This, I'm afraid, just doesn't ring true. The impulse to cast this as an unjust #WITCHHUNT has become a pathology now. This goes far beyond the mere withholding of judgement you suggest to declaration that there's no evidential basis for the various Russian Meddling investigation, and moreso if-and-when they touch on the President or his campaign. Prosecutions allege wrongdoing, witnesses allege wrongdoing, but investigators investigate - yet the well had been well and truly poisoned by the time claims that the Investigatory arms the intelligence and law enforcement community were dealing in politically biased and baseless allegations became the go-to, stock Republican response.Forty Two wrote:Not the issue. I claim no entitlement to know. I claim the right and the justification to not believe an allegation until there is evidence. I think it's fairly reasonable to do that. If they say I can't know what the evidence is, that's fine. They're not entitled to my acceptance of or belief in the truth of their allegations, though, nor is it "treasonous" to not accept or believe them.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:03 amI just goes round and round like this, again and again, round and round, again and again... I guess some people just feel entitled to know about what stage the ongoing investigations are at.
Moreover, no intelligence agency has alleged wrongdoing on the part of the Trump campaign or Trump in relation to the 2016 election. It's not even alleged. I certainly am justified in not believing an allegation that hasn't been made by them.
I never claimed an entitlement to be in the loop. I don't expect to know what the CIA is doing. But if they were to say that there is a national security need to depose the President of Chile, I would not believe them unless they showed me the evidence. I'm a citizen of the country, and I am not beholden to the CIA, nor am I required to believe things they say. Further, there is plenty of reason to suspect the truth and accuracy of what they say.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:03 am
And if you feel entitled to be in the loop then it's easy to denigrate the work (or existence) of those you see as excluding you.
You're dodging the point by shifting the burden. I said that Trump has made this all about him, a point reinforced every time he refers to investigations into Russian Meddling in the US democratic process as a #WITCHHUNT against him. What are your thoughts on that?Forty Two wrote:There certainly is a lot of reason for him to be concerned about it. The Rosenstein order refers to the Trump campaign, and nobody else's campaign (even though the Russians posted pro Hillary ads, and organized pro Hillary rallies, too). The media focus has been 100% on Trump, and every allegation about the Russian interference is placed in the lap of the Trump campaign in the media.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:03 am
Trump has made this all about him, a #WITCHHUNT, and he and those investing in him have sought to push the security and operation of US democracy aspects of the investigations, the very reason for their existence, way down the prioroty list - so far down in fact that they're indistinguishable from an irrelevance. If this isn't resolved then no American is going to trust the result of any election ever again - and the thought of that leads to a very unsettling place.
While some might say that the Democrats could also have benefited from Russian Meddling too, this is not a hitherto-ignored balancing point or equivalence - that party had their servers raided by Russian-backed hackers while members of the Trump campaign have been shown to have had direct contacts with Russia. To claim that the investigations are fundamentally or functionally biased without acknowledging the context is disingenuous
What's more important to you here, the truth or Trump's political survival and the GOPs political credibility? While it's pretty clear that the investigations have encompassed the Trump campaign, to suggest that investigators which are operating, in part, under a criminal remit are politically biased is to elevate the disingenuous to a nobility which it clearly does not deserve. Does the concept of 'neutrality' require that a sitting president never be subject to investigations operating to a criminal standard (Coz that's what you've just suggested)?Forty Two wrote:[
I've pointed out that the Mueller appointment was brought under the criminal regulations. There is a criminal investigation aspect of the investigation, and it's pretty obvious that the investigation is is targeted toward Trump. This is not a neutral commission, like the 9/11 Commission, which investigated after 9/11/01. That's the kind of commission I've said before should have been created.