong, and that Mueller has repeatedly made it clear that he chose not to make a prosecutorial decision at all due to the OLC memo–not that he would have prosecuted Trump in its absence. Did you mean to link to a different fact check?

  10. Chris says:

    Side note: it is now apparently impossible for me to leave comments with paragraph breaks on Post Scripts. If I try it says the connection times out. If I go back and delete the paragraph breaks to make everything one wall of text, it submits just fine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *