Monday, March 25, 2019

Guest Post Short and Sweet, Hold the Gloat

Donald Trump told the truth when he said there was no collusion. He did not obstruct justice by opposing those who maintained the possibility he colluded.

Those who were overly suspicious that he colluded, were deluded into making his alleged collusion their reality, who became obsessed with prosecuting him for collusion, and who maintained he was narcissic and insane, and who made power grabs to dislodge him from the Oval Office, they are the crazy ones.

From the losing Presidential candidate to much of the media, to some Democratic elected officials, to Deep State bureaucrats, they pinned their hopes on something that existed only in their minds.

No winners here. Honest men and women were wounded; the scurrilous and devious are defeated.

43 comments :

  1. I haven't been following the blog as closely as I used to, but RDE was consistently against Trump and seemed happy about the Mueller investigation.

    Is this a sudden reversal in position by this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  2. On the contrary, there is a winner here: Donald Trump. And although I think quite negatively of him, he should get to gloat for 1 minute for every negative comment accusing him of colluding since he became president. That would given him about 8 months of gloating, I think

    ReplyDelete
  3. rabbi , blogger, you are actually writing writing something pro TRUMP, and against CNN etal !?!?!?!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Response, short and sweet: 1: Even if there was not a prosecutable level of collusion (or, to be more precise, conspiracy) there were efforts by the Russians to tilt the election toward Trump. He has refused to accept the unanimous assessment of his intelligence agencies on the matter, taking Putin at his word, and therefore is doing nothing to prevent something similar from happening in 2020.
    2: We do not know if there was enough evidence to charge him with obstruction. Mueller left that for Congress to determine. They will be able to make that determination only after seeing the report, which has yet to happen.
    3: If you have been following the campaigns of any of the candidates in the Democratic primary, you would know that they spend little to no time talking about Russia, collusion, or obstruction. The same was true in the landslide 2018 Congressional election.

    ReplyDelete
  5. wheres my comment of yesterday?!

    ReplyDelete
  6. The title indicates this is a guest post.

    ReplyDelete
  7. corrected. still he posted it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. hold the gloat?
    when the evil are unveiled, its good for all of humanity. we should seek to eradicate evil, and certainly be partially satisfied when they are stopped in their tracks. they are evil against our god and this is a day for expression of the verse in proverbs " when the wicked perish, there is song". let us sing to the Almighty.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "We do not know if there was enough evidence to charge him with obstruction."

    We do know. There wasn't. Only the Justice Dept. can make an evaluation of "obstruction of justice", which is a legal term. And had the legal threshold been reached, they would have said so. Congress has the power to impeach, but their standard is legally quite different.

    Now, some Congressmen may feel that the President obstructed justice, but their feelings are just that: feelings. They can present evidence that there was obsstruction, they can impeach the President, and they can get voted out of office, which is what Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is concerned about.

    She shrewdly is moving the Democrats away from impeachment.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "...there were efforts by the Russians to tilt the election...."

    The Russians have been interfering in American elections for something like six decades. There is plenty of evidence they acted to help Secretary Clinton's campaign, as well.

    The Russians were sowing discord.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "If you have been following the campaigns of any of the candidates in the Democratic primary, you would know that they spend little to no time talking about Russia, collusion, or obstruction."

    Of course they avoid the subject. They are running against each other at this point. Wait till the general election rolls around. They will be all over the President for his "collusion". They'll just rebrand it as "coziness with Russia" or some other claptrap.

    We're dealing with maniacs on the Left. And as we all know, once a maniac gets an idea stuck in his or her head, it's a bug they can't get rid of. The Leftists will shake the collusion tree until either the fruit starts falling or the tree topples and crushes them. Which do you think will happen?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The intelligence services disagree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think they would much rather speak of the cruelty and incompetence of the current administration, and will continue to focus on that. Hopefully, with as much success they had in the midterms.

    ReplyDelete
  14. evil against our god

    what kefira are you spouting - do you view trump as your god?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Kalonymus AnonymusMarch 27, 2019 at 2:52 PM

    He probably meant "our good"...

    ReplyDelete
  16. an evil act is an act against our god.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Deep State. Fake intelligence analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It's trite and vapid to say, but still true and valuable. If the economy continues to boom, Pres. Trump will enjoy a second term.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 1. The Russians were anti-Hillary because she interfered in internal Russian affairs supporting dissidents and interfered in Ukraine. The Russians returned her favor. But the Russians never dreamed they could affect the outcome of the election nor did they try.

    2. The United States Department of Justice and the Attorney General of the United States conclusively determined as a matter of law that there was no prosecutable crime. Muller left it to his Boss, A.G. Barr, to make that determination. And he did.

    3. The Democrats have no been able to let more than 30 seconds pass over the past two years nearly, without screaming collusion and obstruction.

    ReplyDelete
  20. please explain - what was the evil act and how it is against our god

    ReplyDelete
  21. "...they are the crazy ones" crazy [may] mean... therefore innocent. evil not innocent.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Trump's lackey attorney general made that determination. Based on what, we do not know. If Mueller, after two years, was himself unsure, it is odd to me that after less than 48 hours Barr did know. Until the people have access to the Mueller report, we do not know if there was enough evidence to charge him with obstruction.

    ReplyDelete
  23. If you have such a low opinion of the current Attorney General, I feel sorry for you if you live in the U.S. Because he is the man who makes decisions relating to the wellbeing of all Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  24. My opinion of him is not the issue. He wrote a 19 page meme before he was even nominated for the position detailing his thoughts on the investigation (spoiler alert: He thought that Trump had done nothing wrong). So on this particular issue, I do not give him the benefit of the doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You are just postponing the inevitable day when you will have to eat crow.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I don't understand what you mean. I am not claiming anything definitive about whether Trump is guilty of obstruction. I am noting that Mueller was undecided, and that I disregard Barr's assertion. If the full report is released and the consensus of legal scholars is that he is not guilty, I am fully prepared to accept that.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What claptrap. "...consensus of legal scholars...." How can you expect anyone to taake you seriously when you talk like that?

    ReplyDelete
  28. I don't think someone who constantly peddles in wacko conspiracy theories has any standing to discuss who should or shouldn't be taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This is Law 101. Finding someone guilty or not guilty at a minimum requires both parties submitting their cases. Since the President is moving on, all you have left is one side from which to draw a conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I am not sure what you mean. The Democrats have ways to force at least the partial release of the report, and can subpoena Mueller to hear what evidence he found. Once more is known, then people can judge the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The Soviet Union had people's courts. China has the Supreme People's Court. And now we have the People's Court of America. Soooo....just what rules of procedure does that court of public opinion follow? What are the qualifications of its jurists?

    I'm not seriously asking. I am seriously mocking.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Once again, you are missing the point. I am not suggesting that the release of the report will lead to anyone's conviction. But it would assist people to come to their own conclusions about the propriety of the conduct of the president and his minions.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The President feels that the cards were stacked against him. That professionals at the highest layers of the FBI were out to get him. There's plenty of evidence to support that. Text messages. The use of a dossier to get wiretaps. An official wanting to wear a wire to record the President. Leaks. On and on and on. Officials going easy on Hillary Clinton.

    You takin' that into account also?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Basically everything you wrote is wrong (other than the president imagining that everyone is out to get him). There is no indication that the people who wrote the text messages acted unusually in their work, and there were plenty of anti-Clinton agents as well. The dossier was not the trigger for the wiretaps. The deputy attorney general (appointed by Trump) had concerns and raised the idea of wearing a wire, but it was not done. They did not go easy on Clinton. They arguably cost her the election with the unusual choice to speak publicly about the case despite not pressing charges, and by irresponsibly issuing the statement that they were looking into new evidence just a week or two before the election, breaking with policy. It is difficult to engage with people who have a different set of facts than reality.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 1: "But the Russians never dreamed they could affect the outcome of the election nor did they try." You realize that saying that they did not try to affect the outcome of the election directly contradicts your earlier statement that they interfered in the election.
    2: There is obstruction as a prosecutable crime, and there is obstruction as grounds for impeachment. The former is decided by the AG; the latter by Congress. Congress can make that determination only after they have seen the Mueller report.
    3: I just believe that you are flat-out wrong here. Go back to what they campaigned on in the mid-terms; it was not Russia/obstruction. Listen to the speeches the current presidential candidates are giving on the trail not; they are not about Russia/obstruction.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Bravo g sm. Allow me to expand on g sm reference to Proverbs. The full quote is:
    “The impious man destroys his neighbor through speech, But through their knowledge the righteous are rescued. When the righteous prosper the city exults; When the wicked perish there are shouts of joy.” (Proverbs 11:9-10).
    Rashi explains
    בפה חנף - חנף המסית חבירו בדרך רע משחיתו בפיו:
    ובדעת צדיקים יחלצו - והצדיק נחלץ ממנו בדעת התורה שהזהירה עליו לא תאבה לו וגו' (דברים יג):
    “If your brother, your own mother’s son, or your son or daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your closest friend entices you in secret, saying, Come let us worship other gods—whom neither you nor your fathers have experienced —from among the gods of the peoples around you, either near to you or distant, anywhere from one end of the earth to the other: do not assent or give heed to him. Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him” (Deuteronomy 13:7-9).
    Wow, talk of worshipping other gods---these is a crazy person. Other gods exist only in a crazy person’s mind. The Torah says “do not assent or give heed to him.”
    See
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mueller-bitter-enders-11553815242
    “Granted, the end of the special counsel’s probe is a shattering blow to Trump haters. So long as Mr. Mueller continued his investigation, the left and its media mates were free to spin collusion claims and nurse hopes of a toppled Trump presidency. Anyone who pushed back was told to sit down, shut up and wait until Mr. Mueller ruled. He now has. The party is over. Realists understand the risks of continuing to dwell on collusion and obstruction of justice. Americans are weary of Mueller headlines.”

    ReplyDelete
  37. Kalonymus AnonymusMarch 29, 2019 at 3:20 PM

    Down tick, as a punishment for calling me a troll. How is Scotus? You didn't troll about Scotus this time, well done.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I'm sorry you are having a hard time discussing this matter. Your self sacrifice in setting me on the straight and true is recognized.

    I'm sure your determination of what happened, once the Mueller report is made public, will be the result of a careful, objective, unrushed, thorough process.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 1. No. The intelligence community stated the Russians didn't think they could affect the outcome. They simply wanted to make a mess and discredit the results whatever they were so they could say American democracy sucks. They accomplished that with their interference followed by the mass media hysteria. The Russians initial decision to interfere was because they were avenging Hillary's interfering in Russia (supporting internal protests) and Ukraine (coup against the democratically elected president with Hillary's support.)

    2. Impeachment can be for any reason. Congress can impeach because he drove through a red light, should they so desire.

    3. We'll have to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  40. 1: That may be the case, but their efforts were all on the pro-Trump side.
    2: Not really. High crimes and misdemeanors has a meaning.
    3: How many Democratic presidential candidates' rallies/town halls have you watched? Read detailed reports of? For me, it is quite a few. And the fact is that Russia/collusion almost never gets mentioned. This is not something open for agreement/disagreement; it is a factual issue.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.