ADVERTISEMENT

Mueller indicts 13 Russians for election meddling.

Of course it makes sense. Those are the hard core Trump supporters that see the Russia thing as mostly a trumped up sore loser attack by Democrats on the President they support. What it really shows is they can't stand those Democrats and would take Russia over those dastardly sore losers. Why did 22.6% of Democrats think it was "very likely" and another 28.2% say it's "somewhat likely" when asked this question in a 2006 poll:

"How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?"​

In other words, more than half of Democrats believed that it was at least somewhat likely that people in our government either helped facilitate the most deadly terrorist attack in history or stood by while letting it happen. Democrats made up the large majority of 9/11 Truthers (it was a regular thing at Daily Kos) with John Conyers even holding mock hearings (unofficial, but at least some televised) allowing, among others, some of the 9/11 Truthers to air their ridiculous conspiracy theories. Waxman gave them some credibility they certainly did not deserve. That's all pretty disgraceful, isn't it? The fact is that I don't think they really believed what they claimed to believe so much as they were letting their extremely emotional hatred of President Bush do their thinking for them. It's something people do all to often. Including certain folks here.
There are two problems here. First, people instinctively assume that those who harm them do so intentionally. This is an emotional reaction. If someone trips and hits us our initial reaction is often anger at the person for hitting us. Some people are capable of moderating that emotion with reason and recognizing when the blow was unintentional. Some aren't. The second problem is harder. Many people feel extreme emotional hatred directed at those who are, in fact, trying to harm them. Controlling those feelings is central to responding properly to such people--as anyone with military training knows. This is also the problem that many minorities have had to endure in pretty much every place and time. Think of Dr. King and the civil rights movement responding to those who quite literally meant to destroy them. This is also a problem for women who must often deal with people e.g., rapists and abusers who mean them harm.

Overall, the relatively powerless, are going to do better in terms of reacting to both situations by virtue of being forced to control their emotions while dealing with harms done by the indifference of the powerful and through the experience of being under actual attack. The relatively powerful much less so. The Republicans, as the party of the empowered, regularly screw this up more often than the Dems. But everyone is human.
 
This helps explain the problem many have with this indictment. Reading about the indictment is substantially different than reading the indictment.*

Geraldo-Russians.jpeg


*FWIW, I think Mueller intended to produce more smoke than fire. The question is why?
It seems everyone believes it, this is what CSPAN quotes Rosenstein:

federal crimes while seeking to interfere in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 presidential election.”
 
This helps explain the problem many have with this indictment. Reading about the indictment is substantially different than reading the indictment.*

Geraldo-Russians.jpeg


*FWIW, I think Mueller intended to produce more smoke than fire. The question is why?
There are a number of really awful posters on this board. As a lawyer, though, I find none more contemptible than this self-appointed jackleg lawyer for the GOP.

Note to non-lawyers: CO. Hoosier's incessant bullshit isn't good lawyering. It isn't even bad lawyering. It's just bullshit.

Note to moderators: When I say bullshit, I mean it in the scholarly sense of the word. There is no better word in the English language to describe it.

CO. Hoosier's posts constitute a defamation of lawyers and lawyering. He is a blight.
 
There are a number of really awful posters on this board. As a lawyer, though, I find none more contemptible than this self-appointed jackleg lawyer for the GOP.

Note to non-lawyers: CO. Hoosier's incessant bullshit isn't good lawyering. It isn't even bad lawyering. It's just bullshit.

Note to moderators: When I say bullshit, I mean it in the scholarly sense of the word. There is no better word in the English language to describe it.

CO. Hoosier's posts constitute a defamation of lawyers and lawyering. He is a blight.
Would be interested in your thoughts about the indictments. They seem like Mueller is laying a foundation for what is to come. That is, establishing that crimes were committed by Russians in the context of our elections. With that foundation does he pursue American's who were accessories as it were?
 
There are a number of really awful posters on this board. As a lawyer, though, I find none more contemptible than this self-appointed jackleg lawyer for the GOP.

Note to non-lawyers: CO. Hoosier's incessant bullshit isn't good lawyering. It isn't even bad lawyering. It's just bullshit.

Note to moderators: When I say bullshit, I mean it in the scholarly sense of the word. There is no better word in the English language to describe it.

CO. Hoosier's posts constitute a defamation of lawyers and lawyering. He is a blight.

What have I said about the indictment that isn’t true?

As usual you post ad hominems and no substance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUBBALLAWOL
Would be interested in your thoughts about the indictments. They seem like Mueller is laying a foundation for what is to come. That is, establishing that crimes were committed by Russians in the context of our elections. With that foundation does he pursue American's who were accessories as it were?
The indictments made big news because no one saw them coming and because they lay waste to Trump's claim that Russian interference is a hoax. (No sentient human really believed that, but there are also Trump supporters who may still believe it.) As to collusion, the indictments tell us something about what Americans might have colluded in. But we don't know if this is all that Mueller knows, even about the matters addressed in the indictments. We know only what the prosecutors have publicly said about what they know. (More here.)

Fundamentally, we don't know what Mueller knows, nor do we know what he's likely to learn. Unlike the jackleg lawyer, I'm cautious when I don't know what the facts are.
 
The indictments made big news because no one saw them coming and because they lay waste to Trump's claim that Russian interference is a hoax. (No sentient human really believed that, but there are also Trump supporters who may still believe it.) As to collusion, the indictments tell us something about what Americans might have colluded in. But we don't know if this is all that Mueller knows, even about the matters addressed in the indictments. We know only what the prosecutors have publicly said about what they know. (More here.)

Fundamentally, we don't know what Mueller knows, nor do we know what he's likely to learn. Unlike the jackleg lawyer, I'm cautious when I don't know what the facts are.

The indictment also tells us a lot by what isn’t charged. Mueller laid out details about campaign interference, and we have statutes prohibiting that by a foreign entity. Yet Mueller neither charged that crime nor did he even charge a conspiracy to commit that crime.

We have to deal with the indictment we have, not one you wish we have. This indictment is pretty weak sauce. Maybe Mueller has more, but the fact that he didn’t charge the Russians with more casts doubt on what he has.
 
The indictments made big news because no one saw them coming and because they lay waste to Trump's claim that Russian interference is a hoax. (No sentient human really believed that, but there are also Trump supporters who may still believe it.) As to collusion, the indictments tell us something about what Americans might have colluded in. But we don't know if this is all that Mueller knows, even about the matters addressed in the indictments. We know only what the prosecutors have publicly said about what they know. (More here.)

Fundamentally, we don't know what Mueller knows, nor do we know what he's likely to learn. Unlike the jackleg lawyer, I'm cautious when I don't know what the facts are.
The article you link is very informative, thanks. A signature moment in the 2016 campaign was at the beginning of the convention Trump changed the Republican platform on Ukraine. That change struck me as simply bizarre. There was no domestic constituency in the GOP interested in weakening the platform on the Ukraine and the standard GOP position prior had been for a tougher position. That moment signaled to me that Trump was catering to Russian rather than American interests. The Russian wikilieaks avalanche followed a few weeks later. The whole thing reeks of a quid pro quo.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3d06b37f256_story.html?utm_term=.e0a95ef82b1d
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/5683...d-change-to-party-platform-on-ukraine-support
 
  • Like
Reactions: Digressions
The article you link is very informative, thanks. A signature moment in the 2016 campaign was at the beginning of the convention Trump changed the Republican platform on Ukraine. That change struck me as simply bizarre. There was no domestic constituency in the GOP interested in weakening the platform on the Ukraine and the standard GOP position prior had been for a tougher position. That moment signaled to me that Trump was catering to Russian rather than American interests. The Russian wikilieaks avalanche followed a few weeks later. The whole thing reeks of a quid pro quo.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3d06b37f256_story.html?utm_term=.e0a95ef82b1d
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/5683...d-change-to-party-platform-on-ukraine-support
Not only did they change the Ukraine plank, they lied about changing it -- as they have about most everything else. The facts are whatever they turn out to be, but if they had nothing to cover up, they wouldn't be doing all this lying and covering up.
 
Not only did they change the Ukraine plank, they lied about changing it -- as they have about most everything else. The facts are whatever they turn out to be, but if they had nothing to cover up, they wouldn't be doing all this lying and covering up.
The change in the platform had no impact on actual policy one way or another. Yet it was what economists call a "costly signal" for Trump. It was costly because it was an otherwise unnecessary slap at GOP hardliners AND because it drew renewed attention to Trump's affinity for Russia. Since both of those things were costly for Trump we should ask who was the desired "receiver" of this costly signal? The answer is obviously Russia. The signal was that Trump would pursue a foreign policy friendly to Russia. Following that signal the Kremlin opened the floodgates on wikileaks.
 
There are two problems here. First, people instinctively assume that those who harm them do so intentionally. This is an emotional reaction. If someone trips and hits us our initial reaction is often anger at the person for hitting us. Some people are capable of moderating that emotion with reason and recognizing when the blow was unintentional. Some aren't. The second problem is harder. Many people feel extreme emotional hatred directed at those who are, in fact, trying to harm them. Controlling those feelings is central to responding properly to such people--as anyone with military training knows. This is also the problem that many minorities have had to endure in pretty much every place and time. Think of Dr. King and the civil rights movement responding to those who quite literally meant to destroy them. This is also a problem for women who must often deal with people e.g., rapists and abusers who mean them harm.

Overall, the relatively powerless, are going to do better in terms of reacting to both situations by virtue of being forced to control their emotions while dealing with harms done by the indifference of the powerful and through the experience of being under actual attack. The relatively powerful much less so. The Republicans, as the party of the empowered, regularly screw this up more often than the Dems. But everyone is human.
Not sure what you’re getting at in that. But, OK.
 
The article you link is very informative, thanks. A signature moment in the 2016 campaign was at the beginning of the convention Trump changed the Republican platform on Ukraine. That change struck me as simply bizarre. There was no domestic constituency in the GOP interested in weakening the platform on the Ukraine and the standard GOP position prior had been for a tougher position. That moment signaled to me that Trump was catering to Russian rather than American interests. The Russian wikilieaks avalanche followed a few weeks later. The whole thing reeks of a quid pro quo.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3d06b37f256_story.html?utm_term=.e0a95ef82b1d
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/5683...d-change-to-party-platform-on-ukraine-support

The article not only is informative, it raises some questions about what Mueller did with this indictment.

Let's start with the crime Mueller did not charge. Here is the foreign "meddling" statute, which according to the activities alleged in the indictment, the Russians obviously conspired to have violated and in fact did violate:

§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or


(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.​

I don't think any lawyer on this board would disagree that, if Mueller's alleged facts are true, this is the most pertinent and appropriate crime to charge.

Instead Mueller charged the Russians in Count 1 with conspiracy to commit fraud by (1) Not registering as a foreign agent and (2) not reporting the money spent to the Federal Elections Commission. Neither of these charges reflects on the meddling issue. Instead Mueller leaves us with the implication that if the Russians did those two things, they'd be legal.

I suppose it's possible that Mueller will bring additional charges, but I don't think many prosecutors would hit the defendant with a feather when they actually hold a sledge hammer.

I think there are other reasons why Mueller avoids the gut issues involved with his investigation. To avoid another shitstorm, I'll save my speculation about this.

This indictment is indeed a curiosity.
 
Here is an interesting article that relates to the question of why Mueller charged the way he did in the indictment. I wonder what the legal eagles think?
The Mueller indictment is conceivably one way to solve this problem. It alleges a conspiracy to prevent the FEC from taking up and addressing the regulatory issues, and American co-conspirators may be brought in on any overt act in furtherance of this illegal scheme. Any U.S. citizen who intentionally supported the Russian electoral intervention could be liable. Examples would include U.S. citizens engaged in conversations like those in Trump Tower in summer of 2016, or Don, Jr.’s communications with WikiLeaks about the timing of the release of stolen emails. The conspiracy to defraud the United States could also envelop any Americans who helped cover the Russians’ illegal electoral program by lying to federal authorities about the campaign’s Russian contacts.

The special counsel may well have concluded that he could deal with any instances of U.S. citizen complicity without getting bogged down in unresolved questions of what constitutes “soliciting” support or providing the foreign national with “substantial assistance.” In sum, Mr. Mueller and his team may have adopted this theory of the case to facilitate the charging of Americans who helped their Russian allies interfere in the 2016 election. This is most plausible solution to the Mueller indictment mystery.​
 
Here is an interesting article that relates to the question of why Mueller charged the way he did in the indictment. I wonder what the legal eagles think?
The Mueller indictment is conceivably one way to solve this problem. It alleges a conspiracy to prevent the FEC from taking up and addressing the regulatory issues, and American co-conspirators may be brought in on any overt act in furtherance of this illegal scheme. Any U.S. citizen who intentionally supported the Russian electoral intervention could be liable. Examples would include U.S. citizens engaged in conversations like those in Trump Tower in summer of 2016, or Don, Jr.’s communications with WikiLeaks about the timing of the release of stolen emails. The conspiracy to defraud the United States could also envelop any Americans who helped cover the Russians’ illegal electoral program by lying to federal authorities about the campaign’s Russian contacts.

The special counsel may well have concluded that he could deal with any instances of U.S. citizen complicity without getting bogged down in unresolved questions of what constitutes “soliciting” support or providing the foreign national with “substantial assistance.” In sum, Mr. Mueller and his team may have adopted this theory of the case to facilitate the charging of Americans who helped their Russian allies interfere in the 2016 election. This is most plausible solution to the Mueller indictment mystery.​
There are a lot of different reasons why the indictment might have been written the way it was. First and foremost, FECA isn't a criminal statute, per se. By that, I mean, it defines certain unlawful activity, but doesn't specify punishments and so forth. It's more regulatory. 18 USC 371 has more teeth. Secondly, there may be a number of overt acts - in fact, just from the indictment, I can guarantee there are - that are not by themselves actual violations of campaign law, but taken in combination, do rise to the level of fraudulent interference with the government. 371 is sort of a catch-all. Thirdly, and this is only speculation, but it's important to remember, based on the kind of information Mueller had about the IRA, it's likely some of it came from sensitive intelligence operations. He knows he's never going to get these Russians in a court room. The purpose of indicting them is something different. As such, there's no reason for him to give away intelligence information unnecessarily.

Remember the old maxim "Absence of proof is not proof of absence?" The same principle holds with indictments. What Mueller did not charge tells us very little in terms of what did or did not happen. Anyone suggesting the wording of the indictment somehow vindicates Trump or other Americans or whatever is flat out lying to you.
 
But there is this problem. We don't make these definitions. The Constitution does. No matter what we might want the definition of warfare to be - in order to take a President out and punish him as if he had committed treason - the crime has a specific definition no matter whether 12-15 posters on an internet board wish they could change the law to reflect their personal view. It just ain't so no matter how much some folks are consumed by their hatred. Goat spread it out for folks to see. Some would do well to read and learn rather than shout and scream wishing they could make up their own law to fit their own hate filled political preferences.
You’re missing the point. Congress hasn’t declared war in a helluva long time and we are still going to prosecute an American who fights for ISIS with treason.

Cyber warfare should absolutely be considered open hostilities - because it is - and anybody who is proved to have helped an adversarial nation commit cyber warfare should be prosecuted with treason.

Like the 2A, with asymmetric warfare, the Constitution is behind the times and in need of some updating.
 
You’re missing the point. Congress hasn’t declared war in a helluva long time and we are still going to prosecute an American who fights for ISIS with treason.

Cyber warfare should absolutely be considered open hostilities - because it is - and anybody who is proved to have helped an adversarial nation commit cyber warfare should be prosecuted with treason.

Like the 2A, with asymmetric warfare, the Constitution is behind the times and in need of some updating.
If someone helped ISIS commit cyber warfare, that would absolutely be treason. ISIS is in a state of open hostility to us. You (and others) seem to be hung up on methods, but the Constitutional issue has nothing to do with methods, and everything to do with relationships.
 
If someone helped ISIS commit cyber warfare, that would absolutely be treason. ISIS is in a state of open hostility to us. You (and others) seem to be hung up on methods, but the Constitutional issue has nothing to do with methods, and everything to do with relationships.
I was reading form your notes that conflict has to be “formal” and assumed that means articles of war have been filed. Is that not the case?

But in reality, I’m saying we have to come to accept persistent cyber attacks on our country to be acts of war. If Russia has been committing systemic and persistent and pervasive cyber attacks, my point is that we are therefore in formal conflict with Russia.
 
I was reading form your notes that conflict has to be “formal” and assumed that means articles of war have been filed. Is that not the case?

But in reality, I’m saying we have to come to accept persistent cyber attacks on our country to be acts of war. If Russia has been committing systemic and persistent and pervasive cyber attacks, my point is that we are therefore in formal conflict with Russia.
I don't think it has to be formalized in that way. It just has to be "open." I.e., Russia is an adversary, for sure, but they are not an "enemy" for purposes of the Treason Clause. ISIS, I think, clearly is.

I'm not sure why people are so keen on declaring something treason, anyway. We've already decided that the government can kill you just as dead for any number of non-treason crimes. Ask the Rosenbergs what benefit they gained by not technically being charged with treason.
 
He’s making the leap of calling cyber warfare an act of open aggression and therefore lays groundwork for treason. At some point we’re going to have to consider clarifying how we treat cyber warfare

The lack of knowledge in Congress related to cyber is terrifying.
 
FIFY

And that's not doing it justice. Ignorant, amoral zealots ... whoda thunk they don't have our best interests at heart.

I'm talking about Congress as a whole. (Not the current party in power)

Both sides of the aisle are absolutely cluless on Cyber issues.
 
I wonder what the legal eagles think?

Beats me. Given the indictment's specific language about unwitting American participants, I can't get too excited about the speculation in this article. Scienter (guilty knowledge) is necessary for the charges in the indictment and not in the indictment. While the indictment was drawn up by Mueller's team it is actually the work of the grand jury as noted at the beginning of the document. I'll go with Occam's Razor here; Mueller tried to get the GJ to indict for meddling, the GJ didn't go along. He loaded the indictment with the meddling language more for show, it doesn't mean much--so far.

Mueller got the public reaction he was looking for.
 
Beats me. Given the indictment's specific language about unwitting American participants, I can't get too excited about the speculation in this article. Scienter (guilty knowledge) is necessary for the charges in the indictment and not in the indictment. While the indictment was drawn up by Mueller's team it is actually the work of the grand jury as noted at the beginning of the document. I'll go with Occam's Razor here; Mueller tried to get the GJ to indict for meddling, the GJ didn't go along. He loaded the indictment with the meddling language more for show, it doesn't mean much--so far.

Mueller got the public reaction he was looking for.
Beats me. Given the indictment's specific language about unwitting American participants, I can't get too excited about the speculation in this article. Scienter (guilty knowledge) is necessary for the charges in the indictment and not in the indictment. While the indictment was drawn up by Mueller's team it is actually the work of the grand jury as noted at the beginning of the document. I'll go with Occam's Razor here; Mueller tried to get the GJ to indict for meddling, the GJ didn't go along. He loaded the indictment with the meddling language more for show, it doesn't mean much--so far.

Mueller got the public reaction he was looking for.

“Mueller got the public reaction he was looking for”?

Bob Mueller is a life long Republican, universally respected as a man of integrity. IMO, Mueller is on a mission to save America from a potential hostile takeover from a foreign power. We may have a man in the Oval Office in concert with the Russian goal. He may just be a useful idiot, but your comment makes it seem you think this is just some political game Mueller is playing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cosmickid
Here is an interesting article that relates to the question of why Mueller charged the way he did in the indictment. I wonder what the legal eagles think?
The Mueller indictment is conceivably one way to solve this problem. It alleges a conspiracy to prevent the FEC from taking up and addressing the regulatory issues, and American co-conspirators may be brought in on any overt act in furtherance of this illegal scheme. Any U.S. citizen who intentionally supported the Russian electoral intervention could be liable. Examples would include U.S. citizens engaged in conversations like those in Trump Tower in summer of 2016, or Don, Jr.’s communications with WikiLeaks about the timing of the release of stolen emails. The conspiracy to defraud the United States could also envelop any Americans who helped cover the Russians’ illegal electoral program by lying to federal authorities about the campaign’s Russian contacts.

The special counsel may well have concluded that he could deal with any instances of U.S. citizen complicity without getting bogged down in unresolved questions of what constitutes “soliciting” support or providing the foreign national with “substantial assistance.” In sum, Mr. Mueller and his team may have adopted this theory of the case to facilitate the charging of Americans who helped their Russian allies interfere in the 2016 election. This is most plausible solution to the Mueller indictment mystery.​
I just got around to reading this in detail. It's not an explanation I would have come up with, but it is a valid possibility. It's especially attractive because it rests on the idea - almost certainly true, for various reasons we've already covered - that there are American co-conspirators to the Russian activity in Mueller's crosshairs.
 
“Mueller got the public reaction he was looking for”?

Bob Mueller is a life long Republican, universally respected as a man of integrity. IMO, Mueller is on a mission to save America from a potential hostile takeover from a foreign power. We may have a man in the Oval Office in concert with the Russian goal. He may just be a useful idiot, but your comment makes it seem you think this is just some political game Mueller is playing.

First of all, being a life long Republican has nothing to do with anything. So is Comey and look what a boob he turned out to be notwithstanding HRC thinks he cost her her entitlement election.

I’ve read about 6 articles by lawyers on this indictment. As I said yesterday, it’s a nothingburger in terms of Mueller’s defined mission and the guts of the charges. There is a lot of speculation/wishful thinking trying to make this indictment a building block or something. Problem with that theory is that if true, then this indictment should have remained sealed lest the potential additional targets get some free discovery about where Mueller is going. Mueller isn’t dumb, I think he’d keep building blocks under wraps. The only reason to make it public worded as it is is for publicity.
 
First of all, being a life long Republican has nothing to do with anything. So is Comey and look what a boob he turned out to be notwithstanding HRC thinks he cost her her entitlement election.

I’ve read about 6 articles by lawyers on this indictment. As I said yesterday, it’s a nothingburger in terms of Mueller’s defined mission and the guts of the charges. There is a lot of speculation/wishful thinking trying to make this indictment a building block or something. Problem with that theory is that if true, then this indictment should have remained sealed lest the potential additional targets get some free discovery about where Mueller is going. Mueller isn’t dumb, I think he’d keep building blocks under wraps. The only reason to make it public worded as it is is for publicity.

Fair enough, but what’s his purpose for publicity? He’s ran a tight ship up to this point.
 
He is awake and in full deflection mode:






Obama was incredibly mindful of not taking any action because it would have been deemed to have been interfereing in the election.
Imagine if it was announced during the campaign that Trump Campaign was under investigation for colluding with the Russian government.
Republicans would have gone absolutely fakking mental. He let it play out the only way he could. Rock and a hard place.

I think he knows something else is coming this week or he is cracking up under the pressure.
 
Last edited:
He is awake and in full deflection mode:






Obama was incredibly mindful of not taking any action because it would have been deemed to have been interfereing in the election.
Imagine if it was announced during the campaign that Trump Campaign was under investigation for colluding with the Russian government.
Republicans would have gone absolutely fakking mental. He let it play out the only way he could. Rock and a hard place.

I think he knows something else is coming this week or he is cracking up under the pressure.
He’s ridiculous.
 
He’s ridiculous.
I think ridiculous understates our predicament. Mueller's indictment demonstrates a systematic effort by the Russians to influence and disrupt our elections. To flame the fires of our polarized politics by promoting the most extreme partisan voices on both left and right. By promoting conspiracy theories that our elections are rigged. in sum we are under sustained attack. I talked to a friend who spent years as an Israeli intelligence officer. He is shocked that the country is not united in outrage at what the Russians are doing. There is exactly one reason that the country is not united on this point and that reason is Trump.
 
I think ridiculous understates our predicament. Mueller's indictment demonstrates a systematic effort by the Russians to influence and disrupt our elections. To flame the fires of our polarized politics by promoting the most extreme partisan voices on both left and right. By promoting conspiracy theories that our elections are rigged. in sum we are under sustained attack. I talked to a friend who spent years as an Israeli intelligence officer. He is shocked that the country is not united in outrage at what the Russians are doing. There is exactly one reason that the country is not united on this point and that reason is Trump.

He is a genius at leveraging at the anger of the disenfranchised.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT