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.
Defining “RINO” in the Trump Era
The derogatory term “Republican in Name Only” is applied to those who vote with the left instead of supporting a conservative agenda. I think there is a new variant of that definition. Since the MSM no longer maintains even a vestigial link to objective reporting, the more significant RINO defining trait is whether a Republican lets his enemies frame and define the issues.
Consider the weekend performances of Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins. They expressed their opposition to that which Trump did not do—fire Mueller. A month or so ago, when the Russian Collusion fantasy was at its peak, firing Mueller would have been a political disaster. Since then, the situation has changed. Opposing what Trump almost did in retrospect is true RINO self-abasement.
For a Republican to be on the defensive when it comes to Mueller is idiotic and weirdly masochistic. The opportunity to fire back is obvious. Consider any of these responses.
• Mueller has nothing. We know that because there have been no more tantalizing leaks to MSNBC or the NYT. The collusion charge was always a fraud now that we know with certainty it was just a campaign dirty trick abetted by the Obama Administration.
• If Mueller drags it out or continues to pursue tangential figures, his credibility diminishes. To prove this not a political vendetta and to preserve his own reputation, he needs wrap it up.
• It now appears that not only does Mueller have nothing, his investigation is now interfering with efforts to uncover the actual scandal.
• If Mueller has found the source of the collusion myth (how could he not), and has seen evidence of what now appears to be unlawful behavior by senior government officials and appointees and yet he has not made a single criminal referral or moved for an indictment despite his absurdly broad mandate, then he should be shut down as a partisan hack who was never interested in the truth of the matter.
Russiagate is imploding on the MSM and Democrats. To be defensive in the face of a failed narrative is not a matter of principled ideological differences. It just being pathetic out of habit. There is no middle ground or “moderate” alternative to The Narrative.
Published in General
So you’re saying the reason for that point is that Trump is awesome?
I think the point of calling Trump a foreign object that is attacked by antibodies is that Trump is awesome. That seems undeniable.
The thread would not have been created if the OP didn’t think Trump was awesome.
I deny it. Whatever the merits of calling those people RINO’s (and I would prefer not to use that term) there are a lot of grounds for attacking them other than thinking Trump is awesome. I think it’s obvious and undeniable that you’re being silly.
That’s fine. I disagree. I’m not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me.
I took pains to add comments to restate the point of the thread. You missed it. Again. It is not about whether the investigation should proceed but that the presumption of good faith, impartiality and lawful purpose claimed for Mueller’s undertaking should not be granted. A RINO is one who lets those who hate him and all other Republicans set the terms and frame the narrative on any issue.
I have no problem with harsh criticisms of Trump’s more unfortunate habits. However, I have a big problem with carrying such criticism into a de facto endorsement of actions and tactics that are objectively wrong, hateful and which only serve the interests of the real enemy.
Nope. I read it. You actually made it worse in your restatement.
That’s fine. I disagree. I’m not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me.
I know, right?!? For 3 weeks Comey left the country stumbling around in the dark, not knowing who the leaker was. And he didn’t disclose that it was him in his written statement to Congress. He wasn’t going to tell if he hadn’t gotten a direct question! And then, after he blithely admits it , Congress just says, ” Oh of course, Mr. Comey, right away, sir!” And appoints his best friend?
Future historians will not believe this.
History is written by the victors. Which is why we must win.
Hearsay.
Speculation.
Thus far the Mueller investigation has taken seven months, cost seven million dollars and yielded nothing.
For those who think we should ‘stay the course’ let me ask you; for how long? years? decades? – and for how much? tens of millions? hundreds of millions?
Because there are no limits to how much can be wasted on this and there is no downside to starting one of these witch-hunts on every new president from now until the end of times.
The Prosecutors including Mueller are experienced attorneys who could earn far more in the private sector. Mueller earned $3,5 million in the three years he was in the private sector.
But the attorneys who took the biggest pay cuts were James Quarles who had earned $5.9 million, Jeannie Rhee who had earned $2 million, and Aaron Zebley who had earned $1.4 million in the year beforehand in the private sector.
“Yielded nothing”? Two convictions so far, and two muticount indictments.
According to John Yoo from the Flagship and Law Talk Podcasts, Mueller is moving quickly.
If Trump had not fired Comey, he would not be facing a Special Counsel. Heck, the FBI could have been done by now. Trump brought this on himself.
Don’t care how much the prosecutors could allegedly make. Tax money is paying for this investigation and millions is a LOT OF MONEY.
If the convictions or indictments aren’t of Trump then, yes, the investigation has yielded nothing.
Your speculation that Trump’s firing of Comey is the reason the investigation is not currently over is just that; speculation.
But you’ve not answered my questions; how much is too much? How long would be too long?
Hmmm.
I’m guessing I speak for a great many Deplorables when I say I’d be a lot more comfortable with Mueller’s fishing expedition, if Hillary Clinton had at least been indicted. Or Lois Lerner. Or a number of others.
So the expenditure of millions of tax dollars on a political vendetta by highly partisan, high-priced attorneys in order to turn a dirty trick by the DNC/HRC campaign into an indictable charge so as to undo an election is OK so long as the salary paid to those attorneys is less than what they usually make? As a taxpayer, I am not consoled by their “sacrifice.” I am very sure they are being paid more than minimum wage.
Two indictments that are “process crimes” entirely unrelated to a criminal collusion theory based entirely on disinformation provided by
SovietRussian government officials to a paid agent of the DNC/HRC. A pretty lame haul for the millions that could have been spent by federal law enforcement to go after actual criminals.Yoo’s point is that usually special prosecutors waste enormous amounts of time and money and have no checks. Mueller thus faces a remarkably low bar when it comes to speed and focus. He is likely coming to the end because there was never anything there not because he is unusually efficient.
Comey deserved to be fired. President Hillary Clinton would have fired him. He is a complete weasel. That Trump “brought is on himself” by incurring the wrath of a leak-happy bureaucratic infighter is a stretch. If still running the FBI, Comey would have (a) worked to bury the extent of partisan corruption on his watch and (b) inflated the Russian collusion myth to weaken Trump and justify the unlawful surveillance and unmasking etc. It would probably be worse for Trump to keep that snake in the garden. And yes, “the FBI would have been done by now” but not in the manner you suggest.
I will say this for Comey. When he’s been before Congress answering questions, he’s quite candid, openly stating that yes he did leak, and yes it was so that a special counsel would be appointed, and no President Trump is not under investigation, contrary to what he insinuated to the press. I guess he at least understands that perjury is a crime.
Unlike, say, Clapper or Lerner or Koskinen, who lie their [redacteds] off or plead the fifth, and then sit there smugly daring us to do something about it.
An attorney is supposed to display “candor toward the tribunal” . This means more that not lying, it means openly telling the truth about all matters with which the tribunal is concerned, which Comey did not plan to do unless he absolutely had to. Like I said, he omitted this little detail about the leaker’s identity from his written statement. He should be subject to disciplinary action.
Clapper is a perjurer, remember (no one else does!) ? He denied under oath that his agency had spied on the US congress; then when proof came out, his explanation? “I forgot.” CTFO!!
Lerner should have been forced to testify, because she waived her 5th Amendment privilege. You cannot state ” I did nothing wrong”, and then cut off cross- examination. Either you say nothing on the stand, or you submit to the opposing party’s right to confront you and cross-examine as to your statements.
This is, like, Due Process 101.
Right. That’s sort of what I meant. He kept the truth hidden until dragged before Congress, where he was forced to tell the truth. Then he did. The others I mentioned kept the truth hidden even when dragged before Congress.
Oh, I have not forgotten.
Ha ha! You think rules apply to the political class! So naïve!
I agree. Trump should give Mueller thirty days to wrap things up, then pull the plug.
Oh, and if Mueller comes up with a finding of something like, “We know he [Trump] did something wrong, but we don’t have the proof to go to court”, then withhold his paycheck.