Reminds me of the $500 I won after someone bet me Obama would try to become a dictator and never leave office. https://t.co/EYkKo6Sfkm
— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) May 5, 2019
May 5, 2019
Scott Adams v. Bill Maher. Adams wins.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
120 comments:
Rabid partisans of both parties have been saying this about the incumbent president of the opposing party since George W. Bush, at least. I remember commenters on several left-leaning blogs of the oughties predicting Bush would never leave office voluntarily.
Paco, I had the same thought.
These people are watching a different movie than I am.
Obama didn't exactly leave. He undermined Trump's presidency.
Obama is still trying to run our country.
He ordered the spying and he is part of the cover up. He is part of the globalist machine that is trying to overturn our election.
These people are all projecting. They are disgusting tyrants and their efforts to disarm us are transparent in their goal.
It is still unlikely this ends peacefully. I will never let them have power over me or my kids.
Just another example of the left accusing the right of being like them.
Jerry Falwell tweets to add 2 years to POTUS first term and Lou Dobbs tweets to add 6 to his second term. Not normal.
I've never been able to understand why people keep caring about Reporters and Celebrities who CONSTANTLY write and say stupid ridiculous Bullshit. How many crazy, stupid things does Bill Maher, or Dan Rather, or Michael Moore or Paul Krugman have to say before you STOP taking them seriously?
These people say stupid fucking things M-F and everyone's still taking them seriously on Saturday, like nothing ever happened! And that's true of half the people in the MSM.
And How many stupid crazy things does Inga or Chuck or Bill Kristol or Jonah Goldberg have to say before normies stop paying attention?
readering, could you provide a link, or context, or ... anything? What is it you think those shadowy kingmakers and Machiavellian power brokers Falwell and Dobbs are planning to do?
This is over used tripe from both sides. I heard the same about Reagan, Clinton, and W.
"Not normal" I agree. I guess i am too old but all this lawless talk by all sides is not good. Have we gotten to the point that were we just abuse and disregard our constitution for political gain. When we lose faith in our system of government we are in for hard times.
The leftwing collective were terrified Bush was going be a dictator. For Life + THEOCRACY!
Projection. Plain and simple
The left would love to usher in a Maduro or a Castro.
Who remembers when the line was Trump didn't really want the job and would quit ?
Pepperidge Farms remembers.
I remember the "Bush will instill martial law to prevent election" nonsense too.
Blogger readering said...
Jerry Falwell tweets to add 2 years to POTUS first term
Is Falwell still alive? Died in 2007.
Not 'if he loses' but 'even if he loses.'
The complete collapse of the left/LLR collusion and obstruction lies/frameups/setups is forcing the usual suspects to just start making up Future Make-Believe Crimes with which to attack Trump.
But its worse than that. readering and the rest of the left/LLR automatons would happily and gleefully try to remove Trump based on these made up future crimes.
We already see the entirety of the dem/left/LLR cabal making those arguments....all in anticipation that their Soviet/East German antics are about to be fully exposed.
This is the gravest threat the Republic has faced since Joshua Norton proclaimed himself Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico.
Have you noticed how these people never get around to explaining exactly how their bogeyman, having pronounced himself Still President, is planning to make it stick?
"have to say before normies stop paying attention?"
Newsflash: The normies don't pay attention.
You guys ever read up on George Washington and the Jeffersonians in the early years?
"The complete collapse of the left/LLR collusion and obstruction lies/frameups/setups is forcing the usual suspects to just start making up Future Make-Believe Crimes with which to attack Trump."
-- They're the same ones they'd have used to attack McCain or Romney, which is part of why they don't realize that they're not getting as much push back against Trump from Republicans as they want. Take me; I'm a persuadable Republican. But, given that the same exact sort of accusations were leveled against Bush (who is now a 'good' Republican), I'm willing to bet in 8 to 12 years, Trump will be 'not so bad,' compared to 'the right-wing nutjob' currently running for office.
"You guys ever read up on George Washington and the Jeffersonians in the early years?"
-- I had a history teacher who said that despite Adams screwing up a lot of things as President, the fact he willingly ceded power should make him at least honorable mention in the "greatest of" lists.
readering said...
Jerry Falwell tweets to add 2 years to POTUS first term and Lou Dobbs tweets to add 6 to his second term. Not normal.
People are making a point that he had two years of his presidency taken from him by sore losers Obama and Hillary through what we now know was a bogus hoax regarding Russia based on campaing material bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign.
Do you mean to say, readering, that you can’t possibly understand the sentiment expressed?
Michael K: Jerry Falwell is alive and tweeting. And Trump retweeted.
My guess is that that is Junior.
Senior being dead and all.
I wish I had bet Scott "I no longer care about the fucking law" Adams that Trump would win the 2016 election in a landslide. Trump won one of the closest presidential elections in a generation or more. He lost the national popular vote, which was well within the margin of error of the polls that had Clinton ahead by 3+ points. She got 2+% more of the national popular vote than Trump. But Trump managed to pull a kind of an inside straight with historically narrow wins in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, to win the electoral vote. No landslide.
Anybody know when the Adams-Tracinski debate over the "Charlottesville Hoax" Hoax might be scheduled?
If you read "social histories" of different eras there have always been rumors. My rumor of choice - Hillary is going to get the nomination on the second or third ballot. And lose by even more than the last time.
readering said...
Michael K: Jerry Falwell is alive and tweeting. And Trump retweeted.
And you purposely misinterpreted what he said.
You did this because you support Obama and Hillary and their spying on political opponents and their treason when they conspired with Michael Steele and numerous other foreign agents.
But you wont own up to your support of their actions to gain power at any cost.
There is no common ground with people like this.
Chuck said...
I wish I had bet Scott "I no longer care about the fucking law" Adams that Trump would win the 2016 election in a landslide. Trump won one of the closest presidential elections in a generation or more. He lost the national popular vote, which was well within the margin of error of the polls that had Clinton ahead by 3+ points. She got 2+% more of the national popular vote than Trump. But Trump managed to pull a kind of an inside straight with historically narrow wins in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, to win the electoral vote. No landslide.
No Hillary supporter has said it better. Democrats are all very proud of all of the votes they got in California from Mexican citizens.
We know you wanted Hillary to be president.
We know that every time you say you voted for Trump that it is an obvious lie.
TV and celebrities have their knobs set set permanently on dumb ass. Even the local tv news readers treat us as if we are 4th graders. I've been done with them since the mid 80's.
The national popular vote only matters to people who want to kill off individual state's voting rights and hand it all to CA and NY.
Chuck - Trump won the states that mattered. FL, OH, PA and the upper mid-west. Sure, not by large margins, but certainly enough votes that it was a solid win. Had Hillary won by the same margins, in those same states, you and the obnoxious "but the POPULAR VOTE!" Left would be silent.
Chucky,
Do you know what we call winners of very close presidential elections?
"Mister President"
The first fool I know who posted, on facebook, about the Russia conspiracy was someone who claimed Bush wouldn't leave office way back when. Memories...
Should have bet him... each... easy grand.
So readering, you can’t find anyway to understand the sentiment? None? You do understand that the Mueller inquisition was based on Hillary’s campaign material that she paid a foreign spy to create, right?
The only thing different from what she accused Trump of, collusion with foreign spies, was that she actually did it, but she used shell corporations so it was all legal.
Of course Trump didn’t do any of it, and that’s legal too!
You are in serious denial of the facts before you. Or maybe you have some rebuttal for what I just said?
No.... I din’t think so, and I don’t even need to wait, you won’t answer the above questions because that would force you to consider, if only momentarily, the possiblity that you might be wrong!
Cameron:Pepperidge Farm remembers?
Thats so 1980s.
How about "the North Remembers"? :)
When we see how unfairly the law has been applied recently, is it impossible for you to understand the sentiment that Adams was expressing, Chuck?
Or do you have a different opinion supplied to you by the Democrat donor funded Bullcrap, err, I mean Bulwark?
Yes the real story is remarkable:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1125132648207265793.html
If they had put shell corporations into their fantasy hoax about Trump and Russia, it would have been legal too, right? Just like Hillary spreading money among Putin spies to gather dirt on Trump!
One of the historic positives of this nation is its tradition of a peaceful transition of power. Little seen in the world before us.
Now well over two years after the last presidential election, the U.S. is still waiting for that transition of power. And the time since then has been anything other than peaceful.
When "because Trump" becomes an accepted reason for obstructing and ignoring every presidential directive and action, notwithstanding that they fully comport with precedent of past presidents and of the law, then there has not been a transition of power.
Beggin' your pardon, Chuck, but I'm all out of f**ks to give about your "national popular vote". Your obsession with the so-called NPV, while interesting, is constitutionally irrelevant. Using your own NPV criteria, JFK in 1960 really didn't have a mandate to do s**t since he won (under rather dubious circumstances) by less than 113k votes (0.17%). Hell, Nixon even won more states (26-22). What gave Kennedy his mandate was his 303-219 edge in electoral votes. Don't take my word for it, check it out yourself.
Hillary did not win any goddamned 'popular' vote. Nor did black Jesus in 2012. It just so happens Trump didn't cower like a deer in headlights and beat the margin of fraud in too many places. The fact they held PA for over 2 hours at 98% should have been a red flag regarding vote manufacturing. Something the Repubs seem to have little interest in stopping, status quo and all that. Fortunately, they had no contingency plan for Detroit and Madison, so 'cooler' head must have prevailed.
Put another way, if one discounts the votes from two lousy counties for BOTH candidates, LA and Cook, Trump not only wins the 'popular' vote by 2 million or better, but also Illinois' EVs as well.
Wins at what? Trump ("I'll gun 'em down in broad daylight on 5th avenue and not lose votes!") hasn't had the opportunity to show how he would or would not honor an election result not in his favor. Did you know that bets cannot be decided until future prediction timelines come to pass?
You and that Dilbert douchebag both have American People Derangement Syndrome. Get help. This guy is not well-liked but you are clearly getting vaginal wetness fantasizing that he is an amazingly fair-minded, decent, wonderful human being.
Wait and see. Suppose the Dems get 105% of all available votes in Philadelphia and this flips PA and costs Trump the election.
Do you seriously believe that the Dems won't do that? They think Trump is Hitler and he will destroy all life on earth with his environmental policies.
Wow folks here get really upset that fewer than 63 million people voted for Trump in 2016, while almost 66 million voted for Clinton--and over 69 million vote for Obama in 2008. Now if a Democrat can get those 69 million in 2020 . . . .
Trump is certainly disruptive to the established order, but he doesn't actually destroy systems and replace or remake them into something new. He certainly attacks the media and rails against those whose coverage he doesn't like, but he favors the media personalities who give him good coverage. He also rails against judges impeding his policies, but he doesn't violate any judicial orders. It is just that many got used to a certain deference people at large gave them for their actions and pronouncements and he has gotten rid of that.
It is still unlikely this ends peacefully. I will never let them have power over me or my kids.
Oh the humanity! More "normalcy" from a typically violent right-winger who salivates over civil war and worries about white slavery.
I remember when Liberals insisted that Richard Nixon was going to cancel the 1972 election and stay in office forever. Some things never change.
I remember when Liberals insisted that Richard Nixon was going to cancel the 1972 election and stay in office forever.
Why "cancel" it when he could commit impeachable crimes against Americans to give himself a competitive edge in the result?
Some things never change.
Indeed.
How exactly does it work, tweeting to add X years to the president's mandate? I don't think it's in the Constitution.
Is it like tweeting to cure cancer?
It cant actually be done, that is the opportunity cost of these 2+ years.
Ritmo is metastasizing. Napoleon's Campaigns is calling me.
It's good to ratchet down high tensions and high emotions about politics.
I was surprised that Trump won, and I was surprised that he's done such a good job, and I was pleasantly surprised that Mueller couldn't find enough dirt somewhere on someone to impeach Trump.
So, generally, I'm happy. I honestly still believe in the Constitution and this country.
But I'm not complacent. I'm confident 2020 will be close despite the stellar economy. A lotta Dem voters, lotta illegal votes, lotta electoral votes in Cal & NY & Illinois.
I think Trump can win in 2020. Now, that's he's fended off Mueller, and Barr has shown some big cojones, my thought is to swat away the political acrimony and focus on the next 1.5 years to help Trump won, as much as a small, unfamous, member of the Commentariat can.
Jerry Falwell died in 2007, no matter what bullshit readering tries to sell.
But not without issue.
the opportunity cost of these 2 plus years --- yes, but ....
well know I know the difference between Scott Adams and Gary Larson, which I didn't know before.
What Trump does, and what Adams does on the days when he is not being intentionally obtuse (like about Cuomo's law and Northham's legislation) is the equivalent of the proselytization of trolls - disheartening work for most, and almost nobody even tries, but there may be some good effects.
Trump tried and now we have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and maybe Justice Cruz, so the instruction of the ignorant - one of the great works of mercy - is after all worth it.
It set back his ability to put in people committed to the mission, it took at least a year to put Pompeo in the right place, to cut the gordian knot, but too many want that knot untouched.
People say this about every president. The difference is since nearly everyone in Hollywood and the media is Democrat, when a Republican is in office you hear it from journalists and actors.
This is hilarious. The Democrats were horrified (or pretended to be) at the thought that Trump wouldn't concede if he lost in 2016. They themselves have now spent almost three years failing to concede that Clinton lost fair and square. Now they are fear-mongering again that Trump might not concede if he loses in 2020. They are screaming hysterically at the top of their lungs about evil people doing horrible things while they are staring into a mirror.
To what extent do you really need to worry about someone over 70 deciding to be president for life, anyway? In any case, our institutions aren't so weak that someone would attempt to stay in office for life and actually succeed. It is difficult to imagine anyone even trying to do so.
I remember when Liberals insisted that Richard Nixon was going to cancel the 1972 election and stay in office forever.
Nixon was capable of attempting that. Supposedly he was feeling the military out regarding the possibility of staying in office even if he were to be impeached.
I understand that on Thursday the Senate confirmed PDJT's 100th judicial nominee.
I think he has a bunch more nominations in the wings.
He's been going for youth so these folks will be around for a long, long time. Perhaps until 2060 or so.
This is the pool from which Supreme Court Justices get selected.
You go, Donald!
John Henry
MarkJ said...
Beggin' your pardon, Chuck, but I'm all out of f**ks to give about your "national popular vote". Your obsession with the so-called NPV, while interesting, is constitutionally irrelevant. Using your own NPV criteria, JFK in 1960 really didn't have a mandate to do s**t since he won (under rather dubious circumstances) by less than 113k votes (0.17%). Hell, Nixon even won more states (26-22). What gave Kennedy his mandate was his 303-219 edge in electoral votes. Don't take my word for it, check it out yourself.
Don't tell me, or others, what I think.
I know perfectly well what the national popular vote means. That is, nothing, legally. I don't need your recitation of electoral history. I am not "obsessed" with any national popular vote significance. I continue to cite it because in AlthouseWorld there seems to be a myth that the polls got the 2016 presidential election badly wrong. When they didn't. They called it to within 1.5 percentage points based on the RCP average of leading polls.
Trump didn't win in a landslide as Scott Adams wanted to claim. (And actually, even Adams wasn't willing to put much at stake on any prediction of a "Trump landslide." It's just the kind of shit-eating trash-talker that Adams is.) Trump didn't win a "great victory" in any quantitative terms. Either in vote totals or in electoral votes. It was a narrow and incredibly fortunate win for Trump.
To what extent do you really need to worry about someone over 70 deciding to be president for life, anyway?
You can get unlucky on this score. Robert Mugabe wasn't forced from office until age 93.
"I think Trump can win in 2020."
I predict it will be close. This is not the electorate of Regan's era that can generate landslides. It is a polarized and hardened electorate. My prediction is that most states will cast the same electoral ballots as 2016. The upper-midwest and Pennsylvania will be battlegrounds. Florida will be extremely close, but Trump has the edge.
To what extent do you really need to worry about someone over 70 deciding to be president for life, anyway?
You can get unlucky on this score. Robert Mugabe wasn't forced from office until age 93.
Ah Chuckles. Always the same old same old.
So readering doesn’t see why anybody might make a point about Obama setting in motion an attack on Trump based on Hillary lies because anything is justified to defeat Trump, even the misuse of the CIA, NSA, FBI, IRS, and FEC. Tying him up for 2 years with a bullshit probe by a partisan hack like Mueller who couldn’t find any wrongdoing, and is concerning himself now about political spin.
Not that I am shocked.
Mugabe took power because callaghan and Carter looked the other way at bishop muzoeewas victory and the string of murders specially against missionaries related in the axe and the tree.
Thatcher to her discredit wasnt particularly exercised over some of his actions like the massacres in the matabele.
Mugabe took power because callaghan and Carter looked the other way at bishop muzoeewas victory and the string of murders specially against missionaries related in the axe and the tree.
The point is anyone deciding circa 1995 there was no point in risking open opposition to Mugabe because, hey, he's in his 70s, had to wait much longer than anticipated. And heck, Mugabe still isn't dead, he was just finally forced from office.
Of course he wanted as large a vote as possible, he wanted to do what he had supported other politicians to do over 30 years.
It would be historically riveting to see our nearly sabotaged popular vote system be so distrusted that the electoral college must function without a reliable popular vote for guidance. I see that coming.
Hell, I remember “tin soldiers and Nixon coming”. The fantasy is all part of keeping the ovine baaaing in unison.
i like that Readering was entirely wrong about Falwell but pretends that the son of Falwell is a perfectly good substitute so that nobody should question the obvious, complete, and notorious FUCK UP of claiming that Jerry Falwell is fucking presently tweeting. Son of fucking Falwell? Who gives an absolute fuck you lying sack of cow pies?
I've never been able to understand why people keep caring about Reporters and Celebrities who CONSTANTLY write and say stupid ridiculous Bullshit.
It annoys me, but I understand it.
People like that (Chuckles included) are deluded to the point that they think we need to hear their musings because we just don't get it. It is arrogant in it's ignorance, but they have almost zero self-awareness.
It was a narrow and incredibly fortunate win for Trump.
And the United States.
Yeah, how about the $500 that someone owed me for betting that Trump wouldn't concede when he lost in 2016. Guess I can never collect since no one knows what he would have done if he lost 2016.
TDS has destroyed whatever brain cells that Nan and Mike once had. Sad!
Nixon was capable of attempting that.
You mean the Nixon that refused to challenge the election results after the election was stolen from him, because even though he would probably win it would damage our nation's institutions? That Nixon?
Some people have never heard of Jerry Falwell Jr, president of liberty university and Trump supporter extraordinaire? At age 56 with a deceased dad he has earned the right not to be referred to as junior!
Blogger Otto said...
“"Not normal" I agree. I guess i am too old but all this lawless talk by all sides is not good. Have we gotten to the point that were we just abuse and disregard our constitution for political gain. When we lose faith in our system of government we are in for hard times.”
The problem is that it very well looks like the previous Administration, his political opponent, and high government officials conspired together to spy on Trump and his campaign, transition, and early Administration, and then instituted a special counsel investigation into Trump and his people in order to cover this up. Much of it was, of course, illegal, but that doesn’t matter overly much if you have the top of the DoJ, FBI, and probably CIA working against him.
Before you discount this, keep in mind that we are only a month since the Mueller investigation/coverup was shut down, previously stalled (esp OIG) investigations restarted, and new investigations initiated. Give Trump, AG Barr, and IG Horowitz a couple months. I expect, at a minimum, a criminal referral by the OIG for former FBI Dir Comey by the end of June. Decent chance for indictments in the next several months for DD McCade, FBI supervisory agent Strzok, and somewhat likely DAG Yates, CIA Dir Brennan, DNI Clapper, and even Obama NSA Rice. Wonder why the Dems had a meltdown with AG Barr’s handling of the Mueller investigation report? Threatened his impeachment. Pretty obviously because he was brought in to clean up the all the illegalities. As I said, give them a couple months.
"tin soldiers and Nixon coming" refers to Kent State. There, the Bill Ayers' of the world pelted troops with rocks in hopes of getting some students killed, thereby securing a Communist victory in Vietnam and someday, a Communist president in America.
They got all three.
“Some people have never heard of Jerry Falwell Jr, president of liberty university and Trump supporter extraordinaire? At age 56 with a deceased dad he has earned the right not to be referred to as junior!”
You Althouse people are either very stupid or... never mind, you’re very stupid. “Let’s pretend we don’t know who Jerry Falwell is!”
Yes they went to school on a certain incident In 67 in Germany, where a shooting provoked a whole wave of student unrest and the baader meinhof terrorists, years later it was discovered the police shooter was a provocateur
Chuck said: "He lost the national popular vote" To which I say, what does that have to do with anything.
It's like your football team losing and then you saying that your team really should have won because they gained more yards. The agreed measure for winning a football game is points scored, period. The agreed method of winning a presidential election is getting the most votes in the electoral college. Period.
“Tying him up for 2 years with a bullshit probe by a partisan hack like Mueller who couldn’t find any wrongdoing, and is concerning himself now about political spin.”
Keep in mind, that the primary purpose of the Mueller investigation was not to find evidence of Trump/Russia collusion (because they knew from almost the beginning that there never was any collusion), but rather to stall various investigations into rampant FISA illegalities, leading up into the Obama White House, committed probably as early as maybe 2012, extending through late 2017, almost a year after Trump’s election.
AG Barr was installed as AG specifically to counter the use of an extremely aggressive definition of Obstruction of Justice by the Mueller Prosecutors to keep their investigation going, hopefully for them, through at least the 2020 election. Any attempt to shut down the investigation would be treated as Obstruction by them, until newly confirmed AG Barr forced a more conservative interpretation on the DoJ, and, thus, on the Mueller prosecutors. (AG Barr provided a well researched brief for this to Trump’s attys in June of 2018). Without any collusion or ability to nail Trump using their expansive definition of Obstruction (which even covered future investigations), and no collusion finding possible, Mueller wound up his investigation. But not before his highly partisan prosecutors managed to insert a second (Obstruction) section to the report that violated DoJ regulations, and was designed to aid the Dem House impeach Trump. So, now the Dems want to impeach Barr too, essentially for doing his job too well for their liking.
One of the most-read articles on RCP. It's a hoot:
Michael Goodwin, NY Post
'They’ve done it, they’ve finally done it! The New York Times has picked up the scent of the scandalous spying on Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and is joining the hunt for the truth.
That’s how the president and some supporters reacted after the Times reported the FBI sent a “cloaked investigator” to a London meeting with Trump aide George Papadopoulos in September of 2016. The cheering section saw the story as evidence that, in the aftermath of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, the facts were forcing even the Gray Lady to abandon its notorious anti-Trump agenda.
If only that were true. In reality, we’ll see pigs fly before we see the Times fully committed to getting to the bottom of what Trump calls “Spygate.”
The paper is still defending the dirty tricks of Barack Obama’s White House and its own role in spreading the Russia, Russia, Russia hysteria. It’s a relationship neither side can quit.
Instead of proving the Times is coming to its senses, Friday’s article about the 2016 London meeting is better seen as spin designed to protect deep-state sources feeling the heat. Attorney General Bill Barr’s promise to investigate the investigators spooked them and they are using their favorite media handmaiden to fight back.
The result is a story that takes a “modified limited hangout” approach, where fragments are presented as revelations while the full picture remains artfully hidden..."
https://nypost.com/2019/05/04/did-the-ny-times-just-admit-and-defend-obamas-spying-on-trump/
From the Watergate Tapes:
In a March 22, 1973 meeting between president Richard Nixon, John Dean, John Ehrlichman, John Mitchell, and H. R. Haldeman, Ehrlichman incorporated the term [limited hangout] into a new and related one, "modified limited hangout".
“PRESIDENT [Nixon]: You think, you think we want to, want to go this route now? And the — let it hang out, so to speak?
DEAN: Well, it's, it isn't really that —
HALDEMAN: It's a limited hang out.
DEAN: It's a limited hang out.
EHRLICHMAN: It's a modified limited hang out.
PRESIDENT: Well, it's only the questions of the thing hanging out publicly or privately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout
readering thinks every person named "John Smith" is equivalent. I demur.
Lots of yammering here about the nationwide popular vote. Let's not forget that Hillary's entire margin in the popular vote came from one state: California. She lost the popular vote in the other 49 states combined. This is precisely why we have the Electoral College.
Narciso@7:48PM That link lead back to this blog post comment section. Maybe the most narciso link ever.
It's like a time loop, the story is much more interesting than the narrative
I happen to be a Jr. I know how it works.
"Keep in mind, that the primary purpose of the Mueller investigation was not to find evidence of Trump/Russia collusion (because they knew from almost the beginning that there never was any collusion), but rather to stall various investigations into rampant FISA illegalities,.."
I used to think this. But I just read the last few chapters of Corsi's book. (Yes, he's a bit wacky).
The Mueller henchmen, as late as November 2018, were still trying for a Wikileaks-DNC emails-leak-Russia-Assange-Corsi-Roger Stone connection. That was the subject of the major grilling of Corsi, under threat of felony indictment for lying to the FBI.
In other words, not only was Russian Collusion still on the table, but these idiot prosecutors were still focused on the DNC emails, which they felt swung the election to Trump.
Problem: the leak happened in July 2016. Why didn't AG Lynch investigate it and arrest people for it?
Because they didn't, at the time, think Hillary would lose.
Oops.
Establishing a chain of custody on thoss emails is still going to be a pain.
“readering thinks every person named "John Smith" is equivalent. I demur”
Shouldn’t be surprised. The FBI couldn’t figure out which Michael Cohan went to Prague.
I will gladly bet anyone $10,000 that Trump leaves office on January 20th 2021 if he loses the election. These sorts of predictions about a dictator will eventually turn out to be true- someone, at some point, will try to stay in power, but the US hasn't reached that point of banana-republicness and isn't likely to during my lifetime.
BAG,
I wrote about this the other night. There was a strange ebb and flow to the collusion part of the investigation. If you carefully go through the appendices- it is very apparent that the collusion angle was done by September of 2017 and started up again in September of 2018 with the Corsi/Stone/Wikileaks material. I think the why is quite readily apparent- the second act was one last attempt to establish and actual crime that could have been claimed as the reason for obstruction. I think Mueller was told by Rosenstein in September of 2018 that no obstruction charge could applied unless Mueller could show the Trump Campaign actually colluded with either the Russians or Wikileaks.
Of course, you can see by the Stone indictment document that Stone was completely full shit about having any contact or pull with Wikileaks or Julian Assange, and was attempting to hide that fact. Indeed, I followed Stone's twitter account in 2016- he was never right about anything he predicted in regards to Wikileaks that wasn't already publicized by Wikileaks' own twitter account beforehand.
Paco Wové said...
Rabid partisans of both parties have been saying this about the incumbent president of the opposing party since George W. Bush, at least. I remember commenters on several left-leaning blogs of the oughties predicting Bush would never leave office voluntarily.
I remember when the more excitable on my side of the political spectrum said that about Bill Clinton. My comments were something like "He's a scumbag, but he's not a traitor."
I find it fascinating that lo, these two-and-a-half years since Trump won, libs still point out that Hillary won the popular vote. Easy to win the popular vote when it's concentrated in lib bastion cities, vs. the rest of the US. The Founding Fathers (is that term safe in the doubleplus ungood speech patterns monitored by the left?) tried to protect against both the Oppressive Majority and the Oppressive Minority. Checks and balances built into the election system.
Much as they might like to, libs can't bit bleach the election results. Anymore than they'll be able to drop the subsequent four years (or eight) down the memory hole.
I think this is a set up for the Democrats to run some of the most egregious election fraud in our history and setting up Trump in advance if he questions the results of their fraud.
Democrats have been increasingly engaging in voter fraud and questionable tactics this last election and since the media has not pushed back, they are now doubling down and trying to shame Trump (and the electorate) to abide by 'norms', even corrupt ones.
This does not end well.
As rhhardin said, The first president to sabotage his predecessor because he didn’t like the outcome of the election?
“Who is Barack H Obama, Alex."
These people need to get out of the prediction business.
“President Trump now seems well positioned to win the Midwest again next year—but it wasn’t supposed to be this way. Democrats were certain that Trump wouldn’t even survive his first term. If he did, by some miracle, run for reelection, Republicans would rush to support a more genteel, more acceptable candidate to challenge him in the primary. If a primary opponent didn’t materialize, Democrats would be well-positioned to defeat the massively unpopular president in a landslide. But spending tens of millions of dollars in Michigan and Wisconsin a full eighteen months before the general election while abandoning Ohio and Iowa? That certainly was never in the Democrats’ original 2020 victory plan.”
https://newcriterion.com/blogs/dispatch/the-midwests-broken-blue-wall
Everyone hyperventilates over the prospect of a president "staying on" after his term....what would happen if the free press stopped playing it straight in their reporting?....crickets
"Democrats have been increasingly engaging in voter fraud and questionable tactics this last election...."
Really? How so? How much? How do you know?
readering: ...almost 66 million voted for Clinton--and over 69 million vote for Obama in 2008.
Damn, I didn't realize there were that many sexist Democrats out there.
Democrats are jabbering about Trump not leaving office because, if they were in his shoes, that’s what *they* would do.
Heck, we can’t even get the Haggard Queen and Fatty Abrams to quit CAMPAIGNING.
President Trump now seems well positioned to win the Midwest again next year.
Minnesota this time, baby! Came within 40K votes in 2016. I mean, Trump was never going to win Wisconsin, right?
"Lots of yammering here about the nationwide popular vote. Let's not forget that Hillary's entire margin in the popular vote came from one state: California. She lost the popular vote in the other 49 states combined."
Yes, and in most of that one state (California), there was literally no reason for Republicans to go to the polls. They had no candidate of their own to vote for, only choices between Democrats. They knew their vote for President wouldn't count for anything, and they had no representation in the local voting, so they rationally didn't bother to vote.
Do I think more than 2, even 3 million California Republicans didn't bother to vote because of this? Yes. Easily.
This has been pointed out to Chuck before. He ignores it and presses on railing about the national vote, every time.
Yancy:
“ I think Mueller was told by Rosenstein in September of 2018 that no obstruction charge could applied unless Mueller could show the Trump Campaign actually colluded with either the Russians or Wikileaks.”
When the definitive history is finally told, I think that the most interesting figure is probably going to be Rod Rosenstein. Plenty of black hats, including McCabe, Strzok, Brennan, Clapper, Yates, and the Mueller prosecution team, led by the execrable Andrew Weissman. On the side wearing the white hats, you have Adm Rogers, of course. Rosenstein seems to be the guy in the middle who is trying to do maybe the right thing, but never quite knowing what it is, with everyone on both sides pushing him because he isn’t fully on their side. Essentially the definition of a stressful job.
AG Barr’s memo from last June (6 mo before he was AG) was essentially to counter the very aggressive Weissman interpretation of that one Obstruction statute. And, as I have pointed out, the Barr interpretation was finally adopted by the DoJ with Barr becoming AG. The key here is that the Weissman interpretation was not tethered to an actual investigation nor an actual crime. Rosenstein, even last fall, was rejecting that. Barr mentioned that he and Rosenstein had consulted with the DoJ’s legal office in charge of this sort of thing in rejecting Obstruction based on the facts set out in Mueller’s report (to Barr). My memory is that Trump’s lawyers had treated this issue differently than most, in this case jumping over Mueller’s head to Rosenstein with the Barr memo. And from your timeline, that stratagem seems to have been effective, with Rosenstein reining in Weissman and his team of rabidly partisan prosecutors. And I suspect that Rosenstein had given that Barr memo to that DoJ legal office, and their response to comparing the two competing interpretation helped him decide essentially in Barr’s favor.
The alternative is that Rosenstein saw which way the wind was blowing and knew that Barr would ultimately be confirmed as his boss. Or that whomever ended up as AG would adopt the Barr interpretation. Maybe there was some of that. But imagine the effect that it would have had on our civil society, if Weissman (etc) had been able to use his novel, aggressive, and never before litigated Obstruction statute interpretation to indict a sitting President of the opposite party (Weissman, in particular, should have been conflicted out, having apparently attended what was supposed to have been Clinton’s private victory party, showing him to be close enough to Clinton herself that he shouldn’t have ever been anywhere close to the SC investigation, and esp not to lead it).
Rosenstein obviously did the right thing here. We are just left guessing his rationale for doing so. As a conservative, I tend to think that most people are basically decent, so my expectation is that he did right here because he was trying to do so.
Paco: readering, could you provide a link, or context, or ... anything? What is it you think those shadowy kingmakers and Machiavellian power brokers Falwell and Dobbs are planning to do?
Lately all of readering's posts read like a transcript of the talk of that embarrassingly drunk guy at the party who thought he was being so clever and witty.
JFK was an advocate for the state's right Electoral College Constitutional system of voting.
Only Russian-loving commies want "popular vote" - that essentially tells flyover country to fuck itself.
Dear Chuck,
Polls don’t elect presidents.
The national popular vote doesn’t elect presidents.
Presidential elections are a composite of the various winner-take-all state* elections.
Go read the Constitution. Please.
Sincerely,
DavidD.
CHUCK - Considering Trump beat the most corrupt person to ever seek high office, he did accomplish a "GREAT VICTORY".
Blogger Robert Cook said...
'"Democrats have been increasingly engaging in voter fraud and questionable tactics this last election...."
Really? How so? How much? How do you know?'
Vote harvesting in CA, just for starters. It may be legal under current CA law, but no honest person can claim it isn't questionable.
Wow folks here get really upset that fewer than 63 million people voted for Trump in 2016, while almost 66 million voted for Clinton--and over 69 million vote for Obama in 2008. Now if a Democrat can get those 69 million in 2020 . . . .
No. What people get 'upset' about is how much time you spend on something that doesn't fucking matter.
Do I think more than 2, even 3 million California Republicans didn't bother to vote because of this? Yes. Easily.
That and the fact that there is ZERO real Republican oversight in CA. Anybody who believes ANY of California's elections are legitimate is high on crack.
Harry Shearer said this about Bush on the Graham Norton Show.
"Have we gotten to the point that were we just abuse and disregard our constitution for political gain." Abraham Lincoln could not be reached for comment.
Throwing rocks at Kent State? https://www.cleveland.com/science/2010/10/analysis_of_kent_state_audio_t.html
Post a Comment