Will they destroy each other before they destroy our country?

It’s one thing to have the conservative Wall Street Journal amplifying the whistleblower’s complaint that, “(T)he President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election“, and old-school conservatives like Bill Kristol running ads directed at Republican members of Congress in hopes of getting them to stand up to Trump’s abuse of power. It’s another, however, to have Fox News hosts openly going at one another’s throats over their support, or lack of support, for Donald Trump. And that’s where we are today, as an ever-growing number of Americans come out in favor of impeachment.

While, to my knowledge, no Republican members of Congress have yet to come out and say that they’d vote with the Democrats on impeachment, it does feel as though things are moving in that direction. [Michigan’s Justin Amash is pro-impeachment, but he officially left the Republican Party a few months ago.] Republican Congressman Will Hurd just tweeted out that, “We need to fully investigate all of the allegations in the whistleblower report to get to the facts, and protect this individual in the process.” And, earlier today, Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger just referred to one of Trump’s tweets as being “beyond repugnant.” These aren’t exactly aggressive stands, but they could signal a growing willingness among some to at least consider what a post-Trump Republican Party may look like. And, outside of Congress, things seem to be moving a little faster, with Republican Governors Phil Scott (Vermont) and Charlie Baker (Massachusetts), having both come out in favor of the impeachment inquiry.

With all of that said, there are a lot of things we could talk about tonight, but there are five things that I wanted to note — small things that could perhaps signal bigger rifts within the Party of Trump.

1. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell not only voted in support of Senator Chuck Schumer’s unanimous consent request for the release of the whistleblower documents last week, but today he said that, if the House passes articles of impeachment, he’d have “no choice but to take it up” in the Senate. This isn’t getting a lot of coverage, what with Giuliani having just been served a subpoena today and news breaking that Secretary of State Pompeo was on the call between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky, but it seems like pretty huge news, especially given how vehemently the Majority Leader has fought to keep bringing things to the floor that might be seen as damaging to Trump. [McConnell also changed course last week, and got behind legislation to allocate $250 million in funding for states to help protect against outside interference in the 2020 voting.] At any rate, it’s something to watch.

2. Trump is apparently frustrated with his Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, for not having a plan to contain the damage done by the whistleblower’s complaint and the transcript of the Zelensky call. I don’t imagine the conflict will force Mulvaney to go running into the arms of the resistance, but it’s interesting to note all of the little conflicts that are coming to the surface as members of the administration seek to assign blame. One would imagine it might just be a mater of time before one of them decides to push back against the President.

3. When all of this started breaking last week, Trump was very quick to suggest that his Vice President, Mike Pence, may also be worth looking into. “Look at Mike Pence’s phone calls,” Trump said to reporters asking about his call with Zelensky. I don’t know that it makes sense to try to decipher statements made by Donald Trump, but it seems likely this was reminder to Republicans that, if they turn on him, in hopes backing Pence in 2020, that he has it within his power to take Pence down with him, leaving them without a candidate.

4. Rudy Giuliani keeps telling anyone who will listen to him that he only got involved in the Ukraine because the State Department told him to. Here is in on Fox News, showing texts from U.S. special representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker, who resigned from office shortly after this segment aired. Again, it’s difficult to say for certain what Giuliani is thinking when he says things like this, but you can be certain that it’s not exactly appreciated by Mike Pompeo or others at the State Department, who’d rather not be pulled into a growing scandal. [It’s illegal, by the way, for employees of the State Department to be engaged in political activities.]

5. Attorney General William Barr was apparently “surprised and angry” that Donald Trump noted him by name in the Zelensky call, stating that he and Giuliani were his point people in the plot to have Ukraine deliver dirt on Joe Biden in advance of the 2020 election. Will it be enough to force Barr to turn on Trump? Probably not. But, like these other things, it’s interesting to note that Trump’s Attorney General is letting it be known that he’s displeased with the way things are going down.

I suppose it’s possible that Trump may be able to bullshit, threaten and obfuscate his way out of this, but, if I were a betting man, I’d say that he’s finally reached the end of the line. And I can’t help but think, especially considering the character of the men involved, and the fractures that are already developing, that we’re soon going to see people turning on one another in more pronounced ways.

[I was going to go with an image of a snake eating itself, but then the last scene of Reservoir Dogs came to mind. If there’s a better image to convey what’s happening right now within Donald Trump’s Republican Party, let me know and I’ll swap it out.]

This entry was posted in Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

172 Comments

  1. iRobert
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 2:02 am | Permalink

    All the commentators on Fox and Republicans who are going along with the suggestion Trump did something inappropriate or illegal, should all be tried for treason.

  2. iRobert
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 5:14 am | Permalink

    It would be good for ratings if Fox commentators started having shootouts live in air. Talk about making America great again…

  3. EOS
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 6:14 am | Permalink

    The House needs a vote with at least 218 votes to even open the impeachment inquiry. They don’t have the votes. They are just blowing smoke and fabricating yet another crisis. It isn’t a crime for presidents to talk to other world leaders. Dems are hoping everyone is getting stoned and not paying attention to the details. If you repeat a lie enough times, it still remains a lie.

  4. Sad
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 7:02 am | Permalink

    I agree with EOS.

    Can’t we just be glad this fiasco will damage Biden and elect Mayor Pete president.

    He just had another stellar fundraising quarter.

    Isn’t that reservoir dogs picture more apt for what’s going on in Ypsi politics?

  5. iRobert
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    Does Trump not realize as President he has the entire executive branch at his disposal? Is he under the impression he has to do everything himself?

    Maybe he just can’t find any other stable geniuses to hire into the administration. Maybe we should just be glad he wasn’t over in Kiev for the past two and a half years going door to door looking for clues in his corruption investigation of Hillary.

  6. iRobert
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    You Democrats don’t know what Trump was doing on the phone to the Ukraine. Why do you assume it was political? He might have just been placing an order for his next wife.

  7. Randy Quaid
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    I’m still in your corner, HW, FF and EOS! Stay strong!

    https://twitter.com/RandyRRQuaid/status/1178000237522247681?s=20

  8. Jon Favreau by proxy
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    Are you a foreign leader who’s been involuntarily conscripted into Donald Trump’s re-election campaign?

    If so we’d love to hear from you!

  9. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 8:50 am | Permalink

    Aloha, And folks wonder why all our politicians are self-dealing corrupt POS. If they are part of your tribe, its ok. We have gutted almost all the ethics laws, such that at this point almost any amount of self-dealing is ok. FF does not even acknowledge it is a problem. EOS is fine with it as long as his anti-choice folks remain in power. HW seems to be in favor of self-dealing as well.
    I’ve not heard a single Democratic leaning person say that the Bidens should not be investigated—(though we ignore the reality that evidently investigations were opened and nothing “illegal” was found justifying continuing with them) so we have no problem with a witch hunt against the front running Dem. It is only the LEADERS followers who do not want an investigation–they know what it will uncover generally if not specifically.
    Remember that when voting for the lesser evil, you are voting for evil. Vote for the good candidate instead.
    We have several, I make no secret that I think Tulsi is the best. Bernie is good to. After decades in politics, no stench of corruption about him. Yang has no hint of corruption around him either. Warren is ok, but she has signaled that she is open to being corrupted–so I worry about her. Buttigieg and his handling of the police situation has not been good, and his cozing up to the Billionaire class is a great worry. Harris, Biden, Booker and O’Rourke have all been on the auction block for years. I know next to nothing about Styer other than he is extremely wealthy (like Trump, wealth does not make you immune to corruption now does it).

  10. Max
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    There are 235 Democrats in Congress and as of yesterday 223 are in support of the inquiry. I’m pretty sure they’ll have the numbers. Every day more nefarious acts are uncovered and the case grows stronger.

  11. anonymous
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    it will look like republicans will stab him in the back, then he will have a crying temper tantrum about hillary clinton and they will flock back to him.

  12. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    Aloha, for those that would like a primer on corruption in Ukraine gas industry, this is a pretty good digest. One thing that is apparent, it is all about the plutocratic class and its sycophants.

    https://thesaker.is/here-is-the-dirt-trump-wanted-from-zelensky-about-the-bidens-and-why-zelensky-doesnt-want-to-give-it-to-him-hidden-by-rampant-falsehoods-in-the-press/

    The author is pretty non-partisan. His last book is on the economic results of Democratic v Republican policies since 1910. This is from the introduction,
    “The Democratic and Republican Parties are virtual opposites of each other in their economic records, going back to the earliest period for which economic data were available, around 1910. More than a dozen studies have been done comparing economic growth, unemployment, average length of unemployment, stock market performance, inflation, federal debt, and other economic indicators, during Democratic and Republican presidencies and congresses, and they all show stunningly better performance when Democrats are in power, than when Republicans are. These studies are all available online, and they are all summarized and discussed in this path-breaking book, which settles, once and for all, the question of whether there’s any significant economic difference between the two Parties. Not only is there a difference, but – shockingly – it always runs in favor of Democrats in power. There might be other types of reasons for voting Republican, but all of the economic reasons favor voting for Democrats. Regarding economic performance, the two Parties aren’t even close.”

    But remember it is important to shoot the messenger first.

  13. holly otterbein
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    By HOLLY OTTERBEIN 10/01/2019 05:59 AM EDT

    Bernie Sanders raised more than $25 million in the third quarter of his presidential campaign, his aides announced Tuesday.

    The large haul demonstrates that the Vermont senator, despite slipping to third place behind Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden in national polling averages, remains a fundraising juggernaut. Sanders also recently revealed that 1 million people have donated to his bid for the White House — a milestone he reached faster than any Democratic presidential candidate in history.

    Sanders’ staffers said that the most common profession among his contributors during the quarter was teacher, and the most common employers of his donors were Walmart, Amazon and Starbucks. The average contribution was just over $18, they said.

    “Media elites and professional pundits have tried repeatedly to dismiss this campaign, and yet working-class Americans keep saying loudly and clearly that they want a political revolution.”

  14. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    Aloha, Another example of the power of nepotistic self-dealing by the political class. I wonder if the China tariffs on US goods include Ivanka’s product lines. Wonder why China gave her all those patent trademarks to begin with–nothing about her being the Leaders daughter, right?

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-ivanka-idUSKCN1NB0TL?fbclid=IwAR0JOrJ42aROXzmZvmVZQ9dGH3Cmho4kxLhz7hCNeF5CgVDp9QiM89IZ8Ag

  15. Erik Wasson by proxy
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    Grassley in statement urges whistleblower to be protected; notes that the law allows complaints based on firsthand and secondhand knowledge

  16. WSJ
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    Tension between Giuliani and Barr is complicating the president’s impeachment defense: Barr wanted to know why the president’s private lawyer was making a spectacle of himself rather than “declaring victory in the Mueller investigation and moving on.”

  17. Max
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    “China last month granted initial approval for 16 new trademarks for the fashion brand of U.S. President Donald Trump’s daughter and adviser Ivanka, including voting machines…”

    Fashion and…voting machines. Nothing fishy here. Move along. Let’s go ahead and investigate Hunter Biden and Hillary’s emails.

  18. Jean Henry
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    Jesus DD–your sources are really something. The premise is that “the Obama regime’ created the revolution in the Ukraine (which they call a dictatorship). Not a word about Russian aggression. (Yes I read the hyperlinked article– it seems like you get your information straight from Russian bots)

    But ;et’s make the big leaping assumption that this is true and what Hunter Biden was up to was more than self-dealing a plum board role for 50k a year. He was still off the hook from prosecution by the time Biden sr requested the Ukrainian prosecutor be removed. And Biden clearly did so at the request of State agencies. Yes it was probably politically expedient to US foreign policy aims. Duh.

    PS I know a LOT of finance people who get those paid no-work corporate board positions; it’s gross but not illegal or uncommon. Simple greed explains it; no need for a grand conspiratorial motive. Big corporations must have boards. They construct them in ways that serve them, which is largely about influence. Most business runs on relationships. Big powerful business runs on relationships between powerful people. That’s why we need powerful unions.

  19. Jean Henry
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    FF– yes an investigation of Hunter Biden’s involvement with Ukrainian gas interests were opened once under Obama and closed for lack of evidence of wrong doing… AND THEN the case was reviewed under Trump. Investigation was not re-opened despite a Trump request because no evidence of wrongdoing was found. Again.

    We all acknowledge Hunter Biden’s actions were icky but not criminal So why are we talking about him?

    Trump’s request for Ukrainian assistance as a gesture of reciprocity would be icky and not criminal if Biden were not a presidential candidate and likely opponent. But he is so this is a criminal case.

    Let’s talk about the moral turpitude of the oligarchy and American indifference to it some other time.

  20. Jean Henry
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    Sidenote: When did Randy Quaid turn into a right wing nut mimicking the voice and tone of William Burroughs.

    Sometimes I forget how ridiculous Trump supporters are, because I’m hyper focused on how ridiculous so many of those around me on the left are.

    Humans are idiots and I think the Earth and all its remaining denizens will be better off without us– At least if we don’t burn the shit out of the place before we extinct ourselves.

  21. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    Aloha JH, ” I know a LOT of finance people” makes it very clear why , “Let’s talk about the moral turpitude of the oligarchy and American indifference to it some other time.” attitude you express. It is the American political elite’s and the liberal class’s indifference to the moral turpitude of the oligarchy that has given us Trump.

    All’s well as long as we keep politicians that act in the best interest of teachers, retail clerks, truck drivers and baristas from getting elected President.

  22. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    Jean,

    I am not sure which of my comments you are referring to. Your use of “yes” there seems to indicate you are responding to one my posts but it does not fit as far as I can tell…. Generally I have not talked about Biden much other than to say I think Trump wants to run against Biden so investigating him would actually be working against Trumps own interests, imo. I think one of the big reasons many people are talking about Biden is that they don’t want to talk about Trump’s inquiring into an investigation of Crowdstrike. Why does everybody skip that bit? It is the first think Trump mentions to the Ukrainian president. So, is your position that it is not illegal for Trump to express his hope that Ukrainian’s investigate Crowdstrike; but it is illegal for Trump to express his hope that Ukrainian’s investigate Hunter? Or is the key ingredient for illegality the “gesture of reciprocity” you are trying to point? Are you sure there was a gesture of reciprocity there? When I read the transcript in my regular non Robert Deniro voice I do not hear what you claim to hear. Is it there? Can it be proven?

    Generally speaking asking a foreign leader to uncover truths through investigations is not illegal right?

  23. Jean Henry
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    If anyone is procrastinating aka taking a break like me google “Randy Quaid” and “Star Whackers” for a good time. There’s even a film they made about it all. I think I’ll queue it up for Halloween.

    FWIW I always thought Randy was the better actor among the two well known Quaid’s.

  24. Jean Henry
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    DD– I had privileged access to that gated world and walked away without turning back. My relatives and classmates however did not. I was able to understand the rot and blinders of privilege before anyone talked about it that way and without access to any of the radical texts I would soon discover. I didn’t grow up in a fancy sophisticated place like Ann Arbor or even Ypsi. I have however spent time in a super rarified, super elite world intermittently since I was young. I have spent my entire life navigating class dynamics. I found out people are people. Some in each group suck and others are amazing and most are fucked up and complicated and embody more paradox than reason.

    When you walk away from privilege and opportunity because it sickens you, let me know.

  25. Jean Henry
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    FF– “Generally speaking asking a foreign leader to uncover truths through investigations is not illegal right?”
    Yes but asking a foreign leader to investigate a political opponent IS illegal. That’s the line. And as you know laws are all about drawing lines.

    I know you like your tight and clear cut so I’m wondering why this line is so hard for you to fathom. It’s pretty black/white. It really doesn’t matter what Trump’s motivation was. It’s illegal, and people listening knew that, which is why it was buried in a super secure server despite having no classified information.

    I’ve wasted enough time and am not going to review my comments for your satisfaction. You have spent a lot of time talking about Biden and defending Trump. So many yes or no questions… middle school debate tactics. Your thinking offers no surprises yet you insist it is independently formed. If it is your narrative is pre-cast and rigid to consistently produce a highly predictable result. You accuse others of ignoring inconvenient information and then say you don’t know anything about Trump university or the Foundation even though they both were major news stories and investigations/cases. You can just google them. You are, as always corrupt without being charming, as I have said over and over. Your insistence on being right and defending how right you are makes you dull and uninteresting to engage in discourse. I feel sorry for your family. You are boring, bloviating and domineering. They must be exhausted.

  26. Asha Rangappa by proxy
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    To this day the trump campaign cant explain 1) Why they had so many Russian contacts; 2) Why they were glad to meet them; 3) Why they never called the FBI; and 4) why they lied about it every time.

    Their answer is to try to blame the FBI for ever asking about it.

  27. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    Aloha JH, I spent 10 years being the servant of privileged folks (bus boy and waiter at country club), want no part of that culture. Turned me into an egalitarian. The privileged wouldn’t even let a Jew be a guest in the club till 1970 I think (I’ve been mistaken for being a Jew many times in my life). I remember Thurmand (the black matre’d who was my boss) explaining quietly to others in the dining room, “not to worry, they are just guest, they are not being considered for membership” .
    Glad you rejected a culture built on racism, sexism and class exploitation. Seems to me though that in the interest of maintaining connections with “relatives and classmates ” you are willing to tolerate (if not defend) the depredations this class of folks inflict upon the rest of us.

  28. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    https://twitter.com/DaveNYviii/status/1179047201336631297

  29. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    “You have spent a lot of time talking about Biden…”–JH

    Actually, I was being nice but I am pretty sure your judgment is incorrect. I think you have memory issues Jean. You engage with different people. My guess is you form a narrative in your mind about what other people are saying and you misattribute things to different people. It is not a big deal here. I don’t care. I just thought your comment was weird because it seemed to give the appearance you were responding to something I said…I think you are mis-remembering and things are just garbled up in your mind. Sorry.

    I don’t mind talking about Biden though. I know it is boring but here is what Trump said about Biden according to the transcript:

    “The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.”

    Look at the context out of which Trump’s statement arose. The possible UKRAINIAN corruption around Biden’s son is the third topic of potential Ukrainian corruption the two spoke of. First it was Crowdstrike, second it was prosecutor, third it was Biden’s son. The topic of conversation was not “ways Ukraine can help the Trump campaign”. The topic of discussion is ways Ukraine has been potentially corrupt in the past.

    Can you cite the exact law you are referencing in your judgment that he clearly did something illegal? It is the campaign finance law right? The president can’t solicit something of value from a foreign leader right? I am wondering if the “value” can be detached from the motivations of Trump. One might argue that it was against Trump’s interest to have Biden investigated therefore Trump was soliciting a negative “value” for his campaign but a positive value for truth and anti-corruption.

    Bottom line: Read that blurb from the transcript and tell me that you for sure that is illegal. It sounds like a crazy claim to me but I am open to hearing your arguments.

  30. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    Clarification: Negative value because Trump wants to go against Biden; an investigation into Biden might endanger that; but there is a greater good other than “winning” that is being sought….

  31. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    Aloha FF, Some folks would say that Trump’s comments concerning Crowdstrike were all cover for his later and more extensive focus on the Bidens. You totally want to ignore the self dealing part of the conversation don’t you. Where is Barr on any of this? I thought it was his job to investigate the origins of Russiagate? When is he opening a US investigation into the Biden’s corruption? Oh wait, didn’t we hear some thing about the FBI initiating such an investigation and found no grounds to proceed? No violation of US law I guess. Trumps encouragement of Zelenskyy talking to Barr and helping with the Russiagate investigation is legal—So of course no one is talking about that—it is expected that the chief executive would seek such cooperation with an official governmental investigation–FF are you able to discern the differences between this and “do me a favor” talking to my personal defense attorney about the Biddens

  32. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    How does it affect the 2020 election to investigate corruption in 2016? If it turns out someone has to drop out because of what they did in the recent past then that’s the breaks.

    “If the prosecutor’s not fired you don’t get the money.”

  33. Jean Henry
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    I apologize FF. It’s true you focused relentlessly on Schiff not Biden. It’s all the same. You are attacking someone who is clearly less culpable than Trump and to a charge less serious by leagues. And you are arguing the seriousness of marginally concerning actions that Trump has called treasonous.

    This business of you calling people liars as deflection from serious allegations toward you or Trump is getting tired. And again, it feels like middle school. Grown men don’t act like you or Trump. Or they shouldn’t.

    You just live in false equivalency. It demonstrates how permanently skewed your moral compass has become that you would attack Schiff rather than Seriously consider the charges against Trump. This is your country; Be a patriot.

  34. Jean Henry
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    “Where is Barr on any of this? ”
    He is keeping his mouth shut on advice of his lawyers no doubt. He’s in trouble and will be permanently linked to Guliani which must really get his goat.

    As for the investigation of the 2016 election and the surveillance of Trump and co that is ongoing. It’s not like Barr is actually doing the investigation.

  35. Jean Henry
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    “Can you cite the exact law you are referencing in your judgment that he clearly did something illegal? ”

    I already did a few days ago. You should read other people’s comments. It’s election law not campaign finance law. And it is explicit. It’s regulatory genesis is the fucking constitution.

    https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/status/1139309394968096768?s=20

  36. Jean Henry
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    cover up:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/28/elections-chief-says-gop-colleague-blocked-wide-release-her-foreign-activity-memo/

  37. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    Aloha, a recent Washington Post poll results—you know us majoritarians seem to think a lot alike.
    “Here’s where the poll gets more depressing for Democrats.

    That 45-36 split on whether Trump at least applied pressure on Zelensky is actually very similar to the split on whether Biden applied pressure on Ukraine to stop investigating his son — 42 percent to 37 percent.

    A plurality of Americans say it is “probably” true that Biden “put pressure on Ukrainian officials to get them not to investigate his son’s business dealings there.”

    Except that that allegation is dubious at best. U.S. and Ukrainian officials have said the investigation of the company that employed Biden’s son Hunter Biden, Burisma Holdings, was dormant at the time that then-Vice President Biden was pressuring Ukraine to remove its prosecutor general. The prosecutor general himself wasn’t even investigating the Bidens, but rather the company. And even if the investigation had been ongoing, there was extensive pressure from the West to remove the prosecutor, who was accused of turning a blind eye to corruption. Biden’s effort was hardly extraordinary, relative to that of other powerful Ukraine allies.

    One has an official rough transcript to support it; the other is a highly speculative claim. And yet, the American people appear to regard them approximately the same.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/01/ukraine-story-appears-be-hurting-trump-possibly-biden-too/

    Roughly 1 in 5 Democrats believe it “probably” true about Biden, while independents are split 43-31 in favor of believing it.”

    Since I don’t read anything published by Bezo this is pulled from a Democratic Party web site I visit.
    1

  38. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    Jean,

    Your case is flimsy as fuck yet you pretend like what Trump did was obviously illegal. It’s just not true, so you might want to reconsider what you are both smoking and reading because it is not leading you to the truth no matter how much you hate the outcome of the last election.

    The idea of “info from a foreigner” as something of value, connected to a campaign, and definitely illegal, as you wrongly claim, was explored in the Mueller investigation, around the trump tower meeting. If you believe the Mueller report than you are wrong–this is not black and white–in terms of illegality. You are being misinformed by people/media that are using you as a tool, Jean.

    Mueller Report, March 2019: A campaign can be assisted not only by the provision of funds, but also by the provision of derogatory information about an opponent. Political campaigns frequently conduct and pay for opposition research. A foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things of value. At the same time, no judicial decision has treated the voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research or similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution under campaign-finance law. … Those questions could be especially difficult where the information consisted simply of the recounting of historically accurate facts. It is uncertain how courts would resolve those issues.

    Don’t be like Schiff, Jean. Don’t lie (or pretend) your way toward impeachment. We must try to answer the impeachment question with an honest approach. Stop pretending like you have some insight into laws. You seriously don’t know what you are talking about.

  39. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    Aloha FF, Like Nixon before him, Trump has engaged in a number of illegalities associated with being President. You can do some things as a candidate which are legal, that become illegal if you use your official position to do the same thing once elected. You can fish around for dirt on your opponent. You can’t use your official position as President to help you fish around for dirt on your opponent—do you get the difference FF?

  40. Bob
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    This blog needs some new blood

  41. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    Note that I am attacking Jean’s claim that Trump did something that obviously violates the law. She is wrong. She is less concerned with being right than she is pretending she is right because impeachment is about appearance and public opinion rather than legality (as I know DD already knows).

    Yes DD, I understand the difference between a) misuse of an official position; and b) not misusing an official position because you don’t hold that position. What is the point you are trying to make? Knowing the difference between a and b, obviously, does not equate to Trump being guilty of breaking a law in the conversation with the Ukrainian President does it?

    Did Trump mis-use, in an illegal way, his “official position as president to help [him] fish around for dirt on [his] opponent”? Jean seems to be trying to cite election law violations involving accepting things of value from foreigners; whereas it is not clear what law you are referring to. What law are you trying to refer to DD?

  42. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    I should have said: accepting *or soliciting* things of value from foreigners…a

  43. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    Aloha FF, I shared some of the election finance laws here the other day. It is illegal to solicit a foreign national for assistance in a campaign. It is illegal to use Federal Government resources to further a political campaign.

    Trump asked during an official Government to Government communications, while on the tax payer dime, and at our expense, for the President of Ukraine to do him a favor (not the US–but Trump) and meet with his private defense attorney to talk about the Bidens. Rudi wants to say he was working for the Government—no evidence of that at all–but would also be a serious conflict of interest for him while at same time serving as personal defense attorney.

    Nixon co-mingled his re-election campaign and Government actions as well. Did not work out well for Nixon.

  44. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    Aloha FF, In fact Nixon’s Attorney General ended up doing some prison time I believe. Not only was he Attorney General, he was head of Nixon’s re-election campaign.

  45. Bob
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    Hopefully Trump will have a massive, fatal heart attack from the combination of Big Macs and impeachment stress. It would save us all a lot of time and money. I’d place a bet that Ivanka would be the only one to show up to the funeral.

  46. Bob
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    Putin could send a load of hookers for the send-off though. A twenty-one piss salute.

  47. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    So you are trying to refer to the same laws as Jean. That is what I thought.

    Where are you getting this misinformation from?

    Trump did not ask for a personal favor, as you assert, he asked if the Ukrainian president could: “Do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it”–that is, the favor was pertaining to the origins of Russiagate, which might actually have their origins in the Crowdstrike.

    About 600 words later in the transcript Trump’s first and last mention of Biden was when he said something to the effect of: “The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.”

    He is not attaching Guiliani to the conversation about Biden.

    He is not asking for the Ukrainian President to “make up dirt”.

    He is not threatening to withhold aid from the Ukrainian President in order to compel him to start an investigation.

    He is not attaching any of this to the idea that it would help his campaign.

    The notion that he is doing something illegal/ impeachable is laughable. I will say though that he might be in a little bit of trouble if Guiliani traveled on the taxpayers dime. Right? Didn’t Obama have to pay a large sum of money to correct some campaign finance mistake he made?

  48. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    I do think we can agree that it is kind of silly to be having these arguments by analyzing the notes taken after the call….It is silly….It would be good to actually hear the real conversation….So, I want to be cautious in saying Trump didn’t do something wrong….On the other hand I find it lol hilarious that people are claiming that there was obvious illegality occurring.

  49. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    “If this in itself is not impeachable, then the concept has no meaning.” — Tom Nichols

    :)

    Good luck guys!

  50. iRobert
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    Why wasn’t Randy Quaid ever offered a cabinet position in the Trump Administration? He’d definitely add some class to the whole thing.

  51. Sad
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

    Ha – Ha

    Mayor Pete is tying with Warren and Sanders in Iowa.

    Behind Biden.

    https://theweek.com/speedreads/868932/pete-buttigieg-positioning-himself-joe-biden

    Pete is a little more Iowa then Warren or Sanders.

  52. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    The Randy Quaid video shared is the most normal one I could find on his twitter page. Interesting guy. He has been committed to the “angry wizard” character for a few years now.

  53. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

    Aloha, of course all the impeachment attention maybe just to distract us from other Trump failures as another US steel plant bites the dust. It seems highly likely that these Trump tariffs, at least at some level, will remain in effect for some time after Trump leaves, who knows what other bad economic news is lurking as a result of the tax give aways to the 1%, the tariffs and our bloated out of control military spending.

    https://www.nola.com/news/business/article_eb4bdb54-e3bf-11e9-a105-1fbf4a4b79a4.html?fbclid=IwAR02X4xj621PZmQL0_hPzv33-rdeY_nyoVKvXU81leZ1254_4O-1T2b6MQ0

  54. Trump
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 6:08 am | Permalink

    Bayou Steel is a company of weak losers. Bad company. Good to see them go.

  55. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 6:35 am | Permalink

    FF– We are getting our ;misinformation’ from the chair of the FEC which was evident from our links, you pompous, intentional ignoramous.

  56. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    FF– Randy Quaid has been ‘on the run’ for a misdemeanor and living in his car with his equally paranoid wife talking about ‘starwhackers’ trying to kill celebrities.

    But the FEC chair is spreading misinformation.

  57. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 7:37 am | Permalink

    You caught me. I get most of my talking points from Randy Quaid’s twitter.

    Ellen Weintraub might find herself living in a car someday soon too. Have you not heard that she is coming under more scrutiny. People in the FEC think she is overstepping and misstepping…I don’t know if you linked it but I read the memo she wrote in loose response with the Ukraine/ Trump situation. This is my opinion: She is stating the law in general terms in the hopes of creating an air of innuendo so that people, like you, will jump to the conclusion that it ought to be applied here. She did the same thing around the Trump Tower meeting. You linked her 5 month old statement loosely connected to the Trump Tower meeting. Do you realize that?

    My opinion is that she is likely highly partisan. Try watching some of Randy Quaid’s performance art. I don’t know if it is performance art but I am going to choose to think of it that way. But try to watch his performance art, while assuming he doing a kind of parody, of a person like Ellen Weintraub.

    I wouldn’t say Weintraub is spreading misinformation. She might be using her position, knowledge of the law, and powers of innuendo to try to influence the POLITICAL PROCESS of impeachment. She is trying to broaden the concept of “anything of value” and trying to broaden the concept of “connection to a political campaign”. I am going to remain skeptical of anything she says…

  58. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 7:51 am | Permalink

    Weintraub publicly questioned the value of the electoral college in the wake of Trump’s victory.

    She demanded info from Trump on her offices letterhead which was outside of her offices scope.

    I find that interesting.

    Seriously, watch some of Quaid’s “performance art” and get back to me.

  59. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 7:58 am | Permalink

    Aloha FF, you realize that I posted the proposed draft to his month’s agenda for the FEC. The important take away is not the editorial comments, but the elements of the statute as currently written. The Chairperson was including this on the Agenda because certain aspects of the statute need administrative rules to implement—for example what constitutes “a thing of value”—you do recognize that I post some things for educational value—the chairperson in this instance compiled the relevant sections of the Federal Elections Finance laws so I would not have to look them up—feel free to look them up yourself if you think they are inaccurate.

  60. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    Jean loves appeal to authority because she does not like thinking through anything.

    Why is it important for Jean to point out Quaid is/was homeless? Does Ellen have a nice house?

    I know Quaid’s videos are weird, shocking and funny. If you think about (as art) they are kind of interesting too…They are not less interesting because he homeless. Ellen is not less partisan and overstepping because she has a nice house and a good job.

  61. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    I don’t think I hit your link but I do think I read the same document. You are referring to the memo written by Weintraub last week, right?

  62. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    DD–It is a question of application of laws to specific cases. I am fine with the content of what Weintraub wrote which is why I said “I would not call it disinformation”. I do think she is using the timing of her tweets, which are intentionally vague in terms of application, and innuendo for her personal political purposes. The media eats it up. People like Jean buy into a narrative and make false claims like “Trump obviously broke the law”… Impeachment is a political process as you know.

  63. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    How far can you stretch a concept such as “receiving something of value” against the President while diminishing it at the same time for the anti-Trumpers’ foreign escapades? Not only that but you say it even as Barr is actively traveling to places like Italy which helped with the Get Trump operation in 2016.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFZhfysKcyg

  64. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    Exactly HW.

    When you read Weintraub’s memo it is hard to miss the intention behind her words. It is actually pretty fucking creepy how hard, in few words, she is trying to protect her people and cast a cloud of illegality against her rivals. Extremely creepy.

    Let’s make fun of the homeless man doing performance art though.

  65. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    I’m not making fun of Quaid. I have often defended here the value of those with mental health challenges and the legitimacy if their perspectives. That changes when they start exhibiting symptoms of delusional psychosis, which is clearly The case for Quaid and his wife. Calling 5 years in Canada often living in his prius with his wife and dog ’performance art’ is a bit of a stretch even for you, FF.

    Quaid doesn’t call it performance art, so why do you?

    Re Weintraub and the FEC they are censoring her and have gutted the agency so it no longer has a working Quorum. I wonder what Trump’s interest could be in effectively shutting down the Federal Elections Commission? Great timing considering there is proof of Russian interference. How’s Trump going to crack down on all that Dem election fraud without a functional FEC?

  66. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    Randy Quaid may or may not be mentally ill. If you think the idea that stars are whacked is insane though then it is you who has a problem in that regard.

  67. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    This is Quaid stuff all new to me. I am not saying his homelessness is performance art. I am referring to Quaid’s “angry wizard” videos, for lack of a better term, that are on his twitter. He has been doing them in front of a multi-colored strobe light for a few years apparently. I think they are interesting videos.

  68. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    FF this has been going on for 18 years. It’s honestly sad. Is everybody on this forum a conspiracy theorist and/or apologist?

    Time to drain the swamp, Mark.

  69. Trump
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    Now Chucky “Gasbag” Grassley is helping the traitors. Bad Senator. The worst Senator, ever! Bad man. Very bad person.

    Witch hunt!

  70. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    ”In his seminal study on conspiracy beliefs, Goertzel (1994) argued that conspiracy beliefs form part of a ***monological belief system*** in which conspiratorial ideation serves as evidence for other conspiracist ideation (Swami et al., 2011). In monological belief systems, persons attain explanations for new information that is difficult to explain or that threatens their existing beliefs—new information is therefore simply neglected or inserted in existing belief systems, in this case, they are likely to be of conspiratorial nature (Goertzel, 1994). Incorporated in this are implications for public health and health behaviors (e.g., rejection of vaccination and modern medicine, greater use of alternative medicine; Oliver and Wood, 2014a) as conspiracy beliefs often include pseudoscientific beliefs that reach to the rejection of well-established science (Lobato et al., 2014)”

  71. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    Research has mainly focused on the psychopathological antecedents of conspiracy beliefs, such maladaptive personality traits (e.g., unusual beliefs and experiences, callousness, and eccentricity; Swami et al., 2016c), paranoia (Brotherton and Eser, 2015), and schizotypy (Barron et al., 2014). Considering the relatively high prevalence of conspiracy beliefs, studies also investigated non-pathological individual differences and their associations. Examples are a positive association between conspiracy beliefs and narcissism, self-esteem (Cichocka et al., 2016a), attitudes to authority (Imhoff and Bruder, 2014), social dominance orientation (Swami, 2012), anomia (Wagner-Egger and Bangerter, 2007), and political cynicism (Swami and Furnham, 2012). Lower analytic thinking was also related to conspiracy beliefs (Swami et al., 2014).

    Furthermore, the Big Five personality factor openness to experience (intellectual curiosity, active imagination, openness to novel ideas) was positively associated with conspiracy beliefs (Swami et al., 2010, 2011, 2013, 2016b; Orosz et al., 2016). The positive association between openness to experience and conspiracy belief was assumed to be related to the tendency to open individuals to seek novel and unusual ideas and are therefore susceptible to conspiracy (Swami et al., 2013).

    Agreeableness was negatively associated, as antagonism and suspicion toward others leads to the endorsement of conspiracy beliefs (Swami et al., 2010, 2013; Swami and Furnham, 2012; Bruder et al., 2013). Additionally, neuroticism and its (sub)pathological elements, such as uncertainty and anxiety, have also been suggested as a predictor (Hollander, 2017).

  72. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    Goertzel’s a moron. My evidence is light years ahead of someone like you, Jean as evidenced by every single thing so far going my way. You don’t even understand your own sources which I have demonstrated over and over.

  73. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    “Our results clearly showed that the strongest predictor of conspiracy belief was a constellation of personality characteristics collectively referred to as ‘schizotypy,’ Hart said.

    The trait borrows its name from schizophrenia, but it does not imply a clinical diagnosis. Hart’s study also showed that conspiracists had distinct cognitive tendencies: they were more likely than nonbelievers to judge nonsensical statements as profound (a tendency known as “BS receptivity”).

    In turn, they were more likely to say that nonhuman objects — triangle shapes moving around on a computer screen — were acting intentionally.

    advertisement

    “In other words, they inferred meaning and motive where others did not,” he said.

  74. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    I am sorry Jean. I just found about Randy Quaid yesterday. His videos are very very interesting. I feel like there must have been a vast conspiracy hiding the Quaid videos from me all of this time and now you want to blame the victim–me!

    Haha.

    Seriously though: When I came to KNOW the media lied about one very big thing it did change me forever. Personal KNOWLEDGE of an event versus the media reporting forced me to have healthy skepticism. It is a good thing. You can call me “Cassandra” if you want but I think insinuating I am a conspiracy theorist misses the mark.

    You, Mark, and “Cassandra” could use a dose of skepticism in my opinion.

  75. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    FF, hint about the nature of your one-time insider jackpot please.

  76. anonymous
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    Jean, are you announcing that you have dropped your belief in the conspiracy theory that Trump collided with the Russians to hand him the 2016 election?

  77. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    I never said I believed that, anonymous. I said I would wait got the investigation to conclude before deciding. Since the investigation was inconclusive due to inadequate evidence, I remain so as well.

    My pet theory, which is submitted tongue in cheek (in contrast to others here…) is that Jared Kushner is the foreign asset, not Trump. Trump is too volatile yo be a useful asset. He can be manipulated easily though. See Kushner.

  78. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    ”what psychologists have termed a ‘monological belief system’. This is the where an individual can build and maintain a view of the world that is ruled by conspiracies, they are seen everywhere and anywhere, and explain many of the surprising, uncontrollable, or deadly events that happen. As this system develops, people become closed-off and reluctant to believe in alternative explanations, spotting conspiracies in increasing amounts of events and situations.”

    This forum makes my case that logic is unreliable.

  79. anonymous
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    Are you announcing that you no longer believe there is a conspiracy among whites to protect their privilege and keep people of color oppressed?

  80. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    I am sorry HW. I can’t ever talk about it with anybody.

  81. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    Some help for you FF.
    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2019/01/04/a-new-tool-can-help-us-determine-which-conspiracy-theories-are-false-and-which-might-be-true/

    It turns out that all conspiracy theories that have been proven true we’re verified by legitimate investigative reporting. Theories that rely solely on ’theories’ v reporting are unlikely to be true.

    Unfortunately now FOX news and DD’s regular leftist crackpot sources and now lots of alternative media outlets make their $$ confirming biases instead of Pursuing multi source verifiable facts. They call themselves journalists.

  82. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    anonymous— I don’t think racism is a conspiracy theory; I think it’s well proven and, as I have said all along, mostly systemic and cultural and so unintentional. It’s a powerful political lever, so people use it. I have no greater intention in discussing systemic racism in America and within both parties than to undermine racism.

    So far no one here has suggested racism doesn’t exist and that white people are not the primary beneficiaries of it. If you believe otherwise, anonymous, I suggest you provide some data. I have loads of data proving the above statements

  83. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    The repeated mistaken understanding of my positions here (despite repeated explanation) is evidence of monological thinking.

  84. anonymous
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    Just asking, Jean.

  85. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    You hold onto hope that there is a there there even though there is no evidence against the President and a mountain of it against the ones who tried to take him down with false evidence in collusion with foreign governments. Barr and Durham were just now in Italy to investigate what? The origin of the investigation into candidate Donald Trump. That’s monological to use your new favorite word. That’s monological.

  86. anonymous
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    Do you believe the Russians got Trump elected?

  87. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    You are blathering HW.

    Another sputtering v of your standard ’I know you are bit what am I’ defense.

    Weak mind.

  88. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    Oh my now Trump is all red faced and blathering and scolding and monologuing. Doesn’t sound like an innocent man; sounds like a cornered viper.

  89. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    Lewandowski’s article is interesting but I don’t think he does a good enough job explaining the thought process, or lack thereof, amongst the people who, even when presented counter-evidence, continue to believe everything they are told on CNN, MSNBC, NYT…

    There is a difference between healthy skepticism, nihilistic skepticism, and being naive. Duh.

    What should we call the average Democrat who runs around trying to slap the label “conspiracy theorists” on people?

    You seem to make the claim that I ascribe to conspiracy theories without evidence. Really? Which conspiracy theory?

  90. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

    I predict one of 3 things will happen now:

    1) Jean just got too bored to answer the question but takes time out of her schedule to say how boring FF is.

    2) Long silence where Jean pops back up after awhile and accuses me of expecting she answer my questions immediately as if I am her teacher.

    3) Jean offers another post which does not address my question but instead talks about how “FF has obvious double standards, based upon bias, which everybody can see except FF”.

    Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. Just tell me what conspiracy theory I ascribe to.

  91. Sad
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    FF I think you’ve used your allotment of words for the day.

  92. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    FF– Sometimes I have other things to do. Usually I am here because I am avoiding something I need to do or resting. It is not my life. As you must know by now I don’t dodge conversations or questions. You always seem to dodge mine though.

    So answers-ish.

    “You seem to make the claim that I ascribe to conspiracy theories without evidence. Really? Which conspiracy theory?”
    –I have not heard you posit a conspiracy theory FF, but you regularly defend conspiracy theorists as reasonable, like Quaid, HW etc. when they are not. You also follow similar faulty black/white logic patterns.

    What should we call the average Democrat who runs around trying to slap the label “conspiracy theorists” on people?
    –In the case of this blog: accurate. (And I have called liberals here conspiracy theorists as well. DD is a 9-11 truther) If you are looking for more specific criteria I think I provided it above. Yep: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2019/01/04/a-new-tool-can-help-us-determine-which-conspiracy-theories-are-false-and-which-might-be-true/

    As for me being a conspiracy theorist, I don’t express certainty about much except my subjective opinions (you are boring) and things that are well established: Racism exists and benefits mostly white people and so is mostly perpetuated by white people, consciously or not, though everyone has their role to play. Stuff like that. With you know data and historical precedent.

  93. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    “FF this has been going on for 18 years. It’s honestly sad. Is everybody on this forum a conspiracy theorist and/or apologist?“

    FF— I never made the claim that you were a conspiracy theorist. Liar!

    Now admit that, because you misinterpreted there and can’t prove definitively that you aren’t a liar, everything you’ve ever said is corrupt and WRONG!

    Isn’t that how this works in your world?

  94. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    You don’t make sense to me, Jean.

    If you claim that everyone on this blog is a conspiracy theorist and / or apologists; and I am on this forum; then you are claiming I am a conspiracy theorist and/ or apologists. Are you saying I am not a conspiracy theorist but I am apologists for conspiracy theories? What in the world would be the difference? The etymology of “apology” is a defense of a position “from” (apo) the use of reason/ logic (logy). If I am, in your view defending/ apologizing for conspiracy theories then I am in your view also one of the conspiracy theorists, no?

    I think you need to face a fact regarding HW. He again and again destroys your arguments using reason and evidence. Part of the reason he is able to destroy you so easily is your arguments are flimsy because, among other things, your arguments lack reason and evidence.

    I mean, look at the garbage comment you just made. You expect me to respond to that junk? You don’t even make sense. Is that comment supposed to be some Schiff like parody that fails to mimic the original and in so doing fails to be parody but succeeds as being a lie?

  95. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    But Jean, you do in fact describe yourself perfectly when you are tripping out about other people. Even if it is not pointed out (what you call ‘I know you are but what am I’) it still is there. You of all people are going to accuse someone else of bloviating and blathering? Funny funny shit. I’m going to archive all the pages on this site I can so Bark can never make it go away.

  96. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    I think you are guilty of projection. I wish you would just read the accusations you make against others and applying them to yourself. I think you would learn a lot about yourself.

    Take DD. We have our disagreements but I also think he makes good points. I actually agree with DD about a lot of stuff whether he knows it or not. I am not qualified to say if DD believes in 9/11 conspiracy theory (because I don’t know much about it) but I will assume he does believe a conspiracy theory. So what? Does that nullify all the other arguments he makes? Is FF required by Jean Henry to disregard all other arguments DD makes just because DD might believe in one thing that might fall under the category “conspiracy theory”?

    Every time Jean labels people as a “conspiracy theorist” it is a very gross act. We should judge the individual arguments based upon the presented reasoning and evidence rather than try to throw shade on the arguer. I hate to say it but it but the gesture of labeling all ties into the idea that you, more than most people, use the logic of bigotry. You are attempting to nullify the individual argument by attacking the credibility of the arguer. It is a dumb and destructive act every time you do it. Cassandra does the same thing when she says “FF has no credibility here”. What does FF’s credibility have to do with anything? If you find an individual argument lacking in credibility then you ought to demonstrate how that individual argument lacks credibility.

  97. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    Frosted Flake’s fulsome flaming of Horrible Henry

  98. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    Please archive it for real!

  99. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    FF — a person who defends those who believe in and promotes conspiracy theories does not necessarily have to believe in or promote them himself.

    What about that is unclear?

    You use a lot of words to say ‘I know you are but what am I?’

    HW is more economical.

    The legitimacy of any of our opinions depends on how grounded they are in reality as well as our subjective take. I try to back my stuff up with legitimate sources, by which, yes, I mean mainstream sources of decent reputation because they are the outlets most read and so most properly vetted in the realm of public discourse by their subjects, readers and experts in the field.

    I’m comfortable with where I stand relative to contemporary reality and facts and future perspectives on these interesting times.

  100. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    PS I don’t rely on my own assessment of what is or is not an untruthful conspiracy theory. There are people who spend a lot of time assessing and debunking these theories. Some of them pan out. 9-11 as a false flag incident is not one of them.

    Why would anyone trust their own individual perception enough to discern the accuracy of a conspiracy theory?

    Only a conspiracy theorist would do that.

  101. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    Your lack of credibility here FF has been established over endless fruitless attempts at dialogue with you, not any single thing. This isn’t cancel culture. You’ve been given a proper airing and been found to stick up the joint.

  102. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    Alhoha, Today was Solidarity Wednesday, so I was walking with the real resistance in front of GM most of the day.
    JH, some expressions that jumped out at me while reading the pychobabel about conspiracies.
    all real conspiracies are exposed by “legitimate investigative reporting” WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN—I can point you to a hundred articles in what is “legitimate” sources (ie. statements by Earl Warren and LBJ). which mention the “conspiracy” between J. Hoover, LBJ, and Earl Warren to subvert an open investigation into the Kennedy assassination. Knowing that the Warren Commission investigation was flawed at its inception, the 94th Congress of the United States of America conducted an investigation and determined that there was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. And I’m the conspiracy theorist just for example.

    “does not imply a clinical diagnosis.” but we will associate it as closely as possible with a very negative clinical diagnosis–that is how smears and slander work.

    “world that is ruled by conspiracies” the operative word in this is “ruled”. I live in a world ruled by natural laws. Other humans live in this world, some of whom engage in conspiracies to advance their interest at the cost of others, or some times to manipulate others to think or act in a particular way.

    If you are “pro-impeachment” you are working on the assumption of a conspiracy involving at least Trump and Guilliani–does that make you a “conspiracy theorist”.

    There is a substantial body of literature that identifies the nomenclature of “conspiracy theory” to the CIA as part of a misinformation campaign carried out against Lane and Garrison–but that to is a conspiracy theory. The intelligence apparatus of the United States would never engage in a misinformation campaign on domestic soil, right?

  103. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    I also admire HW’s economy. It is a skill I wish I possessed.

    What does it mean to say I defend those who believe in conspiracy theories? I defend THEM? I defend WHAT from WHAT? I really don’t get it. It is such a weird thing to say. Can you explain what you mean to the non-bigots out there? Is it that you are disappointed I don’t join you labelling your blog enemies “unreasonable” and “weak-minded” or whatever bullshit personal attack you can think of that is supposed to act as a substitute for actually engaging in an argument based on reason and evidence?

    Has it ever dawned on you that the reason it seems like a lot of our responses feel like a “I know you are but what am I” type- argument to you is because you are, in fact, a projection machine? The good news is you could actually grow a lot as a person if you just read your criticisms of others as criticisms of yourself.

    I don’t think HW was exaggerating at all when he said: “But Jean, you do in fact describe yourself perfectly when you are tripping out about other people.”

    HW’s statement is perfectly true! Give it a test.

  104. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    Aloha, and yes I would like an open and honest investigation into the attack on Sept. 11, 2001. Only those who do not value truth think that Building 7 was brought down by fires caused by debris falling from the other two buildings.—And this is the lie to everything HW, and the Trumpers have to say about conman Donny. He knows it is a lie–his buddy Rudi said the building was being pulled as much as an hour before it collapsed, and yet Trump has done nothing to find the truth.

  105. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    Cancel culture? LOL.

    Just honestly test out HW’s “wacky” theory about your chronic projection and get back to us. I am rooting for you! I truly am.

  106. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    Two people can have equal and opposing view of the same event. The guy on the train and the guy standing beside the train. Perspective is funny like that. One has to apply knowledge and verifiable facts to understand what is actually happening. You probably think you are sitting still right now instead of spinning at a speed of 1000 miles an hour.

  107. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    If you are “pro-impeachment” you are working on the assumption of a conspiracy involving at least Trump and Guilliani–does that make you a “conspiracy theorist”.–

    NOPE. I’m working on the transcript Trump himself provided and the law as interpreted by the chair of the FEC and many other experts. Remember that impeachment is simply a hearing not removal from office.

    Why DD do you think a hearing is not required in this case?

    Trump has been accused of other impeachable offenses. I also think he should have been impeached after Mueller, as apparently Mueller did himself. When a president stands accused of unconstitutional acts then impeachment is, according to Trump’s own justice department, the only avenue for accountability.

    Asking for impeachment does not assume any culpability, just the relative likelihood of it.

  108. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    DD– Tulsi is for impeachment inquiry. Is she a conspiracy theorist?
    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/27/tulsi-gabbard-change-mind-support-impeachment-ip-vpx.cnn

  109. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    “There is a substantial body of literature that identifies the nomenclature of “conspiracy theory” to the CIA as part of a misinformation campaign.”

    ROTFL

    There is for sure limited verifiable evidence of the existence of conspiracy theories. It’s like aliens or something. the very idea of human delusion is delusion.

    Isn’t that what the social scientists meant by closed loop thinking?

  110. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    Case in point for what everyone is saying about you: your characterization there has nothing to do with what you quoted. They both have the term conspiracy theory in them but that is where their relevance to each other ends.

  111. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    Hey HW it was in the link Not the quoted text. They didn’t use the term closed loop thinking. They said ‘self’sealing’ thought processes. Same concept as they define it. Circular logic also works.

    “Finally, and perhaps most crucially, conspiracists’ thought processes are inherently self-sealing, such that contrary evidence is re-interpreted as evidence for the theory.”This reflects the assumption that the stronger the evidence against a conspiracy (e.g., climate scientists being exonerated of wrong-doing), the more the conspirators must want to hide the truth (i.e., investigations were rigged by George Soros to exonerate the scientists).”

    HW: They both have the term conspiracy theory in them but that’s where their relevance to each other ends.’

    You have perfectly illustrated the concept above.

    If I were you , I might just call you a liar.

  112. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

    I can’t believe you don’t understand this. How could it be? It’s so simple. Both your article and what you said in the post has nothing to do with what wobblie said. How do you get through life like this? Your thought process is bizarre and nonsensical.

  113. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    If Randy Quaid performed readings, in front of his multicolored strobe light, of all the stuff Jean writes, it would really elevate Randy Quaid’s weirdness to a new height.

  114. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    I am irritated I am just now finding out about Quaid’s re-enactments. They are great!

    https://youtu.be/ea66zj9AEEI

  115. Jean Henry
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

    HW— oh I see. You can’t understand when I reject a theory about the CIA inventing conspiracy theories with sarcasm. That doesn’t compute. I know in your world no theory is too ridiculous to be untrue (which is a classic sign according to the experts) , so I can see why you wouldn’t get it. .

    And you guys laughed when I said white ppl invented racism.

  116. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 2, 2019 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

    DD did not say that though.

  117. Jean Henry
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 6:14 am | Permalink

    FF— what is you defect?
    I was responding to the absurdity of the statement with a sarcastic comment. I was not repeating what he said.

    If something is said that contradicts your beliefs, it seems your brain just short circuits into a weird defensive attack mode. I think the idea that the CIA created ‘conspiracy theories’ to undermine perception of the truth incredibly ahistorical. I have linked here to Richard Hofstetter’s ‘classic article The Paranoid Style in American Politics.’ It catalogues US conspiratorial belief and political movements based on it back to well before the revolution. I’m not saying that abuses of power don’t occur or that they aren’t obscured from view by the general population. There is a kernel of legitimate fear in every conspiracy theory. Where those legit fears take the conspiratorial mind is another matter. DD’s comment is a great example. Every day here presents examples.

  118. Jean Henry
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 6:17 am | Permalink

    The most interesting thing about spending time here is being able to see the thesis of this piece borne out.

    https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/

  119. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    Aloha JH, What have I said that indicates I am opposed to impeachment? I think Tulsi was right not to call for impeachment over the Russiagate conspiracy theory (which has turned out to be a lot of nothing). I’ve been pointing out the obvious violation of election law since the memorandum of the Ukraine phone call was released. I think we should impeach him and remove him from office. I just don’t see the removal from office happening yet. We will see what Volker says today. He (like Jeb Macgruder) may have the smoking gun which starts the tide to turn in the Senate. If Trump is acquitted—it will have embolden the Leader and his supporters. If the Democratic Leadership was not so inept, we would have 3 or 4 committees performing aggressive over site, but her it is October and there have been no hearings on his aborgation of the Paris Accords, and other treaties—under the constitution they are the law of the land—under what possible authority does Trump have to unilaterally change the laws of the US—but the Democrats don’t even care. Why hasn’t the head of the IRS been held in contempt for not turning over Trumps tax returns?
    The Democrats are heading into a game of hard ball–and all they seem to know how to do is play slow pitch.

  120. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    Nothing you are saying indicates, to me, you understand what DD was saying and the point he was trying to make. That is just my opinion.

  121. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    “…the idea that the CIA created ‘conspiracy theories’ to undermine perception of the truth incredibly ahistorical…”

    The post was about the creation of the TERM conspiracy theory by the CIA which I have not ever seen refuted with facts. The earliest use of it is by the CIA. It’s so strange you can’t understand that.

  122. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    Aloha JH, Here is a link to the CIA memorandum where they discuss the Kennedy conspiracy theories and the need to “To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics” and that , “Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. ” The tactics to use were, “Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. ”

    If you read the memoradum it is apparent that they were chiefly concerned about Oswald being linked to our intelligence apparatus—A fact that we now know is true.

    You are blind and willfully ignorant of anything that disturbs your upper middle class reality.

    http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html

  123. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    I think it is crazy to interpret DD as saying the CIA invented conspiracy theories. However, here is an article that explores the usage of the term. The interesting conversation, IMO, occurs in the comments section when the author is challenged on a few different things—including the potential change in the MEANING of the term. There are interesting graphs that track the prevalence of the word usage in newspapers over time. Whether or not Jean uses the term irresponsibly in a way that weaponizes the term does not hinge on whether or not the CIA actually was the first to weaponize the term in an organized campaign to cast doubt on any specific group. She misses the point because she does not want to confront the point.

  124. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 8:02 am | Permalink

    https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-cia-invented-the-term-conspiracy-theory-in-1967-with-memo-1035-960.t960/

  125. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 8:14 am | Permalink

    I find it insanely fascinating that Jean Is pointing out a parallel between: a) white people invented racism (as a thought process); and b) the cia invented conspiracy theories (as a thought process).

    She admits to saying a) and she defends a) as being true. On the other hand, she thinks b) is absurd. The big problem for Jean is nobody is saying b). Only Jean is saying b).

    Crazy.

  126. John Brown
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    “Tulsi was right not to call for impeachment over the Russiagate conspiracy theory (which has turned out to be a lot of nothing).” – DD

    Do you get a check every time you cover for pootin? Don’t you think that we should actually have an unobstructed investigation before concluding “a lot of nothing”? Have you seen his tax returns? OR the Deutsche bank records of ruskie money laundering that they’ve been actively hiding? Or the NRA financials proving they did not launder ruskie money as part of the $30M they gave agent orange? For christ sake half the GOP were taking snapshots with Maria Butina.

    “We have all the funding we need out of Russia” – Eric Trump

    I know its going to suck coming to grips with how as a trump or third party voter you contributed to the sabotage of the USA, but you better start working on it. Cleopatra syndrome running rampant.

  127. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    If you can see why b) is an absurd thing to think then why would you falsely attribute that idea to DD?

    If you are capable of seeing why b) is absurd then why can’t you see that iRobert is obligated to ridicule you until the end of time for saying a) and trying to defend a)?

    It does not make sense.

  128. Jean Henry
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    It does not surprise me at all that the CIA would try to weaponize a term to disable dissent domestically. But the implication of DD’s comment was that if I don’t buy an unproven conspiracy theory, I’m a to of CIA disinformation campaign— That perfectly exhibits the closed loop logic I pointed to.

    And it is very clear that the word itself was not invented by the CIA much less the concept (thanks FF) , so what rhetorical purpose was served by DD brining it up.

    If I refer to the rhetorical point being made that confuses you all. The reality that what DD or anyone else said is demonstrably false or at minimum extraordinarily unlikely is of no concern however. Whatever.

  129. Jean Henry
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    *tool not to

  130. Jean Henry
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    “Aloha Jean- What have I said that indicated I was opposed to impeachment? ‘

    You didn’t. You called me a conspiracy theorist for supporting an impeachment investigation to uncover the truth. I was defending against that accusation and fucked up conclusion. more distortion via false equivalency

    “If you are “pro-impeachment” you are working on the assumption of a conspiracy involving at least Trump and Guilliani–does that make you a “conspiracy theorist”.” —DD

  131. anonymous
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 8:40 am | Permalink

    if you don’t see racism as a concept invented by the oppressors to facilitate their oppression, then you must see racism as a natural occurrence, which might make you a little racist? because there’s nothing natural about an idea that sets people apart based on how they look cause no two people look *exactly* alike, even twins. no two people talk alike, even people raised in the same household. no two people think alike or have the same ideas of religion anywhere. how different do two people have to look/talk/think from one another before it becomes natural for one to start making them use a different bathroom or going house to house and shooting them or gassing them in camps? if you think that these toxic divisions are natural, sad.

  132. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 8:44 am | Permalink

    “the implication of DD’s comment was that if I don’t buy an unproven conspiracy theory, I’m a to of CIA disinformation campaign— That perfectly exhibits the closed loop logic I pointed to.”

    Quote what you think communicates that idea.

  133. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 9:06 am | Permalink

    “there’s nothing natural about an idea that sets people apart based on how they look cause no two people look *exactly* alike, even twins. no two people talk alike, even people raised in the same household. no two people think alike or have the same ideas of religion anywhere. how different do two people have to look/talk/think from one another before it becomes natural for one to start making them use a different bathroom or going house to house and shooting them or gassing them in camps? if you think that these toxic divisions are natural, sad.”

    Amen

  134. Jean Henry
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    HW– I don’t take orders from you. You can read.

    This entire post was DD’s attempt to question the very concept of conspiracy theories as being mostly false, something that has been demonstrated over and over. PS I never said they were never true. I just quoted experts on the personality traits of people who believe and disseminate them and how they become terribly distorted in their thinking and then, in defense of their belief systems, see those characteristics in verifiable news sources. And so the loop closes. Which is why I’m done engaging here. Also I have a deadline.

    “JH, some expressions that jumped out at me while reading the pychobabel about conspiracies.
    all real conspiracies are exposed by “legitimate investigative reporting” WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN—I can point you to a hundred articles in what is “legitimate” sources (ie. statements by Earl Warren and LBJ). which mention the “conspiracy” between J. Hoover, LBJ, and Earl Warren to subvert an open investigation into the Kennedy assassination. Knowing that the Warren Commission investigation was flawed at its inception, the 94th Congress of the United States of America conducted an investigation and determined that there was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. And I’m the conspiracy theorist just for example.
    “does not imply a clinical diagnosis.” but we will associate it as closely as possible with a very negative clinical diagnosis–that is how smears and slander work.
    “world that is ruled by conspiracies” the operative word in this is “ruled”. I live in a world ruled by natural laws. Other humans live in this world, some of whom engage in conspiracies to advance their interest at the cost of others, or some times to manipulate others to think or act in a particular way.
    If you are “pro-impeachment” you are working on the assumption of a conspiracy involving at least Trump and Guilliani–does that make you a “conspiracy theorist”.
    There is a substantial body of literature that identifies the nomenclature of “conspiracy theory” to the CIA as part of a misinformation campaign carried out against Lane and Garrison–but that to is a conspiracy theory. The intelligence apparatus of the United States would never engage in a misinformation campaign on domestic soil, right?”

  135. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    Aloha JH, “It does not surprise me at all that the CIA would try to weaponize a term to disable dissent domestically. ” Does it surprise you that everything about that memo is criminal? The CIA was illegally operating in the domestic US, targeting two US citizens (who had engaged in no illegality). The purpose of this propaganda misinformation campaign, as stated in the memo, was to shore up the credibility of the Warren Commission (which we now know because of the admissions of two of the principles was truncated and fundamentally flawed) and to misinform the US public on Oswald’s connections to the security intelligence community.

    Now of course the CIA can operate domestically, and can legally engage in misinformation and propaganda campaigns against the US population. I find it very disturbing that so many of the people involved in all of the Trump issues have connections to the CIA.

    JB, do you get a regular stipend from the CIA, or are you a free lancer just paid by the comment? In fact I don’t remember you ever being on this web site before the CIA was given authority to engage in propaganda domestically.

  136. Jean Henry
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    Hw if you want to attack something that was never said or implied, there’s this:

    “The intelligence apparatus of the United States would never engage in a misinformation campaign on domestic soil, right?””

    I said the opposite. That the CIA is deceptive (duh twice) does not mean Q is right. Or any of this crap you all peddle is accurate.

  137. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    Aloha JH, your quoting of me is appreciated, but you fail to see my humor and attempt at demonstrating irony. As a liberal you of course seek comfort and support from “experts”.

  138. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    I can read. That’s right. You can’t explain your interpretation of wobblie’s comment because it makes no sense.

  139. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    “I said the opposite. That the CIA is deceptive (duh twice) does not mean Q is right. Or any of this crap you all peddle is accurate.”

    Pretty sure wobblie wasn’t talking about Q at all so what you said here is not “opposite”. It’s a straw man. Wobs?

  140. Sen Patrick Leahy by proxy
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    If true, so much here is disturbing. Among so many questions, I still want to know WHY RUSSIAN STATE TV KNEW TRUMP ORDERED ANY U.S. OFFICIALS TO NOT ATTEND AN ALLY’S INAUGURATION **FOUR MONTHS** BEFORE ANYONE ELSE KNEW.

    https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1175135257793875968

  141. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    In Jean’s defense, the evidence I use to support my claim that “schiff lied” is that Jean Henry said “the CIA is deceptive” two times.

  142. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    Aloha JH, I was reading some of your “expert” Josh Hart, the author of the study you were quoting from. I admit I have only had a rudimentary education in the science of psychology. I have read some of Freud, Skinner, Pavlov and a few others, once upon a time I even subscribed to Psychology Today. But the academic field of psychology is similar to the academic field of economics, in that both have primarily become training grounds for the apologist of the system.
    Dr. Hart says the following, ““First, it helps to realize that conspiracy theories differ from other worldviews in that they are fundamentally gloomy. This sets them apart from the typically uplifting messages conveyed by, say, religious and spiritual beliefs. At first blush this is a conundrum. However, if you are the type of person who looks out at the world and sees a chaotic, malevolent landscape full of senseless injustice and suffering, then perhaps there is a modicum of comfort to be found in the notion that there is someone, or some small group of people, responsible for it all. If ‘there’s something going on,’ then at least there is something that could be done about it.”
    He maintains that “conspiracy theories differ from other worldviews” he does not say which “other world view” he is comparing, but we can infer he means “Religious and spiritual beliefs” and their “uplifting messages”.
    This is your experts world view. Go join a religion be open to uplifting messages, and be happy—does this describe your world view?

  143. Jean Henry
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    DD- I find your interpretation there very questionable. If someone doesn’t believe in conspiracy theories they must be religious??? That’s bizarre.

    You are ignoring the critical difference. The heart of conspiracy is that a group of people act with intention and organization to defraud. My belief is that most terrible results are the product of innocent or even benevolent intentions. Most terrible results are not conspired to happen; they just happen because people are flawed and too often believe they are right.

  144. John Brown
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    DD, you got me. Can’t slip anything past GRU! Using a cover story of old Union commie pushing a disruptor candidate is definitely more plausible than my gunned up progressive oath keeper.

    I hope you Ruskies aren’t jealous of agent oranges new girlfriends Ukraine and China. He can’t collude with just one authoritarian any more than he can assault only one woman.

  145. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Aloha, While we are all fixated on Trump and impeachment, the regime of strip mining the economy for private gain continues,

    https://socialsecurityworks.org/2019/10/03/trumps-executive-order-is-backdoor-privatization-of-medicare/?fbclid=IwAR0G3X9d4twe4CByzWgDicgTbVmjMubeTvonHk86RiJMJ5znejHrpZ1Zfck

    as an aside, in October 1975 Jimmy Carter was polling at 1% for Democratic Party Nominee

  146. dogmatic dolt
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    Aloha JH, No I was attempting an analysis of your expert Hart. The quote about religion and spirituality is from him. As near as I can tell, from his research, people who have a pessimistic view of the world are more likely to believe in conspiracies. People who have religion, spirituality or some other non-negative view of the world are less likely to believe in conspiracies. The more religious you are, the more world events are controlled by God, or some other super-natural force–thus I can effect no change–might as well be happy.

    Where as folks who are more likely to believe in conspiracies see people as cause, and that people can thus change events. So again, since you decided to deploy the “experts”, which world view do you ascribe too?
    As I have stated, I believe in natural laws, of which cause and effect is one. Thus I tend, particularly as I have gotten older, become much more pessimistic about the future, but am coming to the conclusion that we can no longer do anything about it–which runs counter to your experts conclusions.

    JB, that was actually a pretty good joke–where did you rank on the humor scale?

  147. Jean Henry
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    “The tale of the supposedly hidden server may have appealed to Mr. Trump because it undercut a well-established fact that he has resented and resisted for three years: The Russian government interfered in the 2016 election to help him win, an effort thoroughly documented by American intelligence agencies and amply supported by public evidence.

    By contrast, there is no evidence to support the president’s vague suggestion that Ukraine, not Russia, might be responsible for the hacking, or that CrowdStrike somehow connived in it. But his alternate history has provided a psychological shield for the president against facts that he believes tarnish his electoral victory.‘

    https://apple.news/AFGVk7NSTRJyCqt7qIEXfaQ

  148. Jean Henry
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    DD— I had many many sources. My primary source was an survey of the research on the topic. You are cherry picking one bit to question and ignoring the rest in order to confirm your narrative.

    One of the findings of one of the researchers, Hart, was that the religious were among those less likely to believe in conspiracy theories.

    The rest you project onto him. Read the studies. You might learn something you haven’t decided ahead of time.

  149. Jean Henry
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    “WASHINGTON — Two of President Trump’s top envoys to Ukraine drafted a statement for the country’s new president in August that would have committed Ukraine to pursuing investigations sought by Mr. Trump into his political rivals, three people briefed on the effort said.

    The drafting of the statement is new evidence of how Mr. Trump’s fixation with Ukraine and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories began driving senior diplomats to bend American foreign policy to the president’s political agenda in the weeks after the July 25 call between the two leaders.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/trump-ukraine.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

  150. Sad
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    Ha-Ha –

    Mayor Pete raised more money than Biden. Just less than the sick old guy.

    I wonder how Warren did?

    Hunter should give all his oligarch earnings to his Dad.

    Why does anyone even support Biden st this point?

  151. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    What do you think about the time Hillary claimed there was a vast right wing conspiracy against the Clinton’s, Jean? Insane theory or true?

  152. Jean Henry
    Posted October 3, 2019 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

    Political hatchet jobs are pretty routine HW.

  153. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 4, 2019 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    So you are saying a vast conspiracy is equivalent to a political hatchet job. If that is true and political hatchet jobs are routine then vast conspiracies must be routine.

  154. M
    Posted October 5, 2019 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    Talk about backstabbing!

    “Trump told House Republicans that he made his now infamous phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the urging of Energy Secretary Rick Perry — a call Trump claimed he didn’t even want to make, Axios reports.”

    https://www.axios.com/trump-blamed-rick-perry-call-ukraine-zelensky-8178447a-0374-4ac6-b321-a9454b0565d4.html

  155. Jean Henry
    Posted October 5, 2019 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    HW– The term Vast Right Wing Conspiracy was hyperbole. It differs from Q conspiracies in that it is relatively simple and well documented. Q is the opposite. It wasn’t making predictions and claiming prophetic powers. You just keep throwing up obviously false equivalencies to try to make your points. Anybody who isn’t stuck in 7th grade can see that. Why aren’t you busy defending Trump on the facts? Why do you feel a need to divert the conversation elsewhere? It feels like you are scrambling.

  156. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 5, 2019 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    What a backstabber! He is not very sensitive to other peoples feelings either. Did you guys hear him say he probably preferred going against Biden anyway because Biden seems weak. That shows a lack of compassion for Joe’s feelings if you ask me. String him up!

  157. Anonymous
    Posted October 5, 2019 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    Ever Tucker Carlson knows when it’s time to jump ship.

    Tucker Carlson pens op-ed criticizing Trump’s Ukraine call http://hill.cm/x1hsaMG

  158. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 5, 2019 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    Do you guys read the articles you post?

    Tucker’s viewpoint is common. A lot of other people are on the ship Tucker is not jumping from.

  159. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 5, 2019 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    Do you think when you link and give such a poor summary you are tricking people?

    Odd.

  160. Sad
    Posted October 5, 2019 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    Odd Nerdum?

  161. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 5, 2019 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    More scribble-y. Less meaningful.

  162. Jean Henry
    Posted October 6, 2019 at 5:09 am | Permalink

    https://www.vox.com/2015/7/22/9016527/rick-perry-donald-trump

  163. Sad
    Posted October 6, 2019 at 6:11 am | Permalink

    On the bright side this whole thing hurts both Trump and Biden.

  164. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 6, 2019 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    “Jean Henry
    Posted October 5, 2019 at 6:57 pm | Permalink
    HW– The term Vast Right Wing Conspiracy was hyperbole. It differs from Q conspiracies in that it is relatively simple and well documented. Q is the opposite. It wasn’t making predictions and claiming prophetic powers. You just keep throwing up obviously false equivalencies to try to make your points. Anybody who isn’t stuck in 7th grade can see that. Why aren’t you busy defending Trump on the facts? Why do you feel a need to divert the conversation elsewhere? It feels like you are scrambling.”

    What makes you qualified to characterize Q? Q points us to open source intelligence. That means you can look up information about it yourself. You have no idea what you are talking about as always.

  165. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 6, 2019 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    I don’t see the diversion. If you make a comment about conspiracies and I respond how is it changing the subject? I don’t think the President needs to be defended on the facts. The facts are fine. If he needs to be defended against anything it is the lies of people like you miserable baynarditic lepers.

  166. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 6, 2019 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    We are the ones that convinced even Tucker Carlson to jump ship. We are here to save democracy. We are here to stay. We are Swalwellites. Join us HW.

    https://youtu.be/40LUDxSqgAY

  167. Jean Henry
    Posted October 6, 2019 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    FF– Interesting that you would equate modulating one’s tone to de-escalate a situation as being overly ‘sensitive.’ Almost as interesting as HW’s perspective that AOC not mocking and dismissing a clearly unhinged woman (a plant but how does one know in the moment?) in a crowded hall is indication that she agrees with her on some level.

    You are both emotional infants.

  168. Jean Henry
    Posted October 6, 2019 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    Now Trump is throwing Barr under the bus too. The entire house of cards may come down.
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-dangerous-position-of-william-barr

  169. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 6, 2019 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    I have no idea what you are talking about Jean. But it’s my fault though. What I am experiencing as I read your comment is probably the same sort of puzzlement an infant experiences when in the presence of the speech of a wise elder.

  170. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 6, 2019 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    “Barr knew of Trump’s effort to get Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election by investigating a possible rival”

    You are so easy to manipulate because these people understand how you think. You don’t know the difference between opinion and fact. You can’t answer the most basic question on this line of thinking. How could Trump be asking them to “interfere in our election” (truly laughing my ass off; you already tried that one and failed spectacularly) by asking them to let us know what happened in the lead up to the last election when your party cheated by…getting countries such as Ukraine to interfere with our election. As I said before it is incredible to see. I can’t believe you are all in on this Russiagate Lite second try nonsense. Well I can but I think it’s insane.

  171. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted October 6, 2019 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    Who didn’t know about this back then, let alone now?

    1/11/17

    https://www.politico.eu/article/ukrainian-efforts-to-sabotage-trump-backfire/

    Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

  172. Posted October 11, 2019 at 5:10 am | Permalink

    Pompeo adviser resigning: report

    https://thehill.com/policy/international/465342-pompeo-adviser-resigning-report

    (From The Hill)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Connect

Sidetrack ad Aubree’s ad BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Poop Modrak