dagblog - Comments for "Mueller's Russia Investigation is Concluded"

Yeah, I've applied the "zero

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 26 Mar 2019 05:16:00 +0000

Yeah, I've applied the "zero politics" rule for myself plus the kids - occasionally getting the "well, I just want to tell you one thing, and then we'll drop it" mini-lecture. But respectful silence is the only way she doesn't just hang up, despite fishing for any response to do exactly that.

(10-15 years ago she somehow put me on a mailing list of "friends", so I woke up to "if you see one of these leftists protesting for 'peace', punch them in the face as hard as you can. Then before they can get up, punch them again..." I made the "mistake" of hitting reply-all.

PS - I wonder if the guy's Mom reversed herself now that Trump proclaimed Mueller alright'? Wonder if there's a self-help group for people who realize their Mom's a brownshirt.

I note that 147,216 have

artappraiser — Tue, 26 Mar 2019 03:09:59 +0000

In reply to Mueller's Russia Investigation is Concluded

I note that 147,216 (! a mistake?) have shared this story published @ 5:30 pm @ TheHill.com

McConnell blocks resolution calling for Mueller report to be released publicly

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday blocked a resolution calling for special counsel Robert Mueller's report to be released publicly.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked for unanimous consent for the nonbinding resolution, which cleared the House 420-0, to be passed by the Senate following Mueller's submission of his final report on Friday [....]

Reminded me of the above

artappraiser — Tue, 26 Mar 2019 02:57:51 +0000

In reply to Wow:

Reminded me of the above Mayor Pete statement:

This thread is a must-read for those with relatives in the Trump cult. @FoxNews and GOP propaganda have become a pipeline of poison causing breaches in the heart of many American families. The social fabric is fraying. https://t.co/3KYWlFfV5K
— Steve Silberman (@stevesilberman) March 26, 2019

Those comparisons Krugman

artappraiser — Sun, 24 Mar 2019 21:12:48 +0000

In reply to Krugman recently posted on

Those comparisons Krugman used of southern Italy and East Germany are very apt and help make his argument exceptionally strong (throw in France's yellow jackets, etc.) As much as we get distracted by Trump, and even if giving benefit to the argument that his presence as U.S. president stokes "the troubles", the whole world context on this is real important to keep in mind. But this supports part of Mayor Pete's argument in a way, doesn't it? They may be dinosaurs that can't adjust, that doesn't mean it won't cause trouble now to ignore them.

FWIW, sometimes I also like to think that we can't predict that well done the road on this. Everybody's talking now like the future is urban centers and empty heartlands for many reasons, like for example efficiency of energy use. I always get a little suspicious when everybody's predicting the same thing, almost as if it's going to end up the opposite--the next generation (with minimum income payments, maybe) sees rural as the next best thing.

But again, that's the future. And the question really is what do we do with the troubles these people cause now? In our lifetimes.

Krugman recently posted on

ocean-kat — Sun, 24 Mar 2019 19:06:26 +0000

In reply to Wow:

Krugman recently posted on this subject.

Commentators are publishing opinion pieces about how Democrats can win back rural voters. Think tanks are issuing manifestoes about reviving heartland economies.

There’s nothing wrong with discussing these issues. Rural lives matter — we’re all Americans, and deserve to share in the nation’s wealth. Rural votes matter even more; like it or not, our political system gives hugely disproportionate weight to less populous states, which are also generally states with relatively rural populations.

But it’s also important to get real. There are powerful forces behind the relative and in some cases absolute economic decline of rural America — and the truth is that nobody knows how to reverse those forces.

reviving declining regions is really hard. Many countries have tried, but it’s difficult to find any convincing success stories.

Southern Italy remains backward after generations of effort. Despite vast sums spent on reconstruction, the former East Germany is still depressed three decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

I still want to know how the

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 24 Mar 2019 09:26:00 +0000

In reply to Wow:

I still want to know how the Republicans drove the economy into a wall in 2008, yet within months rebranded as "The Tea Party" and went into instant recovery without improving their people policies one iota, but used that to win the 2010 elections.

Bullshit on that "Democratic and Republican presidencies over the last 30 years have let Americans down" - fuck him to hell. Clinton created a healthy economic and social environment, and George W Bush with Rove & Cheney stole the election in Florida, then spent their first year ripping out everything they could, and then used 9/11 to go off the rails. By the end of their 8 years, they'd left the economy a total *global* mess, and Obama got stuck limiting his aspirations, and instead carefully carrying out a recovery from that disaster over his 8 years, all the while the Republicans acting as shittily partisan as they could over fixing the messes *they'd* created, culminating in stealing his goddamn Supreme Court pick.

So yeah, I want to know how those cocksuckers beat us in marketing and disinformation and propaganda (Fox New, take a bow), but I sure as fuck am not going to go for some asshole wannabe candidate blaming both sides equally for our predicament, for "letting America down". Yes, Americans were highly deluded going into polling stations, and no, it should never have been that close, but then again, we see that Trump was running a criminal enterprise for decades and the press couldn't even report properly how big Trump Co. was, much less how they'd screwed everything in sight.

Grow up, Pete - Obama tried that kumbaya thing and it largely buried his Administration in 8 years of drudgery. Americans want the White House to suck their dick in general, play all sorts of "feel-my-pain-quench-my-exaggerated-fears", not fix practical problems. They want a Jerry Springer carny man to entertain them, and by God they got one. What use is even having a media if the people who look at it won't fire a braincell to figure out what's real and what's obviously not?

ETA: and Trump has the same popularity as a year ago despite passing a poison trillion dollar tax break that fucked people's tax rebates, as well as a year of indictments and scandalous disclosures about his business practices and collusion/conspiracy with Russia and a mad bonesawing Saudi leader. So no, I can't blame it all on the media either (except Fox), as 42% of voting people are simply not responding to bad news in any rational manner. And *that's* the problem we have to fix - there is no assuaging their needs, because their needs are not economic or racially driven - they're tribal and psychotic. 2 candidates can offer the same exact thing, but they will choose based on other factors - primarily affiliation - not what's offered.

Wow:

artappraiser — Sun, 24 Mar 2019 08:05:03 +0000

In reply to Mueller's Russia Investigation is Concluded

Wow:

Interesting @PeteButtigieg answer on whether Mueller findings could end the Trump presidency. Short answer: Not really! pic.twitter.com/bWehHeq1GS
— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) March 23, 2019

Adding to the pile up, it was

moat — Sun, 24 Mar 2019 00:41:37 +0000

In reply to A shame that Starr didn't

Adding to the pile up, it was Starr's drunken sailor spree that prompted the tight controls over the Special Counsel that we see today.

Love child, never meant to be....

NY Times: Mr. Trump’s lawyers

artappraiser — Sat, 23 Mar 2019 22:10:56 +0000

In reply to Mueller's Russia Investigation is Concluded

NY Times: Mr. Trump’s lawyers and aides urged him to stay quiet. Wait and see what was in the report, and trust that Mr. Barr is not trying to harm you, they cautioned https://t.co/nVTloNyYyM
— Shimon Prokupecz (@ShimonPro) March 23, 2019

A shame that Starr didn't

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 23 Mar 2019 13:05:00 +0000

In reply to FWIW, op-ed from not-my

A shame that Starr didn't comment on Kavanaugh leaking Starr proceedings to the press, a continual malfeasance that helped land Clinton in the Monica-testimony imbroglio in the first place.
Nor does Starr reference how he turned a peccadillo into an impeachment - I guess now basking in the change of law that would ban his release of a long inconclusive self-serving "Report".
Had Starr followed DoJ procedures, actually, we probably would have been spared a rather pointless - aside from conservatives' need to publicly humiliate their opposition - endeavour.
Starr for one here doesn't reference locking up Susan McDougal on contempt for 18 months, including 8 months solitary confinement, and later charging her with criminal contempt, for which she was acquitted, nor does he mention putting both Clinton & his wife on the stand, whereas to date Trump has refused to appear in person, and refused all requests except 1 (a carefully crafted response to questions) for paperwork.
[nor does he mention his treatment of Julie Hiatt Steele because she'd contradicted star witness Kathleen Willey, who he'd covered up lying to him as well - laughably, Linda Tripp is called on to sort out "the truth"?]
Nor does Starr reference the criticism of Mueller for "taking too long" when his investigation has lasted 1 3/4 years, whereas Starr's lasted 4 1/2 years (though actually dragging on years further with prosecuting Cisneros for paying off his lover, et al.), producing the Starr Report conveniently after the congressional elections, which included the dodgy excuse Starr used to pivot from Whitewater to investigating Monicagate, et al., at a total cost of roughly $80 million.

Wikipedia:

Expansion of the investigation[edit]

The law conferred broad investigative powers on Starr and the other independent counsels named to investigate the administration, including the right to subpoena nearly anyone who might have information relevant to the particular investigation. Starr would later receive authority to conduct additional investigations, including the firing of White House Travel Office personnel, potential political abuse of confidential FBI files, Madison Guaranty, Rose Law Firm, Paula Jones lawsuit and, most notoriously, possible perjury and obstruction of justice to cover up President Clinton's sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The Lewinsky portion of the investigation included the secret taping of conversations between Lewinsky and coworker Linda Tripp, requests by Starr to tape Lewinsky's conversations with Clinton, and requests by Starr to compel Secret Service agents to testify about what they might have seen while guarding Clinton. With the investigation of Clinton's possible adultery, critics of Starr believed that he had crossed a line and was acting more as a political hit man than as a prosecutor.[24][25]