Report: Flynn to Implicate Trump (Holy Crap)

[Guest]

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well. So, again you're just kind of saying things, but then you say 'trust me, I know what I'm talking about." You don't. Not about clearances, and yet here you are just babbling away like our friend Frank Talk talking about his knowledge of Physics.

I really don't know what your level of involvement has been with our national intelligence agencies, but just going off what you've posted it appears to be pretty limited due to your Guard or Reserve whatever it is you do.

For the layman reading this it's akin to me saying I know how the New England Patriots conduct personnel operations because I played high school football and I watch ESPN, therefore Roger Goodell is a great Commissioner. Nothing Water Dog is posting right now is based in reality.

- Doc

This is sounding dangerously close to an ad hominem response. Really not sure what you're saying here. No, I'm not an expert on the adjudication process for security clearances. Never worked for OPM. Haven't claimed otherwise. What's your point? You may know way more about all that than I do. Which is great. I do hold a clearance though. So from that perspective I've witnessed the process.

Everyone in the Department of Defense, and specifically, the military, has a background investigation done and virtually all of them have a security clearance. That's millions upon millions. Cool. You have a clearance. Awesome. You probably have a uniform, too. And maybe an assigned weapon? You telling me you filled out an SF-86, maybe met with OPM, and, well, you have a clearance establishes exactly zero authority on the matter. Maybe you should've thought about that before opening up your mouth on Jared Kushner? God, it's like you can't even remember why you're typing what you're typing.

And I have seen the inner workings of our intelligence apparatus with my own eyes. And no, I'm not some 11B weekend warrior.

That says exactly zero regarding your understanding of the "intelligence apparatus." I've been to Rio Tinto, but that doesn't mean I understand how the Real Salt Lake soccer club operates nor do I understand the "MLS apparatus" functions, practically speaking either. What's wrong with you?

[_Maksutov]

I think victory looks something like this: waiting until the concludion of the investigagion, reading the report, examining all the evidence, and taking any appropriate action. Defeat would be if any of these things doesn’t happen.

Ramen.

[_EAllusion]

I think victory looks something like this: waiting until the concludion of the investigagion, reading the report, examining all the evidence, and taking any appropriate action. Defeat would be if any of these things doesn’t happen.

I am all in favor of waiting until the full report is out, assuming it isn't quashed, before deciding what action to take. This is wise if only because the strongest case likely won't exist up until that point.

But this doesn't nor should it prevent people from forming judgement based on publicly available evidence, of which there is lot.

I think one of the real risks we are running into is that as each damaging piece of information hits the news, there's a wave of defensive propaganda to react to it, and people are forced to move on since most of the country is either in wait and see mode or will defend anything from the Trump admin no matter what. I think this is inculcating a level of acceptance for already egregiously bad behavior we are aware of. It's laser focusing people on catching smoking gun evidence of a major crime, which isn't what is necessary to have a strong case for impeachment, which already exists. Trump already has delivered evidence that is more of a smoking gun then you could've possibly hoped to have on more than one occasion. His Lester Holt interview on the firing of Comey is damning.

Without seeing the report, because of this we already know the end-game is either going to be 1) Quoting Matthew Yglesisas, "We’re going to find a gun with Trump’s fingerprints on it, surrounded by shell casings, and his hands covered in gunshot residue and people will be saying “look the gun isn’t smoking.” or 2) People arguing that actually what Trump did is good. It's what smart politicians do.

I fully expect that Trump is going to be caught dead-to-rights on an unacceptable level of involvement with Russian interests and attempting to cover up this fact - which already seems likely given the public evidence as it is - and his defenders will be arguing that whatever has been uncovered isn't illegal, therefore he should remain in office. This will be made with a theory of legality that leaves the president immune from all possible hypothetical charges. The counter this is will be what it always has been - that legality isn't impropriety and this is exactly what impeachment is designed for.

If this happens when Democrats control the House, he'll be impeached and acquitted in the Senate, no matter what. If Republicans control the house, it won't go that far. This nightmare circus may have only marginal impact on the 2020 election. Democracy in the US may disintegrate further.

[_Res Ipsa]

I guess I don’t equate waiting for all the evidence before reaching conclusions with accepting bad behavior or laser focusing on smoking guns. The facts relevant to figuring out the nature of the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia are likely to be complex. I would be surprised to find a smoking gun. Figuring out what occurred will likely involve lots of circumstantial evidence. Drawing firm conclusions before all the evidence is a huge invitation to confirmation bias. I think the question of whether a political campaign colluded with a foreign government to affect the outcome of an election is critical to our democracy and I’d like to arrive at the most accurate answers possible. in my opinion, making up my mind premature almost guarantees that I won’t accomplish the second part.

I do agree with you on evidence that warrants an impeachment trial. Trump himself has generated more than enough evidence of obstruction of justice. Nothing that Mueller discovers is going make that evidence go away.

[_EAllusion]

I guess I don’t equate waiting for all the evidence before reaching conclusions with accepting bad behavior or laser focusing on smoking guns. The facts relevant to figuring out the nature of the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia are likely to be complex. I would be surprised to find a smoking gun. Figuring out what occurred will likely involve lots of circumstantial evidence. Drawing firm conclusions before all the evidence is a huge invitation to confirmation bias. I think the question of whether a political campaign colluded with a foreign government to affect the outcome of an election is critical to our democracy and I’d like to arrive at the most accurate answers possible. in my opinion, making up my mind premature almost guarantees that I won’t accomplish the second part.

I do agree with you on evidence that warrants an impeachment trial. Trump himself has generated more than enough evidence of obstruction of justice. Nothing that Mueller discovers is going make that evidence go away.

I'm not equating waiting for all the evidence with accepting bad behavior or focusing on the need for smoking gun evidence. What I'm suggesting is that the public needing to move on after each damning revelation comes out is inadvertently conditioning the public to that. This happens because taking a wait and see approach to the investigation is justified, but I think we are watching in real time both the media and the general public grow accustomed to absolutely scandalous revelations as not enough. The crucial problem is that anything that doesn't actively take Trump down people are able to back-burner as tolerable.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don't mind when relatively reasonable posters take a 'wait and see' attitude when it comes to the investigation (still doesn't preclude the peanut gallery from discussing all the insanity surrounding Trump), but I get real chuckle out of any Trumpster that talks about not jumping to conclusions or collusion or any number of things they lost their crap over re: Obama/Hillary Clinton/Bill Clinton.

I'd have a lot more respect for them if they'd apply the same level of scrutiny toward their own man that they would an opponent. But, that just isn't within the realm of reality for politics, is it?

- Doc

[Guest]

[Guest]

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

WD,

You're the one introducing a series of distracting issues, and have started various thread in which you immediately veer from the point. You also make claims that you can't substantiate, and when those claims are essentially debunked the best you got is, "Trust me."

If you want to have a point by point discussion, that's fine. Introduce the topic, stick to the point, and report any derails. That way you're not addressing the various brush fires you're creating with your bull crap.

- Doc