Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why Have a Democracy?
(Photo: Eliot Cohen by Eric Gibson/ New America via Wikipedia)
Eliot Cohen is a Never-Trump, former Bush Administration State Department official who was interviewed on the “Limited Liability” podcast released April 13 by Jewish Insider. Assessing the situation in Ukraine, Cohen heavily criticized all three of the post-Bush 43 Administrations. But this quote is what stood out for me:
The Trump administration was very peculiar in that it was a little bit like 18th century France, you know, where the king had one foreign policy and the, you know, foreign policy establishment of the time had a different foreign policy, sometimes diametrically opposed. And, you know, I think it’s fair to say that a lot of the, you know, sort of the H.R. McMasters and John Boltons in this world were actually resolutely anti-Russian. Trump was not. Trump was pro-Putin. (27:42 to 28:08)
Neither of the hosts, former Trump official Rich Goldberg or former Obama official Jerrod Bernstein, pushed back in any way. And that’s appalling in and of itself. A statement such as this shows that, according to the foreign policy “experts,” the President of the United States should have no say in the policy of the country he was elected to lead. As long as there is a “consensus” among the elites, the opinions of the President and the people are irrelevant. (And that’s not even touching on the veracity of the “pro-Putin” remark.)
So, as the Never-Trumpers drone on about “saving our democracy,” I ask “What democracy?” I certainly do not support giving any president of any party a blank check. But shouldn’t all the checks on the Executive come from the co-equal branches of the government and not from within the Executive Branch itself? If the President of the United States has no authority over his own constitutional branch of government, why have elections in the first place? We can just as easily autopilot ourselves into WWIII, no?
People like Cohen expect the President to be both their empty vessel and their fall guy when everything goes south. This is not the sign of a healthy “democracy.”
Published in Foreign Policy
No, the onus is on you to state which specific allegations you were referencing. I’m not going to try to read your mind.
That’s a non-answer. What was the lie? Name one actual lie, and we can take it from there.
It is the answer to the question, he untruthfully told Pence he did not discuss the sanctions placed on Russia with the Russian ambassador.
Sorry, that’s not how this works. You claimed the 2020 election was “as free and fair as we have ever experienced,” so you should be able to explain how everyone else is wrong and you, only you, have the special insight to declare it was all above board.
That’s right, the elections were free and fair. If you have reason to believe they weren’t, explain why. I certainly cannot be expected to state what didn’t happen.
I gave you an entire thread demonstrating the multiple issues with the 2020 elections. Your turn. One by one.
I am not going to wade through that thread to attempt to divine what you were referring to. What issues specifically are you claiming made the election not free or fair?
Let’s face reality here. You aren’t interested in whether there was fraud. You will go to your grave insisting it was perfect and fair and honest because to allow yourself to believe that even one vote was stolen puts you on the side of people you hate. And you can’t have that. You must remain pure.
Be warm and well-fed.
That is, if you can afford food under the Biden administration you wanted.
Whether there was fraud was adjudicated in courts across the country and there was nothing demonstrated to have occurred.
The Trump DOJ found no evidence of significant fraud.
What you are doing is projecting. You desperately need there to have been fraud rather than accept your god-king got his a** kicked by someone who is barely coherent.
What was the lie, though? It sounds like you’re saying that Pence said, He lied to me! And you’re believing it. I have assumed over the years that Flynn told the truth to Pence, that he didn’t have any untoward conversations with his soon-to-be Russian counterpart, and then when he signed his coerced plea arrangement, Pence said, There! He lied to me!
Which really isn’t a lie, but rather he told Pence the truth. That’s why I’m asking you, What was the lie?
Flynn was fired for lying to Pence almost a year before he agreed to his plea deal.
Nothing was adjudicated. The courts refusing to listen is not an adjudication.
Are you implying they actually looked? I don’t think they did. And here’s the problem with both sides of this argument, both pro and con on the fraud arguments: From filing to the start of trial in federal courts, both civil and criminal, is, on average, 26 months. Can you imagine the Constitutional crisis that would ensue over the course of an investigation and trial? And if they found substantial fraud there is no mechanism for redress. Would a federal judge order a re-vote? Would it be nation-wide or just the state where it was proved? Would it prove reasonable cause to expand the investigation? Would there even be enough evidence preserved to try it? Would they actually replace the president? Those questions alone are reason enough for a judge to want to run the opposite direction. So the whole “no court took a case” is not a solid, reassuring answer. Because all of the questions I offer are ones nobody has really answered and no judge wants the responsibility to answer.
You haven’t cited the lie yet. You are not aware of a single lie that you accuse Flynn of, are you? :)
PS: I even offered a possibility, but you can’t even answer that one.
Neil is the relief pitcher for Gary.
Nuff said.
But he’s not as polished.
Courts did listen. No evidence was presented, in fact in some cases Trump’s team didn’t even claim fraud before the court contrary to their public statements.
The AG said the DOJ did look into it and found nothing. This is in addition to the steps taken in every state prior to certification.
This is all nonsense in the service of one narcissistic demagogue who can’t accept he lost an election.
I told you the lie. Flynn told Pence he did not speak to the Russian ambassador about the sanctions. That is false.
Okay, Klaatu, this is just pointless. I put together an entire thread of Trump supporters discussing Trump’s failings. There is a massive difference gap between thinking Trump was not a disaster and thinking Trump is without flaws. I list Trump’s accomplishments, and you complain that they are not legislative. Newsflash – the president is the head of the executive branch.
There was an immediate sense of something being off about the 2020 election. For one, Biden ran a very limited campaign, and I’ve never met a person who was enthusiastic about him. When he is outperforming Obama, who had a messianic following, something is looking very strange. This has been backed by evidence. Instead of vowing to investigate any claims of fraud, we got a gag order via social media. Trust me, if you want to prevent conspiracy theories, that is precisely the wrong approach.
Again, the problem in this discussion is that we might as well be from different universes.
I didn’t complain they weren’t legislative, I noted it. The man who claimed he was a great deal maker was incapable of making any deals.
The election wasn’t about Biden, he ran a limited campaign so it wouldn’t be. The election was about Trump and what caused the massive vote for Biden was a massive rejection of Trump. Trump spent 4 years pandering to his base while repelling everyone else. He attempted to win an reelection by motivating his base rather than expanding his support without accounting for the fact he was motivating the rest to vote against him.
The “study” Lott conducted is not evidence.
Talking to his Russian counter part in the weeks running up to the beginning of the term is not illegal or unethical. Why would Flynn lie about it? But even so, saying Flynn lied about it, is not the same as saying what the lie was. You say that Flynn said something to someone and then denied to Pence that he said it. What did Flynn say to the Russian ambassador?
This is sounding a lot like Trump’s call to Zelensky. Schiff made the same type of argument you are. Making up what was said or ignoring the content of it altogether.
@flicker I’m not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Flynn told Pence the sanctions on Russia were not discussed during his call with the Russian ambassador. That was not true. Pence then went out and publicly stated the issue had not been discussed.
Twice the damage, then.
My “god-king”?
COVID is over, but the TDS pandemic continues apace.
Maybe he didn’t discuss them. But my very first question to you was: What was the lie? Specifically, I wrote, “He’s lied? What was the lie. The VP said he lied, but that was just Pence.” My point is that the accusation of a lie, is not the lie.
Your point was that Flynn was railroaded out and you justified his ouster by saying that Flynn lied to the vice president. Maybe he didn’t discuss sanctions. And maybe he didn’t lie.
Just in parting, saying something like, “I can’t talk about this now. Keep your head, don’t do anything rash, and I’ll get back to you and we can talk about it later” it doesn’t amount to a discussion, either.
This is ridiculous. Forget it.
He don’t know your God, do he?
I thought I had read a book, perhaps written by Flynn himself, that was focused on his side of the story. I wanted to consult it just now, but can’t find it among the 143 books in my Kindle queue. It’s possible, but unlikely, that I bought the paper version, but I don’t have such an easy way to look it up. If there really was such a book, it’s likely that it was recommended by someone on Ricochet.
So my questions for the group are these:
So your argument is Trump simply believed the wrong man? Fired Flynn just because Pence said so?
That still doesn’t explain how “Obama’s people” railroaded Flynn out.
No, but did you look under the sofa?
This is the only book on Amazon by Flynn. But I don’t know if it details what you’re looking for.
The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War A
Only the deranged could possibly accept Trump (PBUH) losing a free and fair election, right?
Thanks for the reply, and no, I didn’t look under the sofa. That’s where books go to be disappeared, and I don’t want to be disappeared along with them. But the book I have in mind, whether or not it exists, was about the events up to the 2016 election and the events thereafter.