CDZ The Greatest Hysteria in American History

[BookShaka]

The Greatest Hysteria In American History — Investor's Business Daily

You and I are living through the greatest mass hysteria in American history. For many Americans, the McCarthy era held that dubious distinction, but what is happening now is incomparably worse.
For one thing, any hysteria that existed then was directed against the greatest evil in the world at the time: communism. Then-Sen. Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee notwithstanding, there really were Americans in important positions who supported communist regimes enslaving their populations and committing mass murder. McCarthy was on to something.
In contrast, the country is choking on hysteria over the extremely unlikely possibility — for which there is still no evidence — that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, and the absurdity that President Trump works for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
For another, the mainstream media did not support McCarthy. Most in the media were highly critical of McCarthy. Today, the mainstream media are not the voices of caution. They are the creators of the hysteria. There have been conspiracy theories throughout American history (e.g., Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill President John F. Kennedy alone; the moon landing never happened). But this is the first time the media have created and promoted a conspiracy. Not surprisingly, they have dropped any pretense of objective reporting in the process.
And while some Americans were unfairly labeled communists during the McCarthy era, countless Democratic politicians and leaders in news and entertainment have called members of the Trump administration and the tens of millions of Americans who support the president fascists, white supremacists, haters, xenophobes and even Nazis.
MSNBC contributor Jill Wine-Banks said of the Trump-Putin Helsinki press conference: "It's just as serious to me as the Cuban Missile Crisis in terms of an attack, or the 9/11 attack. ... (Trump's) performance today will live in infamy as much as the Pearl Harbor attack or Kristallnacht."
Former communist, Obama operative and CIA Director John Brennan tweeted: "Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes & misdemeanors.' It was nothing short of treasonous."
Get the new IBD Politics & Opinion newsletter!
The constant invoking of the Holocaust, the Nazis and now Kristallnacht (the unofficial beginning of the Holocaust, a night in 1938 when German Jews were beaten to death, synagogues were burned and Jewish shops were destroyed) only minimizes the evils of Nazism and the Holocaust. A young American who, having gone to a typical university, probably knows nothing about the Nazis and the Holocaust will now think Nazism and the Holocaust were 20th-century expressions of Trump and American conservatism.
All this hysteria is built on next to nothing. At its core, it is an attempt to undo the 2016 election. The mainstream media refuse to accept that Hillary Clinton lost. They said she would win — handily. They predicted a landslide. How could they have possibly gotten it so wrong? Their answer is they didn't; Trump and Putin stole it.
If truth mattered to the media, their ongoing narrative would be: "Democrats and the left still do not accept Trump victory."
If truth mattered to the media, every American would know Trump has been harder on Russia than former President Barack Obama was. Every American would be reminded that Obama reassured Putin's right-hand man, then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, that he wouldn't be too tough on Russia. Thinking his mic was off, he whispered into Medvedev's ear: "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility."
If truth mattered to the media, every American would be reminded that Obama sent Army meals to Ukraine and Trump has sent anti-tank missiles and other arms to repel the Russians.
If truth mattered to the media, every American would be reminded that Obama watched Syria burn and Russia come to dominate that country, while Trump has bombed Syrian military installations, including one where Russians were killed.
If truth mattered to the media, every American would be reminded that it is Trump who has weakened Russia's ally Iran, while Obama immeasurably strengthened it.
Instead the media scream "treason," "impeachment" and the like 24/7; Hollywood stars curse the president; others curse his daughter or the first lady (one of the most regal in American history) and show President Trump in various death poses. Meanwhile, leftist mobs shout at administration officials and Republican members of Congress while they eat in restaurants, shop in stores and sleep in their homes.
If you vote Democrat this November, you are voting for hysteria, lies, socialism and even the cheapening of the Holocaust.
But more than anything, a vote for Democrats in November is a vote for hysteria — the greatest and darkest in American history.

All I ever see on this St Louis Cardinals board I belong to are topics about how there are too many topics not supporting the team blindly.

All I ever see and read are stories about how the MSM is focused on attacking Trump.

The guy IS under investigation so you are gonna see some. The guy IS involved in a sex scandal with an enhanced porn star so you are gonna hear about it. Heck, you hear about Bill Clinton's life 20 years afterwards from Faux news so I guess it is that important.

Take it from an outsider, Trump isn't gonna go to jail but deserves investigated. He's good at pushing things to the edge. The man may have no tact and a taste for trading in his gaudy trophy wives as they get too many miles on them so he can prove to his friends he "won" the wife competition but he isn't an idiot.

You don’t believe the Nazi and “Putin’s bitch/puppet” talk is a bit over-the-top? You don’t think it’s insensitive to Holocaust survivors to compare Trump to Hitler and to say the Helsinki Summit was just as horrific an occurrence as Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Kristallnacht isn’t disrespectful to the lives lost during those tragedies? Is it not reasonable to think a media who make these comparisons is being unfair or at least fulfilling a narrative bc they literally can’t accept that Trump beat Hillary?

Of course the Nazi bit and everything else is 'over the top'.

As was the 8 years of the Far Right calling (and still calling) Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as much or worse.

The fallacy is that the criticisms of Trump are because of some lingering issues about how Trump won the election.

We will never know how many votes were influenced by Russian interference- but despite the repeated efforts of Don the Con and his loyal Trumpkins to deny Russian efforts- we do know that the Russians acted specifically to harm the election of Hillary Clinton.

But I don't criticize Don the Con because he won the election. I criticize him for what he says and what he does.

Don the Con lies all the time. Virtually every day. Big lies and little lies.

Don the Con attacks the media because he wants Americans not to trust those who criticize him. Just like Richard Nixon did.

The article you cited is just partisan parroting of what Don the Con himself keeps claiming.

Because for Don the Con- everything is about himself. Any mistake he makes? He blames others- Obama, Hillary, the Democrats. Anything good happens- he claims the credit regardless.

Yesterday he was the VFW convention speaking- and he couldn't stop talking about himself, and blaming everyone else.

This is what he does.

The media HAS LIED about Trump several times and THAT’S why he doesn’t trust them. I’m sure some of the stuff he calls fake news isn’t as fake as he claims it is, but my distrust of the media isn’t a result of his “fake news” proclamations but rather because I do my own research and look at every article I read with a critical eye. In turns out there are tons of ways the media can mislead the public. You really think “Democracy Dies in Darkness” WaPo is doing whatever is in their power to fairly report on Donald Trump? How can a reasonable person not see it’s their goal to destroy him?.

"The media has lied about Trump several times"
Like when? Were they lies- remember your defense of Sessions- or were they mistakes?

Do you look at Trump's tweets with that same 'critical eye'? You think that Donald Trump is not guilty of generating tons of "Fake News' himself? That Don the Con is not busy trying to mislead the public almost every day?

Are you as critical of Don the Con as you are of the media?

Do I think that the Washington Post is biased against Trump- certainly I think that they are- but also the vast majority of the news that they a report regarding Trump is actual news- actual facts.

Do I think that the goal of the Washington Post is to 'destroy' Trump- no.

But remember- Trump thinks every news organization that doesn't suck up to him is 'fake news'- everything except for Fox News.

Do you think Fox News is any less biased for Trump than Wapo is biased against him? Do you believe that the 'Fair and Balanced' Fox news is really fair and balanced when it comes to Trump?

There will always be media biases. But there is a difference between calling out media for their biases- and trying to destroy the credibility of all media.

Yesterday Trump made it pretty clear what his goal in regards to media was:

“Don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news,” Trump said, pointing at reporters as the crowd broke out in boos. “Just remember, what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”

So when the New York Times quotes a farmer talking about how the Trade war may drive him to bankruptcy- Trump wants his followers to not believe that farmer- to believe only what Trump tells them.

That is Trump's ultimate goal.

Again I don’t care about his tweets. He makes himself look like an idiot on Twitter more often than not, so there. Fox News is biased yes. It’s almost impossible to find news these days that isn’t biased. That’s why I have a hard time trusting it. I’m not going to go over all the times the media has lied about him so you can deny deny deny what’s right in front of your eyes. Been there, done that with others and I’ve better things to do with my time. If you don’t think they’ve lied about him, whatever. I know I’m not going to change your mind.

 

[BookShaka]

Sessions was asked if he met with Russians in regard to helping the Trump campaign during the election season to which he answered no, then later under Democratic scrutiny said the meetings he had with two Russians weren’t about aiding the Trump campaign, soooooo not sure how that’s a lie, but Candy wants it to be incriminating so in her mind he did lie.

If you’re not guilty of a conflict of interest; you don’t recuse yourself. Obviously, the AG is…so he recused himself.

Uh-huh, sure. I backed you into a corner with my other reply you haven’t replied to so this is what you go with. Can’t say I’m surprised.

Thanks for yet another reason to laugh at you.
Maybe in whatever planet you inhabit the AG recuses himself when he didn’t have a conflict of interest….
The rest of us know better than you…as is always the case.

Okay so since you won’t answer this question I’ll try again. If I asked you, under oath, if you met with certain people during a specific period of time and talked about animal abuse during the meetings in question and you did meet with these people but animal abuse was NOT part of your conversation, you would answer yes? It’s a simple fucking question. Try not to deflect this time.

You started this thread in the clean debate zone. Perhaps you should take your salty language elsewhere.

No. I wouldn’t. But the fact that I had to correct my testimony and recuse myself later on would lead any sober observer to conclude that it wasn’t animal cruelty that we talked about.

Salty language LOL. I’m not the the one who said “one more reason I can laugh at you.” If you don’t want me to point our your deflection maybe don’t deflect.

And you just admitted you’d answer the same way Jeff Sessions did. And you seem to be under the false impression Sessions WASN’T ASKED to clear up his testimony by the Dems, where he still stated the same thing that they didn’t speak of Russia helping Trump win. I’m sure he didn’t recuse himself bc of his history as a politician and numerous meetings he’s had with Russians so as to avoid the Dems’ chopping block. Recusal does not automatically mean guilty but in your head.

I wonder what you think of all these immunity deals regarding the Manafort trial being doled out to Democrats... if recusal makes Sessions guilty does being granted immunity not also suggest the same?

 

[candycorn]

If you’re not guilty of a conflict of interest; you don’t recuse yourself. Obviously, the AG is…so he recused himself.

Uh-huh, sure. I backed you into a corner with my other reply you haven’t replied to so this is what you go with. Can’t say I’m surprised.

Thanks for yet another reason to laugh at you.
Maybe in whatever planet you inhabit the AG recuses himself when he didn’t have a conflict of interest….
The rest of us know better than you…as is always the case.

Okay so since you won’t answer this question I’ll try again. If I asked you, under oath, if you met with certain people during a specific period of time and talked about animal abuse during the meetings in question and you did meet with these people but animal abuse was NOT part of your conversation, you would answer yes? It’s a simple fucking question. Try not to deflect this time.

You started this thread in the clean debate zone. Perhaps you should take your salty language elsewhere.

No. I wouldn’t. But the fact that I had to correct my testimony and recuse myself later on would lead any sober observer to conclude that it wasn’t animal cruelty that we talked about.

Salty language LOL. I’m not the the one who said “one more reason I can laugh at you.” If you don’t want me to point our your deflection maybe don’t deflect.

Your posts are humorous…. I was not profane.

And you just admitted you’d answer the same way Jeff Sessions did. And you seem to be under the false impression Sessions WASN’T ASKED to clear up his testimony by the Dems, where he still stated the same thing that they didn’t speak of Russia helping Trump win. I’m sure he didn’t recuse himself bc of his history as a politician and numerous meetings he’s had with Russians so as to avoid the Dems’ chopping block. Recusal does not automatically mean guilty but in your head.

Guilty in a legal sense? Never said that. Conflict of interest…sure. Lying to Congress…sure. You don’t correct something if it is accurate to start with. Clearly he was not accurate; in the old days we called that lying.

I wonder what you think of all these immunity deals regarding the Manafort trial being doled out to Democrats... if recusal makes Sessions guilty does being granted immunity not also suggest the same?

No. Unless you wish to indict every DA in the nation for doing the exact same thing. Recusal is far different from plea deals and immunity. Sorry. You’re making me laugh once again with your “comparisons”

 

[BookShaka]

More hysteria. This guy decimates Trump’s Hollywood star before TURNING HIMSELF IN! LOL did he plan on turning himself in from the beginning?

It gets better though, bc when the guy who first vandalized it found out about the most recent vandalizaiton, he paid thousands to bail the guy out of jail! Nothing like shared hysteria to unite Americans!

Guy Who Destroyed Trump's Star Getting Bailed Out by the First Guy to Smash It - VICE Guy Who Destroyed Trump's Star Getting Bailed Out by the First Guy to Smash It — VICE

 

[BookShaka]

Uh-huh, sure. I backed you into a corner with my other reply you haven’t replied to so this is what you go with. Can’t say I’m surprised.

Thanks for yet another reason to laugh at you.
Maybe in whatever planet you inhabit the AG recuses himself when he didn’t have a conflict of interest….
The rest of us know better than you…as is always the case.

Okay so since you won’t answer this question I’ll try again. If I asked you, under oath, if you met with certain people during a specific period of time and talked about animal abuse during the meetings in question and you did meet with these people but animal abuse was NOT part of your conversation, you would answer yes? It’s a simple fucking question. Try not to deflect this time.

You started this thread in the clean debate zone. Perhaps you should take your salty language elsewhere.

No. I wouldn’t. But the fact that I had to correct my testimony and recuse myself later on would lead any sober observer to conclude that it wasn’t animal cruelty that we talked about.

Salty language LOL. I’m not the the one who said “one more reason I can laugh at you.” If you don’t want me to point our your deflection maybe don’t deflect.

Your posts are humorous…. I was not profane.

And you just admitted you’d answer the same way Jeff Sessions did. And you seem to be under the false impression Sessions WASN’T ASKED to clear up his testimony by the Dems, where he still stated the same thing that they didn’t speak of Russia helping Trump win. I’m sure he didn’t recuse himself bc of his history as a politician and numerous meetings he’s had with Russians so as to avoid the Dems’ chopping block. Recusal does not automatically mean guilty but in your head.

Guilty in a legal sense? Never said that. Conflict of interest…sure. Lying to Congress…sure. You don’t correct something if it is accurate to start with. Clearly he was not accurate; in the old days we called that lying.

I wonder what you think of all these immunity deals regarding the Manafort trial being doled out to Democrats... if recusal makes Sessions guilty does being granted immunity not also suggest the same?

No. Unless you wish to indict every DA in the nation for doing the exact same thing. Recusal is far different from plea deals and immunity. Sorry. You’re making me laugh once again with your “comparisons”

Yeah I’m sure if Trump’s guys happened to get immunity for something pertaining to Russia you’d not be suspicious at all and not use it as fodder to further condemn Trump’s Russia ties. RRRIIIGGGHHHTTT.

 

[candycorn]

Thanks for yet another reason to laugh at you.
Maybe in whatever planet you inhabit the AG recuses himself when he didn’t have a conflict of interest….
The rest of us know better than you…as is always the case.

Okay so since you won’t answer this question I’ll try again. If I asked you, under oath, if you met with certain people during a specific period of time and talked about animal abuse during the meetings in question and you did meet with these people but animal abuse was NOT part of your conversation, you would answer yes? It’s a simple fucking question. Try not to deflect this time.

You started this thread in the clean debate zone. Perhaps you should take your salty language elsewhere.

No. I wouldn’t. But the fact that I had to correct my testimony and recuse myself later on would lead any sober observer to conclude that it wasn’t animal cruelty that we talked about.

Salty language LOL. I’m not the the one who said “one more reason I can laugh at you.” If you don’t want me to point our your deflection maybe don’t deflect.

Your posts are humorous…. I was not profane.

And you just admitted you’d answer the same way Jeff Sessions did. And you seem to be under the false impression Sessions WASN’T ASKED to clear up his testimony by the Dems, where he still stated the same thing that they didn’t speak of Russia helping Trump win. I’m sure he didn’t recuse himself bc of his history as a politician and numerous meetings he’s had with Russians so as to avoid the Dems’ chopping block. Recusal does not automatically mean guilty but in your head.

Guilty in a legal sense? Never said that. Conflict of interest…sure. Lying to Congress…sure. You don’t correct something if it is accurate to start with. Clearly he was not accurate; in the old days we called that lying.

I wonder what you think of all these immunity deals regarding the Manafort trial being doled out to Democrats... if recusal makes Sessions guilty does being granted immunity not also suggest the same?

No. Unless you wish to indict every DA in the nation for doing the exact same thing. Recusal is far different from plea deals and immunity. Sorry. You’re making me laugh once again with your “comparisons”

Yeah I’m sure if Trump’s guys happened to get immunity for something pertaining to Russia you’d not be suspicious at all and not use it as fodder to further condemn Trump’s Russia ties. RRRIIIGGGHHHTTT.

They have gotten reduced sentences—Papadopolus (sp) received a reduced sentence for cooperation. I believe Flynn did as well. Manfort’s buddy whose name escapes me right now is too I think.
Thanks for the batting practice.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you’re looking for unwarranted hysteria; the OP is a fine example. A cut and paste with no commentary from the poster.

The intel agencies in the US confirm that Russia meddled in our elections. The hysteria is from the right that swears they are part of some figment of their imagination called “the deep state”. Hysterical.

Donald Trump’s campaign had many ties to Russia. His son took meetings with Russians who promised to “have some dirt” on Ms. Clinton. Trump’s campaign manager was present at the meeting. Roger Stone, Trump’s advisor, sung the praises of Guccifer2.0—the hacker who is credited with hacking the DNC. Another Trump advisor, Jeff Sessions lied to Congress in his testimony about meeting with the Russian ambassador. So much so that he recused himself when there was so much evidence that the DOJ had to appoint a special prosecutor The hysteria is from the right who dismiss this as no big deal and, of course swear the apparatus that is in place—a GOP apparatus at that—is part of this “deep state” Hysterical.

You really can't be that stupid can you? First let's look at your claim about Sessions. He was told by the intelligence community he did not need to say anything about Russians he meet while a senator.

He was asked if he met with Russian officials during the campaign. He lied about it.

Having hor'dourves as a Senator with the Russian Ambassador as a Senator is NOT a campaign contact. And it would be silly to assume that it was anything sinister at a public reception.

It SHOULD have been disclosed at his confirmation hearings. But even omissions on security apps is subject to correction if it was innocent and no attempt to conceal.

REALLY? Meeting the Ambassador at a cocktail event is a recusable event? Let's keep that in mind in the future --- shall we?

 

[flacaltenn]

You really can't be that stupid can you? First let's look at your claim about Sessions. He was told by the intelligence community he did not need to say anything about Russians he meet while a senator.

He was asked if he met with Russian officials during the campaign. He lied about it.

You might want to read this. Did Sessions 'Lie'? - FactCheck.org
While it is one thing to claim that he did because you like only Democratic people there is a lot to be said for understanding.

“There is enough wiggle room that makes a perjury prosecution [against Sessions] difficult,” Eliason said. Unless there is some bombshell, he said, such as emails or notes from the conversation that suggest Sessions was acting in his role as a campaign surrogate, “I don’t see it as a criminal case.”


We agree that there may be some ambiguity about Sessions’ response in the confirmation hearing, and whether or not he intentionally misled senators. And so we’ll leave it up to readers to make up their own minds about that. And we will update this piece should new information emerge.

Your own citation invites readers to make up their own minds- which Candy clearly has.

Sessions was asked if he met with Russians in regard to helping the Trump campaign during the election season to which he answered no, then later under Democratic scrutiny said the meetings he had with two Russians weren’t about aiding the Trump campaign, soooooo not sure how that’s a lie, but Candy wants it to be incriminating so in her mind he did lie.

If you’re not guilty of a conflict of interest; you don’t recuse yourself. Obviously, the AG is…so he recused himself.

That wasn't the reason that Session gave. He pointed to DOJ ethics clauses about conflict of interest for EVEN SERVING in a capacity to the campaign. NOTHING about guilt.

 

[candycorn]

If you’re looking for unwarranted hysteria; the OP is a fine example. A cut and paste with no commentary from the poster.

The intel agencies in the US confirm that Russia meddled in our elections. The hysteria is from the right that swears they are part of some figment of their imagination called “the deep state”. Hysterical.

Donald Trump’s campaign had many ties to Russia. His son took meetings with Russians who promised to “have some dirt” on Ms. Clinton. Trump’s campaign manager was present at the meeting. Roger Stone, Trump’s advisor, sung the praises of Guccifer2.0—the hacker who is credited with hacking the DNC. Another Trump advisor, Jeff Sessions lied to Congress in his testimony about meeting with the Russian ambassador. So much so that he recused himself when there was so much evidence that the DOJ had to appoint a special prosecutor The hysteria is from the right who dismiss this as no big deal and, of course swear the apparatus that is in place—a GOP apparatus at that—is part of this “deep state” Hysterical.

You really can't be that stupid can you? First let's look at your claim about Sessions. He was told by the intelligence community he did not need to say anything about Russians he meet while a senator.

He was asked if he met with Russian officials during the campaign. He lied about it.

Having hor'dourves as a Senator with the Russian Ambassador as a Senator is NOT a campaign contact. And it would be silly to assume that it was anything sinister at a public reception.

It SHOULD have been disclosed at his confirmation hearings. But even omissions on security apps is subject to correction if it was innocent and no attempt to conceal.

REALLY? Meeting the Ambassador at a cocktail event is a recusable event? Let's keep that in mind in the future --- shall we?

From The Atlantic:

Walker declined to say whether Sessions would have been in violation of the guidelines—which are rooted in federal law—in meeting ambassadors in his Senate office as part of his campaign work. The guidelines are enforced by the Senate Ethics Committee; at this point, because Sessions is no longer in the Senate, any past violation could not be sanctioned.

Sessions did go to some lengths to comply with those guidelines, however. He set up a separate office near Union Station where he and Gordon would take meetings related to the campaign. But the ambassadors continued to come to his more impressive Senate office, even after Sessions had been involved with the Trump campaign for months. Sessions met with Kislyak in his Senate office.

You were saying?

 

[flacaltenn]

If you’re looking for unwarranted hysteria; the OP is a fine example. A cut and paste with no commentary from the poster.

The intel agencies in the US confirm that Russia meddled in our elections. The hysteria is from the right that swears they are part of some figment of their imagination called “the deep state”. Hysterical.

Donald Trump’s campaign had many ties to Russia. His son took meetings with Russians who promised to “have some dirt” on Ms. Clinton. Trump’s campaign manager was present at the meeting. Roger Stone, Trump’s advisor, sung the praises of Guccifer2.0—the hacker who is credited with hacking the DNC. Another Trump advisor, Jeff Sessions lied to Congress in his testimony about meeting with the Russian ambassador. So much so that he recused himself when there was so much evidence that the DOJ had to appoint a special prosecutor The hysteria is from the right who dismiss this as no big deal and, of course swear the apparatus that is in place—a GOP apparatus at that—is part of this “deep state” Hysterical.

You really can't be that stupid can you? First let's look at your claim about Sessions. He was told by the intelligence community he did not need to say anything about Russians he meet while a senator.

He was asked if he met with Russian officials during the campaign. He lied about it.

Having hor'dourves as a Senator with the Russian Ambassador as a Senator is NOT a campaign contact. And it would be silly to assume that it was anything sinister at a public reception.

It SHOULD have been disclosed at his confirmation hearings. But even omissions on security apps is subject to correction if it was innocent and no attempt to conceal.

REALLY? Meeting the Ambassador at a cocktail event is a recusable event? Let's keep that in mind in the future --- shall we?

From The Atlantic:

Walker declined to say whether Sessions would have been in violation of the guidelines—which are rooted in federal law—in meeting ambassadors in his Senate office as part of his campaign work. The guidelines are enforced by the Senate Ethics Committee; at this point, because Sessions is no longer in the Senate, any past violation could not be sanctioned.

Sessions did go to some lengths to comply with those guidelines, however. He set up a separate office near Union Station where he and Gordon would take meetings related to the campaign. But the ambassadors continued to come to his more impressive Senate office, even after Sessions had been involved with the Trump campaign for months. Sessions met with Kislyak in his Senate office.

You were saying?

The trick question Franken asked had to do with CAMPAIGN activities. THere is NO issue in having foreign ambassadors come to your Senate office. He was NOT a fundamental contributor to the campaign other than making endorsements. If making endorsements is a CAMPAIGN function, then every Editor of newspapers needs to file campaign paperwork.

SO WHAT if as a senator he was meeting Kislyak? Did he violate any Senate rule?

 

[candycorn]

If you’re looking for unwarranted hysteria; the OP is a fine example. A cut and paste with no commentary from the poster.

The intel agencies in the US confirm that Russia meddled in our elections. The hysteria is from the right that swears they are part of some figment of their imagination called “the deep state”. Hysterical.

Donald Trump’s campaign had many ties to Russia. His son took meetings with Russians who promised to “have some dirt” on Ms. Clinton. Trump’s campaign manager was present at the meeting. Roger Stone, Trump’s advisor, sung the praises of Guccifer2.0—the hacker who is credited with hacking the DNC. Another Trump advisor, Jeff Sessions lied to Congress in his testimony about meeting with the Russian ambassador. So much so that he recused himself when there was so much evidence that the DOJ had to appoint a special prosecutor The hysteria is from the right who dismiss this as no big deal and, of course swear the apparatus that is in place—a GOP apparatus at that—is part of this “deep state” Hysterical.

You really can't be that stupid can you? First let's look at your claim about Sessions. He was told by the intelligence community he did not need to say anything about Russians he meet while a senator.

He was asked if he met with Russian officials during the campaign. He lied about it.

Having hor'dourves as a Senator with the Russian Ambassador as a Senator is NOT a campaign contact. And it would be silly to assume that it was anything sinister at a public reception.

It SHOULD have been disclosed at his confirmation hearings. But even omissions on security apps is subject to correction if it was innocent and no attempt to conceal.

REALLY? Meeting the Ambassador at a cocktail event is a recusable event? Let's keep that in mind in the future --- shall we?

From The Atlantic:

Walker declined to say whether Sessions would have been in violation of the guidelines—which are rooted in federal law—in meeting ambassadors in his Senate office as part of his campaign work. The guidelines are enforced by the Senate Ethics Committee; at this point, because Sessions is no longer in the Senate, any past violation could not be sanctioned.

Sessions did go to some lengths to comply with those guidelines, however. He set up a separate office near Union Station where he and Gordon would take meetings related to the campaign. But the ambassadors continued to come to his more impressive Senate office, even after Sessions had been involved with the Trump campaign for months. Sessions met with Kislyak in his Senate office.

You were saying?

The trick question Franken asked had to do with CAMPAIGN activities. THere is NO issue in having foreign ambassadors come to your Senate office. He was NOT a fundamental contributor to the campaign other than making endorsements. If making endorsements is a CAMPAIGN function, then every Editor of newspapers needs to file campaign paperwork.

SO WHAT if as a senator he was meeting Kislyak? Did he violate any Senate rule?

Oh, it was a trick question.

 

[Syriusly]

He was asked if he met with Russian officials during the campaign. He lied about it.

You might want to read this. Did Sessions 'Lie'? - FactCheck.org
While it is one thing to claim that he did because you like only Democratic people there is a lot to be said for understanding.

“There is enough wiggle room that makes a perjury prosecution [against Sessions] difficult,” Eliason said. Unless there is some bombshell, he said, such as emails or notes from the conversation that suggest Sessions was acting in his role as a campaign surrogate, “I don’t see it as a criminal case.”


We agree that there may be some ambiguity about Sessions’ response in the confirmation hearing, and whether or not he intentionally misled senators. And so we’ll leave it up to readers to make up their own minds about that. And we will update this piece should new information emerge.

Your own citation invites readers to make up their own minds- which Candy clearly has.

Sessions was asked if he met with Russians in regard to helping the Trump campaign during the election season to which he answered no, then later under Democratic scrutiny said the meetings he had with two Russians weren’t about aiding the Trump campaign, soooooo not sure how that’s a lie, but Candy wants it to be incriminating so in her mind he did lie.

If you’re not guilty of a conflict of interest; you don’t recuse yourself. Obviously, the AG is…so he recused himself.

That wasn't the reason that Session gave. He pointed to DOJ ethics clauses about conflict of interest for EVEN SERVING in a capacity to the campaign. NOTHING about guilt.

And I applaud Sessions for doing so- despite what the far right has said ever since he did the right thing by recusing himself.

 

[Syriusly]

If you’re looking for unwarranted hysteria; the OP is a fine example. A cut and paste with no commentary from the poster.

The intel agencies in the US confirm that Russia meddled in our elections. The hysteria is from the right that swears they are part of some figment of their imagination called “the deep state”. Hysterical.

Donald Trump’s campaign had many ties to Russia. His son took meetings with Russians who promised to “have some dirt” on Ms. Clinton. Trump’s campaign manager was present at the meeting. Roger Stone, Trump’s advisor, sung the praises of Guccifer2.0—the hacker who is credited with hacking the DNC. Another Trump advisor, Jeff Sessions lied to Congress in his testimony about meeting with the Russian ambassador. So much so that he recused himself when there was so much evidence that the DOJ had to appoint a special prosecutor The hysteria is from the right who dismiss this as no big deal and, of course swear the apparatus that is in place—a GOP apparatus at that—is part of this “deep state” Hysterical.

You really can't be that stupid can you? First let's look at your claim about Sessions. He was told by the intelligence community he did not need to say anything about Russians he meet while a senator.

He was asked if he met with Russian officials during the campaign. He lied about it.

Having hor'dourves as a Senator with the Russian Ambassador as a Senator is NOT a campaign contact. And it would be silly to assume that it was anything sinister at a public reception.

It SHOULD have been disclosed at his confirmation hearings. But even omissions on security apps is subject to correction if it was innocent and no attempt to conceal.

REALLY? Meeting the Ambassador at a cocktail event is a recusable event? Let's keep that in mind in the future --- shall we?

From The Atlantic:

Walker declined to say whether Sessions would have been in violation of the guidelines—which are rooted in federal law—in meeting ambassadors in his Senate office as part of his campaign work. The guidelines are enforced by the Senate Ethics Committee; at this point, because Sessions is no longer in the Senate, any past violation could not be sanctioned.

Sessions did go to some lengths to comply with those guidelines, however. He set up a separate office near Union Station where he and Gordon would take meetings related to the campaign. But the ambassadors continued to come to his more impressive Senate office, even after Sessions had been involved with the Trump campaign for months. Sessions met with Kislyak in his Senate office.

You were saying?

The trick question Franken asked had to do with CAMPAIGN activities. THere is NO issue in having foreign ambassadors come to your Senate office. He was NOT a fundamental contributor to the campaign other than making endorsements. If making endorsements is a CAMPAIGN function, then every Editor of newspapers needs to file campaign paperwork.

SO WHAT if as a senator he was meeting Kislyak? Did he violate any Senate rule?

There was no trick question- and the issue wasn't that Sessions only met the Ambassador at the cocktail event- it was the closed door meeting that he had with the Russian Ambassador in his office.

I don't know whether Sessions knew what he said was false- or whether he actually thought he meant in an official campaign capacity- we will never know for sure. But what Sessions actually did say was false.

And I would love to see the minutes from that meeting with the Ambassador- I don't believe we have ever seen those.

 

[Syriusly]

All I ever see on this St Louis Cardinals board I belong to are topics about how there are too many topics not supporting the team blindly.

All I ever see and read are stories about how the MSM is focused on attacking Trump.

The guy IS under investigation so you are gonna see some. The guy IS involved in a sex scandal with an enhanced porn star so you are gonna hear about it. Heck, you hear about Bill Clinton's life 20 years afterwards from Faux news so I guess it is that important.

Take it from an outsider, Trump isn't gonna go to jail but deserves investigated. He's good at pushing things to the edge. The man may have no tact and a taste for trading in his gaudy trophy wives as they get too many miles on them so he can prove to his friends he "won" the wife competition but he isn't an idiot.

You don’t believe the Nazi and “Putin’s bitch/puppet” talk is a bit over-the-top? You don’t think it’s insensitive to Holocaust survivors to compare Trump to Hitler and to say the Helsinki Summit was just as horrific an occurrence as Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Kristallnacht isn’t disrespectful to the lives lost during those tragedies? Is it not reasonable to think a media who make these comparisons is being unfair or at least fulfilling a narrative bc they literally can’t accept that Trump beat Hillary?

Of course the Nazi bit and everything else is 'over the top'.

As was the 8 years of the Far Right calling (and still calling) Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as much or worse.

The fallacy is that the criticisms of Trump are because of some lingering issues about how Trump won the election.

We will never know how many votes were influenced by Russian interference- but despite the repeated efforts of Don the Con and his loyal Trumpkins to deny Russian efforts- we do know that the Russians acted specifically to harm the election of Hillary Clinton.

But I don't criticize Don the Con because he won the election. I criticize him for what he says and what he does.

Don the Con lies all the time. Virtually every day. Big lies and little lies.

Don the Con attacks the media because he wants Americans not to trust those who criticize him. Just like Richard Nixon did.

The article you cited is just partisan parroting of what Don the Con himself keeps claiming.

Because for Don the Con- everything is about himself. Any mistake he makes? He blames others- Obama, Hillary, the Democrats. Anything good happens- he claims the credit regardless.

Yesterday he was the VFW convention speaking- and he couldn't stop talking about himself, and blaming everyone else.

This is what he does.

The media HAS LIED about Trump several times and THAT’S why he doesn’t trust them. I’m sure some of the stuff he calls fake news isn’t as fake as he claims it is, but my distrust of the media isn’t a result of his “fake news” proclamations but rather because I do my own research and look at every article I read with a critical eye. In turns out there are tons of ways the media can mislead the public. You really think “Democracy Dies in Darkness” WaPo is doing whatever is in their power to fairly report on Donald Trump? How can a reasonable person not see it’s their goal to destroy him?.

"The media has lied about Trump several times"
Like when? Were they lies- remember your defense of Sessions- or were they mistakes?

Do you look at Trump's tweets with that same 'critical eye'? You think that Donald Trump is not guilty of generating tons of "Fake News' himself? That Don the Con is not busy trying to mislead the public almost every day?

Are you as critical of Don the Con as you are of the media?

Do I think that the Washington Post is biased against Trump- certainly I think that they are- but also the vast majority of the news that they a report regarding Trump is actual news- actual facts.

Do I think that the goal of the Washington Post is to 'destroy' Trump- no.

But remember- Trump thinks every news organization that doesn't suck up to him is 'fake news'- everything except for Fox News.

Do you think Fox News is any less biased for Trump than Wapo is biased against him? Do you believe that the 'Fair and Balanced' Fox news is really fair and balanced when it comes to Trump?

There will always be media biases. But there is a difference between calling out media for their biases- and trying to destroy the credibility of all media.

Yesterday Trump made it pretty clear what his goal in regards to media was:

“Don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news,” Trump said, pointing at reporters as the crowd broke out in boos. “Just remember, what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”

So when the New York Times quotes a farmer talking about how the Trade war may drive him to bankruptcy- Trump wants his followers to not believe that farmer- to believe only what Trump tells them.

That is Trump's ultimate goal.

Again I don’t care about his tweets. He makes himself look like an idiot on Twitter more often than not, so there. Fox News is biased yes. It’s almost impossible to find news these days that isn’t biased. That’s why I have a hard time trusting it. I’m not going to go over all the times the media has lied about him so you can deny deny deny what’s right in front of your eyes. Been there, done that with others and I’ve better things to do with my time. If you don’t think they’ve lied about him, whatever. I know I’m not going to change your mind.

Of course you are not going to try to defend your accusations against the 'media'- but if you really had better things to do- well you wouldn't be here at USMB.

What I do know is that Don the Con has repeatedly lied to Americans- about the media- and about virtually everything.

The other day Trump made it pretty clear what his goal in regards to media was:

“Don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news,” Trump said, pointing at reporters as the crowd broke out in boos. “Just remember, what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”

So when the New York Times quotes a farmer talking about how the Trade war may drive him to bankruptcy- Trump wants his followers to not believe that farmer- to believe only what Trump tells them.

That is Trump's ultimate goal.

 

[Syriusly]

Very impressed of those who can see this article is biased... I happen to agree with this person’s assessment, so fucking sue me. Of course it’s biased—so what? Do ya’ll see the unhinged shit some anti-Trumpers post here and ya’ll can’t handle a biased article that challenges your beliefs? I’m more reasonable than many of the Trumpers here and I put this in the CDZ so we could have a discussion about it. I won’t respond to whiners and those who won’t even try to see from others’ POV.

If you have a problem with this article, I see that as evidence you want to keep whining and bitching and HATING on Trump in the face of evidence maybe you should have hated other presidents just as much. Let’s not forget who was president when this alleged “meddling” took place.

What is to discuss? The OP is frankly just bullshit.

There is no 'hysteria'- that is just an invention of the author.

My disagreeing with the idiocy written by the author of the article you quote is not because I hate Don the Con- I don't hate anyone- or even because I disagree with the lying Don the Con. I disagree with the idiocy of the OP because there is no 'hysteria'.

Let me respond to one specific quote:
— for which there is still no evidence — that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, and the absurdity that President Trump works for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

What media is saying that Trump's campaign DID collude with the Russian government?

What is being discussed in the media- is the ongoing investigation into the Russian meddling in the 2016 election that Don the Con alternately disputes and then doesn't dispute.

Certainly there is discussion- here and elsewhere as to the possibility that there was collusion- but that is reasonable considering both Trump's own actions and the odd facts that do keep trickling out.

And no one in the media is saying that Trump works for Putin- the hysteria in that statement is the authors alone. Again- there are posters here who will say that Trump is working for Putin- but this is not a widespread media claim.

What is being discussed in the media is Trump's reluctance to confront Putin about Russia's meddling in America's president election- not just the media of course- but a wide range of elected officials- Democrat and Republican.

Trump does want to call everything that is happening to him a 'witch hunt'- and the 'worst witch hunt in history'- and the OP does a good job of parroting Trump's basic premise.

And nothing else.

I stopped reading after “there is no hysteria.” The definition of hysteria is “exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion of excitement, especially among a group of people”

So let’s take a look at this “no hysteria.”

View attachment 207031



View attachment 207033


View attachment 207035





I’m sure I can find more, and correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks like this last example of people screaming at the sky encompasses the definition of hysteria perfectly.

And that is 'hysteria' how?

Kathy Griffin posting an image?

People posted nasty images about President Obama for 8 years.

Somehow you didn't consider that 'hysteria' then.

I disagree with any images of any person that suggest violence- but the rest- are free speech and free expression.

Which the far right does support- when it comes to condemnation of Obama or Clinton.

Back to the OP:
that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, and the absurdity that President Trump works for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Not a single one of your images of 'hysteria' was related to accusations of collusion between Trump and Russia.

You appear to confuse legitimate criticism of our President- with mass hysteria.

 

[Syriusly]

The alleged 'mass hysteria' is merely a false impression being generated by the media in their failed attempts at regaining credibility, is all. It generates an increase in cranks, loons, and gimps running around annoying people, but it is largely non-existent in real life. The back lash is costing the gimps a lot of votes.

What 'mass hysteria'?

Despite what Don the Con tweets- there is no 'mass hysteria'

 

[Syriusly]

Schiff right now is fighting for his political life after what was shown by the FISA warrant. Waters is in hot water for her calling for people to hound and by extension commit violence on those in the Trump administration. Pelosi can't remember where she is, who is president, or what she was talking about. Schumer can only recite what is written. When given a chance to work on DACA they said immediate voting rights, when told it was not going to happen they said we are not interested.

And they expect a blue wave?

Well look at all the people who think Trump is the devil. The sheep nod their heads and do what their masters say.

LOL

Look at all the people who think that Don the Con is the second coming!. The sheep nod their heads and just parrot what their master tweets.

I never pay attention to his tweets. The only people I see who give a **** about his tweets are his haters. If his opposition didn’t obsess over his tweets I’d never know what he was tweeting. They’re obsessed with a man they think they hate... must be a miserable existence.


graphic language removed

I see Trumpkins who are obsessed with his every Tweet- and assume that anyone who criticizes their dear Don the Con as hating him.

The Trumpkins are obsessed with parroting the man that they must love- and the OP is just an extension of that obsession.

Legitimate criticism of a President's actions is not hysteria.
Media actually reporting what the President does is not hysteria.
An investigation into Russian meddling in our election is not hysteria.

And pointing out that Don the Con is very clear when he instructs his Trumpkins to not believe what they see or hear- but to only believe what he says.

 

[flacaltenn]

- it was the closed door meeting that he had with the Russian Ambassador in his office.

OMG... THere's a rule you can't close the door? Where are you triggered accomplices of Putin getting this outrage from without using your OWN brain and whatever critical thinking, logic and reason you were ever taught?

You want to know why this thread is about HYSTERIA???

 

[flacaltenn]

And I would love to see the minutes from that meeting with the Ambassador- I don't believe we have ever seen those.

All you triggered WANT to see a lot. But you're not privvy to it. Probably won't happen. You need a REASON to suspect illegal or criminal conduct. You just don't get to bug every office in DC and channel hop...

ALTHOUGH --- I've suggested that the Brand New Super Spy Machine the NSA has in Utah to DO THAT -- gets turned over to the CITIZENS and VOTERS of the USA and that it targets EVERY GOVT employee ONLY.

THAT -- would be sweet. And THEN --- you get all the voyeuristic masturbation that you're asking for.

 

[Maxdeath]

Very impressed of those who can see this article is biased... I happen to agree with this person’s assessment, so fucking sue me. Of course it’s biased—so what? Do ya’ll see the unhinged shit some anti-Trumpers post here and ya’ll can’t handle a biased article that challenges your beliefs? I’m more reasonable than many of the Trumpers here and I put this in the CDZ so we could have a discussion about it. I won’t respond to whiners and those who won’t even try to see from others’ POV.

If you have a problem with this article, I see that as evidence you want to keep whining and bitching and HATING on Trump in the face of evidence maybe you should have hated other presidents just as much. Let’s not forget who was president when this alleged “meddling” took place.

What is to discuss? The OP is frankly just bullshit.

There is no 'hysteria'- that is just an invention of the author.

My disagreeing with the idiocy written by the author of the article you quote is not because I hate Don the Con- I don't hate anyone- or even because I disagree with the lying Don the Con. I disagree with the idiocy of the OP because there is no 'hysteria'.

Let me respond to one specific quote:
— for which there is still no evidence — that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, and the absurdity that President Trump works for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

What media is saying that Trump's campaign DID collude with the Russian government?

What is being discussed in the media- is the ongoing investigation into the Russian meddling in the 2016 election that Don the Con alternately disputes and then doesn't dispute.

Certainly there is discussion- here and elsewhere as to the possibility that there was collusion- but that is reasonable considering both Trump's own actions and the odd facts that do keep trickling out.

And no one in the media is saying that Trump works for Putin- the hysteria in that statement is the authors alone. Again- there are posters here who will say that Trump is working for Putin- but this is not a widespread media claim.

What is being discussed in the media is Trump's reluctance to confront Putin about Russia's meddling in America's president election- not just the media of course- but a wide range of elected officials- Democrat and Republican.

Trump does want to call everything that is happening to him a 'witch hunt'- and the 'worst witch hunt in history'- and the OP does a good job of parroting Trump's basic premise.

And nothing else.

I stopped reading after “there is no hysteria.” The definition of hysteria is “exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion of excitement, especially among a group of people”

So let’s take a look at this “no hysteria.”

View attachment 207031



View attachment 207033


View attachment 207035





I’m sure I can find more, and correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks like this last example of people screaming at the sky encompasses the definition of hysteria perfectly.

And that is 'hysteria' how?

Kathy Griffin posting an image?

People posted nasty images about President Obama for 8 years.

Somehow you didn't consider that 'hysteria' then.

I disagree with any images of any person that suggest violence- but the rest- are free speech and free expression.

Which the far right does support- when it comes to condemnation of Obama or Clinton.

Back to the OP:
that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, and the absurdity that President Trump works for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Not a single one of your images of 'hysteria' was related to accusations of collusion between Trump and Russia.

You appear to confuse legitimate criticism of our President- with mass hysteria.

While I don't believe that a small portion of the left has been taken up in mass hysteria nor do those same ones tend to try and stifle free speech, I do believe that the larger share of the left is heeded on that train at breakneck speed. You are seeing it in not allowing conservatives to speak at events. You are seeing it with people being refused service because of a hat. You are seeing it with some calling for members of Trumps staff to be harassed. You are seeing it with the media calling the meeting with Putin treason. You are seeing it with the FISA warrant. With the FBI texts. You see it in those that try and claim that Manafort and others are not only complicit but some how linked to the Russians that Mueller has indicted.