A thing that needs to be said. · 6:26am Jul 15th, 2017
I have, throughout my time on this site, strenuously avoided talking about politics. I am about to break that streak, though hopefully in a VERY limited way.
It is not that I am afraid to talk about controversial subjects on here. Far from it. I was, after all, once banned from this site for four days for " attacking another member's religious beliefs"( which was a nutty claim, the other member wrote a post declaring that science has " proven" young earth creationism, I wrote a line by line refutation. I wasn't attacking a religious belief, I was attacking a denial of self evident reality. I guess if someone claims that it is their earnest religious belief that the world's oceans consist of molten lead, anyone who may dare to say " uhh no?" on this site is at risk of getting banned for attacking religious beliefs... sheesh). Sorry for the digression, but from the digression itself , you should be able to note that I am more than willing to get prickly. The thing resembles itself.
The real reason i do not talk about politics here is simple... it is the thing I MOST argue about. Here? This is where I get away from that arguing. This is my sanctum, and I do not wish to pollute it with that endless never ending wall of noise.
So I am not going in this post going to talk about policy. I am not here to talk about gun control/ foreign policy/ gay rights/religious liberty/ civil rights/ tax policy/immigration/ abortion/healthcare etc etc etc etc etc, and if you post your views on any of these topics in the comments,well bully good for you, but I will studiously ignore your comment, lest i get dragged into the never ending spiral on this site as well .
But there are some arguments that are being made, that literally just stop me in my tracks, they literally hurt my heart and my brain, because I can't imagine that somebody can make such an argument without realizing what they are engaging in.. And yet they seem not to realize it.
So here is what is going on now. A Columbia Law school professor went on MSNBC and was asked how much trouble Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner were in legally due to their now disclosed ( but previously very undisclosed) meeting with a russian lawyer ( and a former Soviet counter intelligence officer.. and probably more " interesting" people by the time this actually get posted, they seem to be getting added to the meeting at a rate of two a day) who claimed to be acting in the name of the russian government and promised compromising material on Hillary Clinton... material the lawyer and her former spy friend apparently did not deliver. The Law professor said... actually nothing that we know of ( as of the moment of his interview) would be something that would lead directly to a clear indictment. There is no slam dunk legal case, as of now.
And Lo and behold this video is catching on fucking fire! " See liberal snowflakes a professor at liberal Columbia law says there is nothing here!! Stop wasting our time with your Russian nothing burger!"
umm okay... I think you are missing a point here. Apart from the fact that he did not say there was " nothing there"...but you interpreted it that way. Which is kind of the point.
See I am not in a position to criticize the professor's legal analysis. I mean I have more standing than most people on here, since I actually AM a lawyer in real life, that being the mechanism through which I pay my bills, the biggest one being my six figure student loan debt. But I have no reason to believe that the Columbia Law professor " erred" in his analysis. All the contrary I have every reason to believe his reasoning is sound and that, indeed, with the evidence that we have before us at this very moment, there is not enough material to bring forward a criminal indictment against either the younger Trump or Mr. Kushner.
But ..... so what? How does this end the story? What is the clear victory? How can you stand there and say that this is okay?
Or to play my card early and show you were I am going : Assume that instead of Mr Kushner and Mr Trump jr, the name up there was " Chelsea Clinton" and we flipped around the names of Pres. Trump and Sec . Clinton. What if, Chelsea Clinton had met with a Russian Lawyer and her ex KGB counter intelligence friend who claimed , via written communication, to represent " The Russian Government's attempt to help Secretary Clinton" and then it turned out that instead of showing up with the dirt on Mr Trump they ended up apparently whining about some anti corruption tariffs the US slapped on Russia. And what If a Law school professor went on Fox news and said, that with the evidence before us at this moment, there is not Enough material to bring forth a criminal indictment on Chelsea Clinton?
Being people who have sound logical principles and sound moral and ethical principles, you would of course, say that this is a nothing burger and the media should stop wasting the public s time with this " Clinton campaign colluding with the Russians" nonsense.
Right?
Right?
Right???
I mean if you are in any way logically, morally and ethically consistent this is the only position you can take, the only position you MUST take. That is what is acceptable when a Trump does it or a Trump Ally does it, is ALSO acceptable when a Clinton does it, or a Clinton ally. What is Unacceptable when A Clinton does it, is also unacceptable when A Trump does it ( and of course vice versa, it goes both ways, it MUST go both ways, that is my whole point.)
So when you say that Trump Campaign inner circle members gleefully going to a meeting with self proclaimed representatives of a foreign nation ( the one that has been our nations main geopolitical foe for the last 70 years) who are here to supposedly provide dirt on Hillary Clinton is fine by you YOU ARE LOGICALLY ALSO SAYING that Clinton Campaign inner circle members gleefully going to a meeting with self proclaimed representatives of a foreign nation ( the one that has been our nations main geopolitical foe for the last 70 years) who are here to supposedly provide dirt on Donald Trump is fine by you .
Except of course that we all know that if the roles were reversed the people defending these actions would have a seizure a stroke and simultaneously shit out a litter of puppies.
Which of course means that they believe that either logic is no longer a thing, OR THEY BELIEVE THE RULES OF MORALITY AND ETHICS APPLY DIFFERENTLY TO THEIR TEAM THAN TO THE OTHER TEAM which of course what they apparently actually believe even if they never verbalize it in such a way.
And they don't seem to see how this is unacceptable.
Also, of course,by their logic, their beloved Benghazi and Private email server where " nothing burgers " and wastes of their times as well. The Benghazi investigation failed to cause any indictments of Hillary clinton or her close associates.
As for the email server Then FBI Director James Comey said this:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
Well, by the logic discussed in this essay in re Trump JR and Kushner and the russians this is a big nothing burger! a waste of time nothing to see here folks! go home.
Wait.
Hold on.
let us reread that statement, and this time let us highlight some different words:
although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
That makes it seem like FBI director Comey thought Sec. Clinton behaved in a bad way! Which In fact I am damn sure he believed.
It is almost like a person can behave in an unethical or scandalous manner and not rise to the level of an indictable offense.... which must mean that not being indictable does not automatically mean you behaved in an ethical manner! It is almost like morality and ethics on the one hand, and prosecutable offenses in the United States legal system, on the other, are not perfectly congruent , directly mappable unto each other in a one to one relationship! who would have thunk it!
I can already hear the furious "but but but Clinton" comment being typed below, in which somehow asks how I can Defend Hillary ( or even more irrelevantly Bill) Clinton when they did xyz . Hey , stop it, go read through this whole post, and point out to me please where I defend Hillary Clinton. It is nowhere. I do not defend her in this post, and I will not defend her in the comments.
Interestingly, though I am sure it comes accross crystal clear that my sympathies do not lie with him, nowhere in this post do I directly attack Donald Trump or any of his people either. Seriously, go reread it again.
What I am attacking is this idea that " my team" gets Special Super lenient morality, while i get to judge those evil america hating motherfuckers over there with Draconian Fuck You Morality.
Whenever you say " my team can get away with this" you are ALSO SAYING" the other team can get away with the same thing under the same circumstances. " when You say It is not a problem when Team Trump behaves in this manner" you are ALSO SAYING" I would not have had a problem with Team Clinton behaving in the exact same manner." You do not get to acquit your guy of something that would have caused you a rage attack if the other side had done it. To behave otherwise is to be morally bankrupt, ethically bankrupt, and logically bankrupt.
The only defense I can think of to what I just said is an " end justifies the means" defense. That is, you must claim that the other side is such an irredeemable clear and present danger to society that they must be stopped at all costs, and that this gives your team carte blanche to put aside law, justice morality and ethics. This is an incredibly dangerous argument, because if enough people in a nation come to believe this, then after a certain event horizon democracy simply ceases to function. It scares me how many people already accept this way of thinking
I could give a long-ish response but I feel like this quote and retort summarize my thoughts nicely.
Nah. It's not.
4610987
well that was useful.