Maggie's Farm

This is lazy even by your standards.

The immediate threat to "democracy" is ALWAYS from within. Hell, that's been accepted as a truth since the beginning of the republic.

When a duly elected president's office is threatened because logic is tortured to the point that a hush payment to a mistress is construed as a campaign donation the threat is not from without. When different standards of the enforcement and interpretation of law are held depending on who someone is, the threat is not from without.

When people use the canard of Russian interference, which in no way influenced enough citizens to put Trump in office, to deflect from the uneven application of law, the threat is not from without.

But of course you know all this. The internal battle in your mind over what you know is true and the fictions you maintain to justify your prejudices must be exhausting.

Tried to reply to Z's reply to me but for some reason was not allowed.

So...

Z--The 1940s might disagree.

In this case, however, it is the collusion of internal politics with shadowy external interference that represents a significant new threat. Over time, if history is a guide, people will learn to filter out much of the external interference.

Huh? The internal threat is the '40s was significant. And the WWII reference is a false equivalence and you know it.

Z--If Trump had paid Stormy off ten years ago, then sure. But he waited until a few days before the election. And the election was surely discussed by Trump as a reason for the payoff. Let's ask his long-time personal attorney!

The timing has nothing to do with it. Let's ask a representative group of citizens if they agree that paying Stormy was a campaign contribution--that is if you trust citizens.



Z--that's always been the case. In this case, though, you're talking about rich, well-connected, white guys. Now try it if you are a poor black guy.

What black guy are you talking (deflecting) about? I'm talking about a rich, well connected white woman who broke multiple laws and whose aids and associates including her sometime attorney lied repeatedly to congress, investigators and the American people.


Z--Of course Russian interference affected the election. The release of stolen emails threw the Democratic Convention, DNC, and Democratic Party into turmoil. Other releases were also timed for maximum political effect. This is just one example of many of effective Russian interference.

Anyone who bothers to look at the timeline of the leaks and releases and at the polling data knows this is utter fantasy.



Z--Not a problem. We deal in facts, such as the release of stolen emails. That you buy what the Russian government is selling is on you.

Comical. The classic deflection. What is it that I'm supposed to have bought? The emails were indeed fact--the Ruskies didn't "sell" me anything--they sold political genius Podesta something right well, though. The only people buying into something are the ones who believe that the Russians thought any more than anybody else did that Trump could win and that they wanted to do anything other than sew discord. Which thanks to credulous ideologues like you has been a tremendous success.

By the way, how can you not know that the "royal we" makes you look foolish?

Z--But your claim was universal, "The immediate threat to 'democracy' is ALWAYS from within." In fact, the immediate threat to democracy in the spring of 1940 was external. We could provide others, but a single counterexample contradicts a universal statement.

No. The immediate threat--your word--is ALWAYS internal. It's a feature of a republic.

Z--Of course it does. It's circumstantial evidence that the payoff concerned the election, not personal matters. Cohen may have additional information, such as his conversations with Trump. In any case, it's not 'tortured logic', but a claim that depends on reasonable evidence, with the obvious evidence being the timing.

The timing means nothing. It was NOT a campaign contribution. That makes a mockery of law. If it was then Clinton paying off Jones to save his future viability--and his wife's--should be considered a contribution as well.

Z--It's called a jury. Cohen didn't want to go there. But sure. Let's do it!

Cohen didn't want to be bankrupted and end up owing millions of dollars for the rest of his life. Do you really not understand how this works?


Z--The average person of color who gets caught up in the justice system. You seem to think that rich, well-connected rich people can't navigate the legal system.

Hilary Clinton, the Podestas, Huma, Cheryl Mills, are not "people of color". Well, maybe Huma but some of us prefer to judge character content, not pigmentation.


Z--Clinton has been investigated and investigated. Republicans control all the organs of government, including the Department of Justice. Not sure what you expect to happen at this point.

I expect equal treatment under the law. That it not happening.


Z--Are you really claiming the release of stolen emails didn't throw the Democrats into turmoil? Seriously, the chair was forced to resign. Of course this has an effect on the campaign.

The dems were in turmoil without the Russians. Read Brazile's book. The interference was a factor to the pundit and professional class--it did not affect voters enough to put Trump in office.

SK: The emails were indeed fact

Z--Sure. They were stolen internal emails, including millions of dollars of election research given to their opponents, and caused extensive disruption of the Clinton campaign. Not only was the theft felonious, egged on by her political opponent, but it created an uneven playing field. Emails from the Trump campaign were not released during the campaign, including Trump Jrs. email saying he would love help from the Russian government for the campaign.

I'll just let this remarkable statement stand without comment other than to say that anyone paying attention knows it's pure fantasy. I will point out that what Jr. wanted is what the Clintons actually GOT.

SK: Hilary Clinton, the Podestas, Huma, Cheryl Mills, are not "people of color".

Z--Avoiding the the point. You complained about different standards for different people. You are arguing that rich, well-connected white guys (such as Manafort and Cohen) can't get fair treatment in the courts. Poor blacks caught up in the justice system weep for you.



Again, what does this have to do with poor blacks? I'm not avoiding the point--you're trying to change it. I'm "complaining" that Hilary, Bill, Huma, the Podestas, Imran Khan (!), Perkins Coie, et al, have been treated under the law very differently than the people associated with Trump have been treated under the law. (Not to mention the bizarre way "poor blacks" were treated recently in the New Mexico kidnap/child killing/extremist case)

You're right about the Republicans who won't hold these people to account. Again, what does that have to do with it? The fact that the those in power won't insist on equal justice under the law is the entire point, whether they are R or D.

This exchange is really pointless. The pity is that like most you don't care that there is a separate standard, at least until your ox is gored. Good luck when it is.

Z--That's very odd as Trump is the U.S. President. As President, Trump appointed the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, and the Director of the FBI. There is oversight by the Republican-controlled House of Representative, Republican-controlled Senate, and a Supreme Court of which Republican appointees constitute a majority.


I give up. This isn't about political bent and ideology on your part. You're clearly a twit. This is like talking to a a child. You're the Kevin Kline character in A Fish Called Wanda.

It's pointless because clearly you're not capable of understanding that this has NOTHING to do with the Republican majority and who is in charge but with equal treatment under the law.

You won't understanad this, but what the hell. Equating "equality" with who is in charge and their perceived politics and not with how people are actuality treated is a leftist trope and what killed well over 100 million people in the 20th cent.

Enjoy yourself, Mr. Beria.

No. But one would expect the slant of enforcement should change along with the political party in charge. The question, which you have neglected to answer, is that if the Clintons are guilty of crimes, why haven't they been prosecuted when Republicans were in power. The most obvious answer is that there has been a lack of evidence.

If only the obvious is apparent to you, that's what you should hold onto. What you haven't done is to explain why people are being treated differently under the law. And saying "the Rs are in charge nana nana boo boo!" does not suffice.

Earlier I would have said, "But of course you know that" but it's becoming clear you don't.

I found the "Wanda" line that reminds me of you--the Kevin Kline character tells the JL Curtis character "Apes don't read philosophy."

She answers, "Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it."

Go back to Google and confirm what you already think, Otto.

I've answered the question repeatedly, Otto. You just don't accept it.

But I'll do it once more in the simplest language possible since you are having problems--There is a different standard depending on who you are, and right now the Clinton cabal is benefiting from that. The Republicans are as guilty of it as the Dems.

This used to be something liberals would have decried--now ignoring it is once of the prices of admission.

It truly is like talking to a child.

So tell me, when you "looked at the evidence", which I'm sure all of America appreciates your doing, did you make up your mind and write your report before the investigation was even completed? (This is known as "Pulling a Comey")

Did you have a edit it for you (say, change "gross negligence" to "extremely careless")? (Now known as "The Stzrok Effect)

What exactly did you talk about with your boss after she met with the spouse of the person being investigated?

Again, what's the point. No fair minded rational person could look at what's going on and not agree that different standards apply--it's as pointless as arguing mathematics and I'm not going to play google fingers with someone who can't add two and two. I have dogs to train, and at least they are rational and honest.

So long, Otto.