Flynn Walks

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

If anyone wants proof Ajax can’t make it past a couple of sentences, this is it. He keeps asking the same retarded questions over and over again.

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

Most of the time it takes the form of positing the inevitability of extreme ramifications that, outside of certain parties, isn't reflecting the scope of the issue.

The impressive part is you wrote this post *after* the President started trying to whip up going after President Obama and former members of his administration related to investigation into his circle's malfeasance for sham crimes, promised more to come in that regard, right-wing media began blanket coverage supporting that position, and multiple US Senators backed doing so. When you want to describe my claim that this is the likely next step as a hysterical overreaction, you should consider being wrong before something like that happens instead of after. It looks a little less ridiculous.

Is pointing out Trump will do Trump like he's been doing since forever saying anything? I mean,

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... utType=amp

Some right wing guys tweets, "Obama should be in jail" and Trump retweets it, then you run with it while bitching about media covering Trump in ways that push the country further in a bad direction...what, wait, wait that can't be right. EA is super smart and wouldn't participate in that while mocking others as being victimized/giving cover to bad people because they, you know, discuss issues with the facts on the table rather than behaving like a hyperventilating git. Or something. Because if you ain't hyperventilating, you ain't paying attention apparently goes the thinking here.



Anywho, it looks like the judge is making space for it to be debated which seems reasonable.

[_moksha]

As long as President Obama tells the truth, he should have anything to worry about right? Susan Rice already made sure to note on January 17, 2017 before he left office that he wanted the Flynn investigation done by the book back on January 4, 2017. Won't that be enough to cover the President so only those below him in the administration have to answer for using illegal tactics to prosecute men they knew were innocent in an effort to overturn the results of the 2016 election.

You are making the assumption that the United States justice system is in the hands of honorable men rather than a criminal sycophant that will do the bidding of his master.

[_moksha]

No matter how out of control Trump gets, he will still have the support of the Republican Senate and the Armed Forces. That means a lot of unpredictable stuff can occur.

[_EAllusion]

[quote=honorentheos post_id=1224419 time=1589343098 user_id=7137]
Is pointing out Trump will do Trump like he's been doing since forever saying anything? I mean,

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... utType=amp

Some right wing guys tweets, "Obama should be in jail" and Trump retweets it, then you run with it while bitching about media covering Trump in ways that push the country further in a bad direction...what, wait, wait that can't be right. EAllusion is super smart and wouldn't participate in that while mocking others as being victimized/giving cover to bad people because they, you know, discuss issues with the facts on the table rather than behaving like a hyperventilating git. Or something. Because if you ain't hyperventilating, you ain't paying attention apparently goes the thinking here.

:lol:

Anywho, it looks like the judge is making space for it to be debated which seems reasonable.
[/quote]

This could've been shorter if you folded your arms like a wise, serious man and said you gotta take Trump seriously, but not literally. Because when has that ever turned out to be wrong? I did enjoy you reducing extensive, repeated attempts to justify and tease turning the legal system on the Obama and/or high level individuals from his admin from the President, key Senate leaders, the House minority leader, and saturation-level coverage on Fox News and affiliated arms of right-wing media into a single Trump retweet, though. That definitely was a fair assessment of the state of affairs.

While you're deciding to be subgenius with a library card, I'll note that there is, in fact, a distinction between going after people for real impropriety vs. sham impropriety and distinguishing between the two is, like, the foundation for a healthy society.

P.S. The judge described Flynn as an arguable traitor to the country. What he's opening up is whether he has to defer to the DoJ's new position after a guilty plea has been accepted. That should be kept distinct from your view that the DoJ's new, enhanced position is defensible on the merits.

[_honorentheos]

Given calling for his political opponents to go to jail has been central to Trump's message, it's easy to be cynical towards someone who talks in a knowing way that something else will result in Trump doing more of what he has always done. It's a bit like Joseph Smith's Civil War prophecy. And since you brought that up in the conversation, well. But feel free to spin it how you will.

It's not clear, but I suspect we are closer regarding the seriousness of it in terms of the reality of what it means outside of the context of this spat on the netz. Trump's presidency has, from day one, represented the pouring out of all the rhetorical sins of the Republican political machine onto the heads of the people. The distrust of government, demonizing Democrats, playing up fears, exploiting economic rifts - it's been said that prior to Trump the Republican party machine viewed it all as levers and buttons to be pushed that helped them politically but much like having nuclear weapons, no one expected them to actually be unleashed. And there is a real, escalating aspect of how Trump and those in his orbit readily resort to calls for seeing the law used to enact revenge fantasies and silence political opponents that could also stop being rhetoric and become reality just as easily. But that is what's concerning about it, that it's a weapon being treated like a toy. It's a genuine concern. I'd argue, one that applies increasingly to Democrats but it isn't anywhere near that scale quite yet even if we see plenty of people <cough> doing it in retaliation towards their own political targets like, I don't know, the AG or the President. Oh, that's different? They really deserve to go to jail? My equating the two is the real problem? Ok.

Anyway, the opportunity for argument opened up by the judge is, by his own words, to allow debate regarding the merits of the JD's position. Legally, it's almost impossible for him to dismiss the recommendation at the pleasure of the court. The position, defensible or not, is by necessity demanding debate. But you know, those who aren't with you are against you, right? Heh.

[_Brackite]

Won't that be enough to cover the President so only those below him in the administration have to answer for using illegal tactics to prosecute men they knew were innocent in an effort to overturn the results of the 2016 election.

I'm sure the ends justify any illegal means in the eyes of most Democrats.

There is that "overturning the results of the 2016 election" again. Trump didn't win the popular vote in 2016, and Democrats won big time in 2018. More Americans want Democrats running the country.

[_EAllusion]

[quote]When both-sideism becomes nihilism[/quote]

Yeah, the foundation of society requires people to make reasonable distinctions between when calling for a person to be jailed is due to actual improper behavior and when it is due to political allegiance. It turns out that people like Ajax have one weird trick to hack the brain of people whose main heuristic for figuring out if something can be dismissed as partisan is whether two sides with power can be presented in disagreement. Just project the corrupt and criminal behavior of their leaders onto their enemies with the thinnest possible veneer of argument and present it as a serious debate for serious people. Worst case scenario, you muddy the waters. Best case scenario, you grease the skates to there being no truth but who holds power.

[_ajax18]

Worst case scenario, you muddy the waters. Best case scenario, you grease the skates to there being no truth but who holds power.

It's surreal to see you complaining about the exact same things the right was complaining about under the heel of the Obama administration. Have you watched Hannity recently? I have yet to see any substantive response to what he has shown. Our justice system is very political at the highest levels. Whoever is in power makes the rules. You haven't shown any of this to be untrue. You simply don't talk about the substance of the accusations.

[_EAllusion]

[quote]It's surreal to see you complaining about the exact same things the right was complaining about under the heel of the Obama administration.[/quote]

My argument is that the right, the modern right that is, relies on pseudo-scandals and bad faith charges of abuse of power to provide cover to engage in real scandals and real abuses of power. An example not quite as close to this story would be the constant drum-beat of voter fraud as blatantly dishonest cover to engage in voter suppression. Part of what creates the room for this to work is a press culture backed by small group of relatively elite news consumers that treat such charges and counter-charges as a partisan bickering match that smart people know how to rise above with the truth being somewhere inbetween.

Re: Hannity, it's very difficult to penetrate the whole alternative universe of facts that Hannity and similar figures develop among their hardcore fanbase, but yeah, there's lots of reply to it if you, I don't know, make even a little effort to look?