HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » H2O Man » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »

H2O Man

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Dec 29, 2003, 08:49 PM
Number of posts: 65,823

Journal Archives

"Make It Plain"

The media is reporting numerous extremely important stories on an on-going basis. Two current, closely related events include Trump's role in his son's meeting with Russians for “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, and Paul Manafort's first criminal trial. The complexity of these stories is such that it can be difficult to remember everything from as recent as one month ago.

Trump and Rudy Giuliani are actively both trying to cloud the issues, and get ahead of bad news they know is coming right around the corner. White House spokespeople are, at very best, habitually having the claims they make supporting Trump being exposed had absolutely untrue. It's a combined effort to confuse the general public.

That's why I think it is important that Democrats – including those running for office – practice one of Malcolm X's instructions: “Make it plain.” (In fact, that's the title of one of the very best books about Malcolm, as well as a related documentary.) I recognize that none of our party's candidates can run exclusively as “anti-Trump,” but it is an issue that will surface in every campaign. And there are some outstanding Democrats in both the House and Senate that are speaking truth on CNN and MSNBC.

It's extremely important that Democrats at the grass roots level also discuss the Trump-Russian scandal. In part, this is to counter the attempt by Trump to confuse the public, so that republicans can have an excuse to not impeach him. It is also equally important to do to educate the public on the dangerous nature of the crimes the Trump campaign committed, and why it is so important to vote for Democrats in November.

I'm comfortable saying here that I believe that vote tallies in sections of three states – Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – were tampered in a manner that changed the “official” outcome of the 2016 election. But I can't prove it, and thus can not “make it plain” in a public discussion. Thus, I focus on what can be proven – that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to influence the outcome of the election.

The Trump “family business” had extensive dealings with Russian entities connected to Putin for decades. Thus, when Donald Jr. was contacted about potential “dirt” on Clinton, he readily accepted the offer. He wasn't offended that a foreign adversary was attempting to influence our election. No, these were “family friends.” He said that he loved it, especially if the “dirt” came out during the general election contest.

Michael Cohen says that Junior came into a meeting between Trump and Cohen, and informed his father of the offer. Rudy Giuliani denied that, but then spoke of a second meeting that followed, where the top people discussed the upcoming meeting with the Russians. This meeting was to discuss how the campaign could best disguise that the campaign was coordinating with Russia.

In the meeting with the Russians, it was agreed that the stolen e-mails from the DNC and Clinton campaign would go through a cut-out. Manafort identified Roger Stone as the person in charge on the Trump campaign's side. The Russians would make use of Guicifer 2.0 and Wikileaks. In return, the Trump campaign would alter the republican platform on Ukraine, and lift the Magnitsky Act sanctions if Trump was elected.

Junior called his father both right before and after this meeting on a private line. Trump would soon make a claim that he was preparing a speech on Clinton's “corruption.” Manafort was able to pressure the republicans to alter their platform. Although Trump never made the “corruption” speech he had promised, he soon blurted out his infamous “Russia, if you're listening” request. And hours later, Russians attempted to hack Hillary Clinton's e-mails.

In the months that followed, when the Trump Tower meeting was exposed by the media, panic set in the group that had conspired with the Russians. Both the father and son, along with co-conspirators, attempted to lie about the meeting. This shows consciousness of guilt. Junior went so far as to lie to a congressional committee. Some of the half-wits who were not directly involved in the conspiracy would parrot those lies to the media, because Trump lied to them, too. When a client lies to his defense lawyers, it's never a good thing. Thus Jay Sekulow's humiliating admission this weekend that he had “bad information” when he claimed Trump didn't dictate Junior's statement.

The Trump campaign – including the candidate – conspired with the Russians. It's as plain as that.

In Cold Blood

As we watch the melt-down of Donald Trump via twitter and rallies, it may be worthwhile to consider something that a retired federal prosecutor recently explained on the news. He was taking part in a discussion on the differences between interrogating a “common” criminal versus a “con man.” Most criminals, he noted, recognize that they are outlaws. This is like John Dillinger, who believed that robbing banks was his job, and the police's job was to catch him.

Once caught, common criminals tend to do one of two things: the weaker ones rat out others to try to get a reduced sentence, while those who subscribe to the criminal code of conduct accept their fate. In modern times – and this is pre-DSM 5's shift for insurance coverage – these people were labeled with “anti-social personality disorder.” A few of these criminals have been able to rise to powerful positions in mainstream society before being unmasked as common criminals. Richard Nixon is a fine example.

The retired prosecutor explained that these people are far easier to interview, and break, than those known as “con men” or related terms. For these “con men” are convinced that they can lie their way out of any situation. Their confidence in their ability to manipulate is rooted in years of experience. This includes a belief that they can out-smart anyone by way of spontaneously lying off the top of their heads.

These are known as sociopaths (or psychopaths, depending upon if one separates genetics from environmental factors). Years ago, when I did an in-service training at my place of employment on sociopaths, I used a section from the book “In Cold Blood” to illustrate sociopathy in action. First published in 1966, this was the best-selling “true crime” book until Vincent Bugliosi published “Helter Skelter”; it remains the second best-seller today.

In it, Truman Capote tells the story of the murder of the Herb Clutter family in rural Kansas, a vicious crime that shocked the nation. There is a part where the two men who commit the murders go shopping. Perry is the classic anti-social, and Dick is the sociopath. In business after business, Dick is able to evaluate and then manipulate the clerks into literally giving them “free stuff,” that he has no intention of ever paying for. This is the approach a sociopath takes when being interviewed by an investigator – rapid evaluations that lead to attempts to manipulate in an manner aimed at not paying for one's crimes.

It's worth briefly considering part of the book “Helter Skelter,” too. When Charlie recognizes the gig is up, what does he do? He convinces some of his “family” – in this case, all females – to try to both take the fall for the crimes, and to implicate other men. But not Charlie. Sociopaths manipulate anti-socials.

This brings us to the question: is Trump mentally ill? As is well-documented in Bandy Lee's book, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” the president is a classic sociopath. This is a personality type, distinct from a mental illness. It involves brain structures, and this is why normal people often describe sociopaths as “cold-blooded” and reptilian. At the same time, it is accurate to say that a sociopath under extreme pressure can experience episodes of psychosis – or breaks from reality. Hence, the current melt-down, in which the sick puppy attempts to manipulate reality.

Does Trump really want to talk to Mr. Mueller? Does he really believe he can convince Mr. Mueller that the investigation is a witch hunt? I think that part of him does. But the other part of him is scared shitless.

Being for the Benefit of Mr. Q

“I told you about the walrus and me, man
You know we're as close as can be, man
Well here's another clue for you all
The walrus was Paul.”
John Lennon; Glass Onion

I've read some OP/threads here regarding the curious phenomenon known as “Q-anon.” I suspect that I have been aware of Q for longer than most people on this forum. That, of course, does not make my opinion of the group any more valuable than that of anyone else. However, I may be able to put it into a slightly different context than most, and one that I believe is worth considering.

In my humble opinion, for whatever it is worth, two people have turned what started out as a prank into an effort to divide and discredit the republican base. The two attended college together in the 1970s, where they were politically active. In the decades since, while they have remained friends, one became more of a liberal-moderate Democrat, who has had a career in government before retiring last summer. The second one remained a progressive, though not as radical as he had been in his youth, as he had a career in human services.

The two have remained good friends over the decades, despite periods of time when they either talked on the phone (and now internet), or got together in various settings around the northeast. The presidency of Donald Trump is unacceptable to the pair. Thus, about 16 months ago, while sharing a smoke while listening to the Beatles' “White Album,” they decided to target and exploit the over-active imaginations of a vulnerable group of far-right space cats.

The ideal victims of such monkey warfare would be a sub-group that was convinced they had The Answer, with the group being small enough that each member reinforced the others' perception. This creates an environment that allows for perception management. It is especially easy if that small group is invested in conspiracy theories.

The para-human specimens that would mutate into the larger current movement within the bowels of the republican party was perfect. Most believed that the same forces that took JFK out were now targeting Trump. This caused the two Democrats to focus their attention on the character “Mr. X” from the movie “JFK,” who explained the Deep State to Kevin Costner's character in the park. Surely, the group would easily swallow the concept of a Mr. X contacting them, to say they did indeed have The Answer, and that their country sorely needed them to solve today's vast conspiracy to protect Trump. Hook, line, and sinker.

Since Mr. X was already taken, the pair opted for the letter Q. Relying upon the technical skills of the retired social worker's son, they found the best non-traceable manner to initiate the leader of the pack of jackasses. They started with “information” the group would find fit their concept of reality. Slowly, over time, they left bread crumbs that led the expanding group to wilder beliefs. Before they knew it, the group had grown in size and insanity beyond the two men's wildest dreams.

The two old buddies realized that opportunity knocked: if they could get the Q group to become visible, and identified with the “new” republican party, it had the potential to damage the republicans going into the 2018 mid-term elections. Just attending rallies – especially Trump's events – was not enough, Q informed the group. They had to have tee-shirts and posters to help deliver the message. The nation's future depended upon their heroic efforts to teach The Answer. Q & Associates in the intelligence community were counting on these brave patriots.

Now, as anyone and everyone paying attention has noticed, the media will frequently focus upon the gad flies who attend rallies and political gatherings. It's a way to disguise the discrediting of the larger group as entertainment. It's a tried and true practice that has been used against many movements, including the environmentalists'. It has been less often used against the rabid right; for example, the Tea Party was made to look patriotic, rather than idiotic. Not this time!

Thus, I believe that Democrats should make good use of Q-anon. Identify them as representing the republican party. Heck, refer to them as leaders. Keep in mind the Q mantra, used in response to the question, “Can you prove any of this is true?” …. “You can't prove it's not true.”

Fight the Good Fight, and keep a sense of humor,
H2O Man

Current Events

Perhaps the most valuable services that the media is providing the general public at this time is found in the interviews of individuals who rank as “expert witnesses” in the court of public opinion. One example is Malcolm Nance, who explains the workings of the intelligence community, as it relates to the Russian-Trump scandal. By listening to Mr. Nance, and reading his books, the public gains the knowledge needed to come to a proper understanding of current events.

Likewise, both CNN and MSNBC frequently feature retired federal prosecutors to explain how the legal system works. One of the most important among these is Paul Butler, who is currently a professor at Georgetown University's Law Center. His insights are as important to our understanding of the federal court system, as are Mr. Nance's to our grasp of his area of expertise.

In one of his July appearances on MSNBC, for but one example, Mr. Butler noted that the Department of Justice has a policy of not subpoenaing targets of investigations to testify before a grand jury. This policy, he explained, is distinct from the approach taken with subjects of investigations. With that in mind, we can view the status of some of the members of the Trump campaign, transition team, and administration in a more accurate light.

It may be of particular value in understanding the growing tensions between Mr. Mueller and Trump and his legal team. Publicly, of course, we have witnessed Rudy Giuliani's attempts to both confuse the public, and “get out ahead” of stories that the legal team believes are about to break. As tempting as it is to focus on Rudy, it is important to remember Malcolm X's saying, “Don't aim at the puppet, aim at the puppeteer.”

The serious discussions between Trump's legal team and the Mueller team do not involve Giuliani. He is merely a prop in the court of public opinion, and not a serious legal defense attorney. The nonsense he spouts is therefore best understood as a reaction to the pressure the actual team is experiencing in their communications with Mr. Mueller. Let's look at a current example.

In the past, the Trump team told the Mueller team that the president could not have been attempting to obstruct justice in his private conversations with Mr. Comey regarding “going easy” on General Flynn, because Trump was unaware the FBI was currently investigating Flynn. This week, we learn for certain what we all suspected – that two members of the White House staff had informed Trump that the FBI was investigating Flynn. And that a short time after being thus informed, Trump spoke with Mr. Comey. Thus, by definition, Trump was attempting to obstruct justice.

Keep in mind that Mr. Mueller is in possession of Trump's original letter for firing Mr. Comey, which is distinct from the letter that Mr. Rosenstein was tasked with producing the following day. Safe to say that Trump's rough draft did not focus on the anguish he felt for Mr. Comey's public comments on Hillary Clinton.

This explains exactly why Trump and Rudy are behaving the way they currently are. It is the only alternative that guilty people have, when prosecutors have as much overwhelming evidence as Mr. Mueller's team has.

Always listen carefully to Paul Butler.

The Last Temptation of Trump

“Then Donald of Trump was led by his caddie upon a gold course to playeth with himself. For 40 years, he had been a buffoon, wandering through desert of failed business ventures and moral bankruptcy. And thus he was tempted: 'I am Donald of Trump, begotten of a line of racist thieves. Merrily, merrily, I say unto myself, I must cheat and steal from others.'

“It was then that Donald of Trump was approached by Michael the Cohen, who said unto him, 'You could be transformed, and enjoyeth the temporary favor of Russian wealth. Yet I sayeth unto you, that ye must first be willing to launder some cash.' Thus, Donald of Trump sayeth, 'Deal me in.'

“Upon the green appeared numerous females urinating to be with Donald of Trump, who did not wait to be sorely tempted. 'I am Donald of Trump' he saideth, 'and I shall make a hole in one upon this verily golf course.' Donald the Trump toldeth his pick she seemed familiar, to which Ivanka the Stepford baptized him with moist open limbs.

“Donald the Trump was then summoned unto the top of Trump Tower, for a meeting with three wise guys, who had journeyed from Russia bearing gifts for him. They performed great miracles that made it appear Donald the Trump was actually a successful businessman. And thus they beckoned him unto Moscow, to worship at the feet of Putin.

“Whilest Donald the Trump was in Moscow, he met with some of Putin's followers, who instructed him to grasp unto worldly powers. 'It is your destiny,' they counseled unto him, 'as Donald the Trump, begotten from your father's very scrotum, to rule your nation, and led the twelve tribes of white nationalism therein to the broken promises land.' And Trump saideth, 'Merrily, merrily, I say unto you, okay. But can you help?'

“Thereafter, Donald the Trump was made ruler of his nation. Yet Comey of Deep State therein plotted to destroy him. Yet, Donald the Trump had learned from the lap of Putin to wage battle against those enemies who favored the truth. Thus, he attacked the press, the intelligence community, and the judicial system. Then, Donald the Trump ordered that he be served Comey's head upon a golden platter.

“The death of Comey did not relieve the pressure upon Trump, for Comey of Deep State was replaced by Mueller the Just. 'Someone must payeth the price for this,' said Trump. His flock was sorely amazed when he commanded his closest followers to hurl themselves off of cliffs, and many were willing to thrust their earthly bodies under the bus. Yet the political death and incarceration did naught to relieve the pressures upon him.

“Therefore and thereafter, Donald the Trump sought counsel with Putin in the land of Helsinki. Putin instructed Trump to display his power to the world, by doing what no other leader of his nation had ever considered. So on stage, Trump bowed on bended knee and kissed Putin's ring. Although he expected the earth's people to applaud, Trump was verily sore to learn they were turning against him.

“Once home in his mansion, Donald the Trump was subjected unto more pressure. His once trusted aide Michael of Cohen betrayed him. Cohen spoke about Trump's coordinating with Putin. Despite his court jester Rudy G's efforts to spin, it soon became known that Hope the Hick had already informed Mueller of a Trump Tower meeting that Trump knew thereof.

“And that's the beginning of the end, folks!”

Reestablishing Democracy

It is said that when the ancient philosopher Confucius was asked what he would do if he had ultimate political power, he answered to insist that words be used properly. We can all recognize the wisdom of this when we listen to fools like Donald Trump speak, as was perhaps best illustrated when he attempted to lie about “would” versus “wouldn't.” Such pathetic nonsense tends to unite people who reject his babble.

Because languages can change over time, there is a potential for even Good People to speak or write words in a correct way, and have them misinterpreted as insults by other Good People. There is likewise the potential for Good People to use words correctly, with the intent of insulting others. And, of course, Good People can misuse words, with the best of intentions. What each of these three scenarios have in common is that they can all create divisions between various members of the Democratic Party.

While I could be wrong, as I often am, I think that there is evidence of this in various discussions on this forum. Hence, rather than address my concerns on other members' threads, I'd like to briefly talk about some examples here. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, and recognize that my responsibility is to try to communicate as clearly as possible, without insulting others, even if I disagree with them.

Let's start with the word “establishment.” It is a neutral word that is used to describe things ranging from a business, a political organization, or even a church. Most establishments include a hierarchy within its membership. This, again, is neutral, although hierarchies contain both a positive and negative potential when put into practice. This is entirely due to the fact that these are comprised of human beings.

The Democratic Party is an establishment. It features numerous levels of hierarchy, from the local committee, to the state and national committees. As a general rule, this is a good thing, for without any structure, the party could not function. This doesn't mean the people in the higher levels of local, state, or national committees are perfect. Some make honest mistakes. A few have even been corrupt over the decades. Human beings are, after all, human

Yet the biggest area for the potential for damaging infighting comes not from when groups (or individuals) within the establishment attempt to introduce new ways – or what they believe are new – which are met with resistance from others. This is a normal feature for any group that is addressing social-political issues. Indeed, such tensions can result in growth if people are open-minded and creative.

The people that make up the Democratic Party have a wide span of beliefs and positions. And there are an almost endless number of inter-related issues, resulting in an individual being capable of being moderate on some issues, and liberal on others. That's a good thing, in my opinion. It allows a community to find common ground.

There are four basic sub-groups of people in our party. They include conservatives, moderates, liberals, and progressives. No sub-group has a monopoly on truth, nor on being either wrong or less-right. It may be best to view them as the four fingers on a hand, each with their unique value, that combine to benefit the hand.

Those who run the various levels of party committees, or establishments, tend to be liberal-to-moderate. Many have served in their organization for years, even decades. Those at the local level do so as unpaid volunteers. Even if we do not “like” some as individuals, we should maintain a sense of respect for the work that they have done, and continue to do. As a resident of rural, upstate New York where republicans are in the majority, I know how isolated many of these good people frequently feel.

There tend to be cycles in our party, where either the progressives on the left, or conservatives on the right of the liberal-moderates, take a more active interest in exercising influence on what tactics and candidates the Democrats should employ and run. This has the potential to create negative tensions. Those who have served in leadership roles tend to be wary of new ideas that go against the established practices.

Those negative tensions are often increased by a number of factors. An important one involves economics, including people's financial status. Other factors include education levels and experience. In times past, issues that played important roles included age, sex, race, and religion. Just as progress has been made with those last four factors, if we maintain open minds, our party can make the same type of progress in the other areas. For in the final analysis, we are no longer in a place and time where we can fail to understand that we are all in this together.

Obviously, at least to anyone reading through DU:GD, a strain of this negative tension is being experienced in relation to some of this year's Democratic primary contests. The below NY Times article describes some of this dynamic:


That there is some degree of tension is to be expected. The article frames it as being a negative that threatens to divide the party. And if hostilities increase between the various sub-groups (fingers), it will be negative. Yet, this does not have to be the case.

No single group of Democrats should believe that they, and they alone, have the right to select each and every candidate. Or what each candidate should run their campaign. Or what other Democrats they break bread with. Those who believe they have that power and right tend to attack the other candidate(s), as well as their supporters, rather than focusing on the strengths of their favored candidate. Nothing good can come to the Democrat Party from such ignorant behavior.

It's curious: when I was young, many of my generation considered it a badge of honor to be considered “anti-establishment.” As the years have passed, some of us can be found among the progressives, the liberals, the moderates, and the conservatives. The same distribution is found among younger generations. And there is not only room for everyone within the Democratic Party, but there is a great need for the variety of their positions.

H2O Man

Orange Squirrel, Red Sparrow.

“This world and yonder world are incessantly giving birth: every cause is a mother, its effect the child. When the effect is born, it too becomes a cause and gives birth to wonderous effects. These causes are generation on generation, but it needs a very well lighted eye to see the links in their chain.”
Halal-ad-din Rumi; Persian Sufi poet.

I think the mainstream media is doing a good job in reporting on the Russian-Trump conspiracy scandal. But I believe that they are overlooking a few clearly visible links in the chain in many reports. Perhaps this is due to management's restrictions. Or it could be due to concerns about just where the causes and effects lead.

A significant number of people on MSNBC and CNN, for example, have said that Trump is incapable of separating the Russian crimes from possible collusion, and his ego keeps him from admitting the Russians impacted the election, as it might reflect badly on him. Baloney. He doesn't separate the two, for the simple reason that he knows very well they are as connected as Siamese twins.

Trump is a wanna-be mob boss, who has had connections with various organized crime families over the decades. He welcomed the Russian money in years past. He was as eager to conspire with them to steal the 2016 election as was his son. They were gleeful. Thus, numerous people connected to his campaign, transition team, and administration had meetings with Russians that they have lied about ever since.

While I'm at it, as one fellow recently said on television, does anyone really believe that when some attractive Russian prostitutes showed up at his hotel door, that his up-right character resulted in his saying, “No thank you. I can't do this, because I'm married?” Really?

The only rational explanation for the sum-total of his reactions to this investigation, from day one to today, is his consciousness of guilt. And that sum-total includes over one hundred individual behaviors that each point exactly – and only – to his conscious efforts to cover up and hide his guilt.

There's another important link that needs close examination. To see it properly, we need to understand that political science is part of a larger field of study, sociology. Consider the young lady recently charged with being a Russian spy, who attempted to infiltrate and influence groups including republican politicians, CPAC, and the NRA. Her efforts weren't limited to electing specific candidates, and helping a pro-Russian sect to take control of the republican party. It included planting the seeds of social disruption, by promoting a paranoid gun culture. The implications are clear.

I've said that, to ask this: is it really a good time to argue about differences between the various sub-groups within the Democratic Party? To invest in bitterness from past disagreements? To engage in behaviors that give birth to further divisions? Or might this be a time when we do not have the luxury of in-fighting, a time where we need to set our differences behind us so that we can concentrate upon that which is most urgent?

H2O Man

A Wonderful World

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book,
Don't know much about the french I took
But I do know that I love you,
And I know that if you love me, too,
What a wonderful world this would be

Don't know much about geography,
Don't know much trigonometry
Don't know much about algebra,
Don't know what a slide rule is for
But I do know that one and one is two,
And if this one could be with you,
What a wonderful world this would be.
-- Sam Cooke

I think that Sam Cooke song sums up the Trump-Putin meeting fairly well. I note that the White House hasn't officially denied that Trump attempted to croon the tune. More, there are no media reports that state for certain otherwise.

As bad as yesterday was, the response has been encouraging. It's true that not as many republicans from DC publicly reacted with horror at Trump's treasonous outbursts. Nor did his entire White House staff and administration resign in protest. Were we in a healthy society, these things would surely have taken place. But one-third of our society is ill, and that includes those republicans who do not speak out.

On the positive side, the media has spoken out so harshly that Trump was forced to “walk back” his highly unpopular claims. The fact he offered a feeble excuse is good, too, since no thinking person can conclude he was sincere. For he has run his loud mouth and tweeted far too much about a witch hunt and corrupt intelligence community for him to be believed.

European allies also responded in shock and horror as Trump exposed – just as surely as Mr. Mueller's future indictments and report will – that Trump is a traitor and a national and international security threat. And there is no lie that Sarah Huckabee Sanders or Kellyanne Conway can tell that can possibly spin this in another direction. No, everything points towards Donald Trump's loyalty to Putin.

While there can be little doubt that Trump will do more damage on both the domestic and international levels, the American people can play an important role in reducing his ability to do so. We can be certain that his most mindless followers are contacting their elected representatives. And so we have to make the effort to do so, as well. This doesn't include contacting only those who represent – or are supposed to represent – you. Contact the Democrats, of course. But also contact the offices of republicans. All of their salaries come from your tax dollars.

This is as important to do right now, as taking part in our Democratic candidates' campaigns and voting in November. That's the reason it is outlined in Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights. And doing so will help to insure that Trump is impeached, convicted, and hopefully indicted and convicted, in 2019.

Fight the Good Fight, and what a Wonderful World it will be!
H2O Man

DU survey

Do you think that the topic of impeachment should be addressed by Democratic candidates in the 2018 elections? Should this be up to the individual candidates, or should it be part of a party platform?

There are no right or wrong answers. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, I think that today's events may result in more people believing it is an issue for open discussion. Others may believe that candidates should wait for Mr. Mueller to issue a report. Both are valid viewpoints.

This is a strange and dangerous time. Stay strong. We shall overcome.

Thank you for your consideration.

Indictments (Phase Two)

In my Saturday evening post, I focused upon some of the current and future results that are indicated by last week's indictments of 12 Russian military intelligence officers. Today, I'd like to look at those indictments' relationship to some past events. I suspect that a better understanding of the events of 2016 can help us better prepare for both the 2018 and 2020 elections.

Yesterday, Trump and some of his backers claimed this was “all Obama's fault.” It's safe to say that everything Trump and fiends say is a lie. But there is reason to look closer at what President Obama did in his confronting the situation. President Obama warned Putin to stop interfering with the elections. It's important to note how the Russians had infiltrated state and local voter rolls. It is reasonable to assume they had the capability to either remove Democrats from the rolls, or to “flip” votes.

At this point, one can only speculate how much damage the Russians may have already done. But what seems clearer is that the step taken by President Obama may have prevented further damage on election day. There are people who believe that President Obama should have done more to assist the Clinton campaign by publicly exposing the Russian operation. However, because it was an active counter-intelligence investigation, he did what he believed was the right thing. I think he did more than the public will ever know.

From the evidence available now, it is evident that the Russian-Trump operation is responsible for Trump's “victory” in 2016. Hence, while people can correctly note the roles that James Comey, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the Clinton and Sanders supporters, and the media played, none of these was in and of themselves the reason Trump “won.” Rather, the Russian-Trump operation exploited these, and the synergism dictated the election's outcome.

When we fully recognize this reality, it becomes clear that every time someone blames President Obama for not doing enough, Jim Comey for his October notification to Congress, claims Bernie would have defeated Trump, or points to errors in the Clinton campaign's top staff, it only exasperbates the situation. The focus must be on the Russian-Trump conspiracy, in order to best prevent future damage to the Democratic Party. In the words of the Civil Rights movement, we must keep our eyes on the prize.

Next, two things regarding Trump's meeting with Putin. As I noted yesterday while discussing this with “kentuck” on this forum, it was curious to hear people in the mainstream media ask if Trump would confront Putin on the indictments. The last time I heard a puppet talk back to a puppeteer was in the 1960s, on the Ed Sullivan Show. It's not like Trump was unaware that Putin was helping his campaign.

Finally, regarding if anyone will ever know what Trump and Putin discuss in private, it is important to remember that some of the evidence – in this case, actual recordings of Russian military intelligence officers' conversations about the hacking and distribution of e-mails – came from the intelligence offices of the nation where Trump and Putin are meeting.

Keep your eyes on the prize!
H2O Man
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »