The Progressive Projection Project Continues

 

It is now factually and legally known that President Trump committed no crime. He did not (and as it turns out no one in his family or campaign did either) illegally conspire with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton. Trump cooperated in unprecedented ways with the Special Counsel and asserted no executive privilege to deny access to evidence. Trump, with the guidance of his attorneys, did decline to enter perjury traps set for him by the Special Counsel’s team of partisan attorneys. But the exercise of his First Amendment right to speak his innocence and declaim against the unfairness of what was happening, was no crime. He avoided indictment not because you cannot indict a sitting president, but because he committed no crime.

He was legally and factually innocent.

But that doesn’t matter. It never matters in the Progressive Projection Project. In the Project, you accuse your opponent of that with which you are most familiar — your own unlawful or unethical conduct. Are you a racist? Accuse your opponent of racism. Do you support violence? Accuse your opponent of supporting violence. Do you profit from your political activities? Accuse your opponent of profiting from their political activities. Have lust in your heart? Accuse your opponent of sexual impropriety. And so on and so forth.

The beauty of projection is its inexhaustible creative source: Mine your own soul for all the dirt to be thrown.

That is all you need to know to see what’s coming. When you hear any accusation simply ask yourself: Of which is it truer, that the accused or the accuser is guilty?

It will enlighten your viewing of the mainstream media. It will make the tedious reporting more interesting. It will inform with whom to trust the levers of power.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 50 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Coolidge

    Leftist media is not bound by reality. Neither are their consumers. Everybody gets to be Alex Jones except Alex Jones.

    • #1
    • April 19, 2019, at 9:08 AM PDT
    • 18 likes
  2. Thatcher

    Rodin: It is now factually and legally known that President Trump committed no crime.

    However, the MSM and never-Trumpers will continue to say “All the Mueller Report means is they couldn’t find enough evidence that would allow Trump to be charged and convicted.” Technically, this is correct. In reality, it means a team of Trump haters, trying in the worst way to find the slightest indiscretion committed by Trump, came up with zero, zip, nada.

    Now The Donald is right back where he started, having to prove his innocence, which in many cases cannot be done. Thank goodness initial polls show voters say they’ve had enough, but the press will continue to work on changing public opinion regardless.

    • #2
    • April 19, 2019, at 9:21 AM PDT
    • 10 likes
  3. Contributor

    Their inability or unwillingness to self-reflect is mind-boggling. Clueless. 

    • #3
    • April 19, 2019, at 9:39 AM PDT
    • 12 likes
  4. Member

    One wonders what David French is projecting today when he declares “the President’s word simply cannot be trusted.”

    • #4
    • April 19, 2019, at 9:50 AM PDT
    • 11 likes
  5. Member
    Rodin Post author

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    One wonders what David French is projecting today when he declares “the President’s word simply cannot be trusted.

    Recall that this likely happened because the Obama-Clinton apparatchiks wanted to bring down Trump. Any supporting players were irrelevant if the main target was not hit. Had it been otherwise and you had a genuine concern that people within the campaign were assisting, wittingly or not, a Russian misinformation campaign law enforcement would have sought the cooperation of the candidate. This.they.did.not.do.

    You are capable of believing anything once you have determined to believe that Trump is a traitorous bastard, not just an odious person or wrong-headed opponent. If you can get your head out of that space, then you might be better able to evaluate the conduct of those involved without seeing terrible, horrible things.

    But that seems to be like un-ringing a bell. Saul of Tarsus made such a transition. Maybe redemption is yet awaiting those that aided and abetted, even if honestly confused, what IMO was a terrible crime against our constitution.

    • #5
    • April 19, 2019, at 10:05 AM PDT
    • 10 likes
  6. Thatcher

    Well, the line at National Review today is that Trump is being saved by those around him, when they refuse to follow his orders, and it is clear Trump has no idea what he is doing. 

    So in short, yeah, Trump is not a traitor, but we are going to say he still stupid. 

    It is rich. Having been an actual CEO, I got talked out of “final” decisions more than once. I don’t think that made me a weak leader ,but David French sure does. The CEO way of doing things is totally lost on your typical pundit. And Mr. French, who as a JAG basically was in the shoes of any lawyer second guessing split second decisions and giving our troops reasons they could not take action, feels he is better qualified to judge Trump than the likes of me. 

    Trump was innocent, and faced with a sustained effort to bring him down. Most of the people at National Review refuses to even acknowledge that, if the Corner is anything to go by. Nope, Trump getting pissed at it, Trump being talked into changing his mind by his direct reports, those are signs he is weak or irrational or something bad. In no way can they spin it in anyway positive, because Trump is a bad man, and therefore cannot do anything right. 

    Well, I am here to say that successful CEOs will listen to their staff and make changes. When Jonah or David has run a multi-million dollar company that has to turn a profit, not just beg for money, they can opine all they want too about how to be a CEO. But they won’t. They will sit back, have the hard job of writing 3 articles a week and making some posts to a blog, never being called on being wrong. Never answering to a board or shareholders for their actions. What a racket. 

    • #6
    • April 19, 2019, at 10:30 AM PDT
    • 27 likes
  7. Member
    Rodin Post author

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    * * *

    The CEO way of doing things is totally lost on your typical pundit. And Mr. French, who as a JAG basically was in the shoes of any lawyer second guessing split second decisions and giving our troops reasons they could not take action, feels he is better qualified to judge Trump than the likes of me [, a CEO].

    In a prior life I was a JAG. I also taught the laws of war and well understood that too many times a soldier in the field was faced with an impossible choice.

    * * *

    Well, I am here to say that successful CEOs will listen to their staff and make changes. When Jonah or David has run a multi-million dollar company that has to turn a profit, not just beg for money, they can opine all they want too about how to be a CEO. But they won’t. 

    Later in my life I took on management responsibilities and appreciated the real difference between making decisions and giving advice. 

    Scott Adams blog from yesterday (4/19) Episode 498 Scott Adams: Obstruction of a Witch Hunt, Mental Health Crisis, Dale, More does an excellent job of describing real life processes between CEO trying to drive a market success and their counselors — when a CEO pushes ahead and when they stop, and why.

     

     

    • #7
    • April 19, 2019, at 11:11 AM PDT
    • 11 likes
  8. Coolidge

    This week, Tucker Carlson has had two nights of his programs with segments focusing on our corrupted media. The one from Wednesday the 18th of April discusses how corrupt the media is from Breitbart’s standpoint. The Breitbart/media discussion starts at the 29:00 minute mark:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiqNAEsMiIE

    Last night’s media discussion involved a dialogue between Glenn Greenwald and Tucker, with Greenwald making many excellent points about the two long years of collusion charges, the lack of apologies from our traitorous press members and how the New Left is now switching over to “He obstructed justice!!”

    However no one in my household can find last night’s episode. As of today the 19th, 2:30 EST, the Tucker show listed as last night’s for the 18th of April is really Wednesday’s the 17th.

    • #8
    • April 19, 2019, at 11:37 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  9. Thatcher

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Well, the line at National Review today is that Trump is being saved by those around him, when they refuse to follow his orders, and it is clear Trump has no idea what he is doing.

    So in short, yeah, Trump is not a traitor, but we are going to say he still stupid.

    It is rich. Having been an actual CEO, I got talked out of “final” decisions more than once. I don’t think that made me a weak leader ,but David French sure does. The CEO way of doing things is totally lost on your typical pundit. And Mr. French, who as a JAG basically was in the shoes of any lawyer second guessing split second decisions and giving our troops reasons they could not take action, feels he is better qualified to judge Trump than the likes of me.

    Trump was innocent, and faced with a sustained effort to bring him down. Most of the people at National Review refuses to even acknowledge that, if the Corner is anything to go by. Nope, Trump getting pissed at it, Trump being talked into changing his mind by his direct reports, those are signs he is weak or irrational or something bad. In no way can they spin it in anyway positive, because Trump is a bad man, and therefore cannot do anything right.

    Well, I am here to say that successful CEOs will listen to their staff and make changes. When Jonah or David has run a multi-million dollar company that has to turn a profit, not just beg for money, they can opine all they want too about how to be a CEO. But they won’t. They will sit back, have the hard job of writing 3 articles a week and making some posts to a blog, never being called on being wrong. Never answering to a board or shareholders for their actions. What a racket.

    This is a great point! I’ve experienced it from both ends; as a manager with a lot of people reporting to me, and in turn reporting to corporate officers. I relied on getting good feedback and pushback when needed from my team, and in turn tried to do the same with those I reported to. I worked for some very good people who, at times, spouted some pretty crazy stuff, and my role was to either pushback or know when to ignore what I’d been told.

    • #9
    • April 19, 2019, at 11:42 AM PDT
    • 10 likes
  10. Thatcher

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    It is rich. Having been an actual CEO, I got talked out of “final” decisions more than once. I don’t think that made me a weak leader ,but David French sure does. The CEO way of doing things is totally lost on your typical pundit. And Mr. French, who as a JAG basically was in the shoes of any lawyer second guessing split second decisions and giving our troops reasons they could not take action, feels he is better qualified to judge Trump than the likes of me.

    I agree. I’ve met David French on an NR cruise, and we had dinner with him one night. On a personal, non-politics level, he’s a fun guy to talk with (got some great tips on red dot rifle sights for my 2016 pre-election Bushmaster). However, I think a lot of the folks at NR believe the people who support their magazine, their foundation, and their views on Trump agree with them 100%.

    Not so! I think Rich Lowry is catching on, albeit slowly. Maybe we’ll have dinner with him on the boat in 2020 after Trump’s re-election . . .

    • #10
    • April 19, 2019, at 12:11 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  11. Thatcher

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    * * *

    The CEO way of doing things is totally lost on your typical pundit. And Mr. French, who as a JAG basically was in the shoes of any lawyer second guessing split second decisions and giving our troops reasons they could not take action, feels he is better qualified to judge Trump than the likes of me [, a CEO].

    In a prior life I was a JAG. I also taught the laws of war and well understood that too many times a soldier in the field was faced with an impossible choice.

    * * *

    Well, I am here to say that successful CEOs will listen to their staff and make changes. When Jonah or David has run a multi-million dollar company that has to turn a profit, not just beg for money, they can opine all they want too about how to be a CEO. But they won’t.

    Later in my life I took on management responsibilities and appreciated the real difference between making decisions and giving advice.

    Scott Adams blog from yesterday (4/19) Episode 498 Scott Adams: Obstruction of a Witch Hunt, Mental Health Crisis, Dale, More does an excellent job of describing real life processes between CEO trying to drive a market success and their counselors — when a CEO pushes ahead and when they stop, and why.

     

     

    Well put, and thanks for the links!

    • #11
    • April 19, 2019, at 12:17 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  12. Member

    Without opining on the Mueller report specifically (that name alone usually prompts me to skip over any article containing it), your general point about projection has been very useful for me.

    Anytime I read some source I know or suspect of being of the Left saying anything about a person or organization of the Right (or conservative) I do stop to consider the possibility (and it’s increasingly becoming a high probability) that the source is projecting onto the person or organization some characteristic or desire that the source has or would insert if they had an opportunity. 

    This wasn’t very apparent to me until after the 2016 US Presidential election. Many people had earlier predicted that Donald Trump and the people who voted for Donald Trump would engage in all manner of bad behavior if Trump lost the election. Those very same people then engaged in exactly those very bad behaviors when Clinton lost the election. 

    • #12
    • April 19, 2019, at 12:49 PM PDT
    • 14 likes
  13. Thatcher

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Without opining on the Mueller report specifically (that name alone usually prompts me to skip over any article containing it), your general point about projection has been very useful for me.

    Anytime I read some source I know or suspect of being of the Left saying anything about a person or organization of the Right (or conservative) I do stop to consider the possibility (and it’s increasingly becoming a high probability) that the source is projecting onto the person or organization some characteristic or desire that the source has or would insert if they had an opportunity.

    This wasn’t very apparent to me until after the 2016 US Presidential election. Many people had earlier predicted that Donald Trump and the people who voted for Donald Trump would engage in all manner of bad behavior if Trump lost the election. Those very same people then engaged in exactly those very bad behaviors when Clinton lost the election.

    Including people on the right. 

    They were all so concerned Trump would not support the winner of the Primary. Then what did they do?

     

    • #13
    • April 19, 2019, at 12:51 PM PDT
    • 14 likes
  14. Member

    Rodin:

    But that doesn’t matter. It never matters in the Progressive Projection Project. In the Project, you accuse your opponent of that with which you are most familiar — your own unlawful or unethical conduct. Are you a racist? Accuse your opponent of racism. Do you support violence? Accuse your opponent of supporting violence. Do you profit from your political activities? Accuse your opponent of profiting from their political activities. Have lust in your heart? Accuse your opponent of sexual impropriety. And so on and so forth.

    The beauty of projection is its inexhaustible creative source: Mine your own soul for all the dirt to be thrown.

    I call it Tactical Projection. It’s used a lot because it’s very effective.

    1. It makes headlines.
    2. It gets your side all riled up, and gives them ammunition.
    3. The other side is not going to do a Peewee Herman “I know you are buy what am I?”
    4. Instead they go on the defense, and offer denials, which always come off as lame.
    5. Their entire history gets reinterpreted for potential examples of the accusation.
    6. If the accusations are made with enough energy, nobody will question the accuser.

    That is a *lot* of bang for the buck.

    Tactical Projection is also weirdly consistent:

    “So I accuse the other side of our own sins?”

    “That’s right.”

    “Isn’t that hypocritical?”

    “Sure. And that means… you accuse the other side of…”

    “… hypocrisy?””

    “Bingo! There’s a certain beauty to it.”

    • #14
    • April 19, 2019, at 1:08 PM PDT
    • 12 likes
  15. Thatcher

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Without opining on the Mueller report specifically (that name alone usually prompts me to skip over any article containing it), your general point about projection has been very useful for me.

    Anytime I read some source I know or suspect of being of the Left saying anything about a person or organization of the Right (or conservative) I do stop to consider the possibility (and it’s increasingly becoming a high probability) that the source is projecting onto the person or organization some characteristic or desire that the source has or would insert if they had an opportunity.

    This wasn’t very apparent to me until after the 2016 US Presidential election. Many people had earlier predicted that Donald Trump and the people who voted for Donald Trump would engage in all manner of bad behavior if Trump lost the election. Those very same people then engaged in exactly those very bad behaviors when Clinton lost the election.

    We saw the projection during and after the campaign. During the campaign we were told that Trump fanatics were going to disrupt Democratic campaign rallies, but the only rallies disrupted were Trump rallies by Democrats. It was Trump supporters getting beat up outside Trump rallies (with progressive politicians instructing police to not intervene), not Clinton supporters beat up outside their rallies.

    After the election we were told Trump supporters were going to unleash a wave of hate and violence. Instead we had a wave of fake hate crimes by progressives; a Bernie Bro trying to kill GOP congressmen at their softball practice; another Bernie Bro attack Sen Paul; an attempted stabbing of a GOP congressional candidate in 2018; another GOP candidate run off the road by an attacker.

    After the election we were told the dark night of fascism would descend on our society and it did – in the form of violence against college speakers; non-platforming, and threats to people’s livelihood if they did not toe the progressive line.

    • #15
    • April 19, 2019, at 1:12 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  16. Member

    Rodin:

    But that doesn’t matter. It never matters in the Progressive Projection Project. In the Project, you accuse your opponent of that with which you are most familiar — your own unlawful or unethical conduct. Are you a racist? Accuse your opponent of racism. Do you support violence? Accuse your opponent of supporting violence. Do you profit from your political activities? Accuse your opponent of profiting from their political activities. Have lust in your heart? Accuse your opponent of sexual impropriety. And so on and so forth.

    This reminds me of the old saying (I think it is French): The man who looks under the bed has hidden there.

    • #16
    • April 19, 2019, at 1:18 PM PDT
    • 8 likes
  17. Reagan

    I have a quick question for Rodin, the post’s author. Is it better that I write a dissenting comment explaining myself, or post a two word comment of “I dissent,” or just let the doggone thing go?

    I don’t want to be a broken record, but I also don’t want my silence to be deemed agreement.

    My gut hunch is to let it go. I wasn’t cited by name, nor by class (e.g. NeverTrumper or The Bulwark reader), hence give it a rest and prepare for a Passover Seder and Easter Sunday.

    All my best, my fellow Ricochetti! Have a great weekend.

    • #17
    • April 19, 2019, at 2:06 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  18. Thatcher

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I have a quick question for Rodin, the post’s author. Is it better that I write a dissenting comment explaining myself, or post a two word comment of “I dissent,” or just let the doggone thing go?

    I don’t want to be a broken record, but I also don’t want my silence to be deemed agreement.

    My gut hunch is to let it go. I wasn’t cited by name, nor by class (e.g. NeverTrumper or The Bulwark reader), hence give it a rest and prepare for a Passover Seder and Easter Sunday.

    All my best, my fellow Ricochetti! Have a great weekend.

    Your silence deemed agreement?

    Gary, what the heck do you mean by that? Do you honestly think if someone makes a Trump post that is pro, that if you don’t chime in we will think you agree with it? 

    Do you really think that? Really?

     

    • #18
    • April 19, 2019, at 2:44 PM PDT
    • 20 likes
  19. Member
    Rodin Post author

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I have a quick question for Rodin, the post’s author. Is it better that I write a dissenting comment explaining myself, or post a two word comment of “I dissent,” or just let the doggone thing go?

    I don’t want to be a broken record, but I also don’t want my silence to be deemed agreement.

    My gut hunch is to let it go. I wasn’t cited by name, nor by class (e.g. NeverTrumper or The Bulwark reader), hence give it a rest and prepare for a Passover Seder and Easter Sunday.

    All my best, my fellow Ricochetti! Have a great weekend.

    Your silence deemed agreement?

    Gary, what the heck do you mean by that? Do you honestly think if someone makes a Trump post that is pro, that if you don’t chime in we will think you agree with it?

    Do you really think that? Really?

    @garyrobbins, you are not a progressive. Ergo, I do not think that your accusations of Trump’s unfitness (with which I disagree) and your preference for a different Republican candidate in 2020 (with which I disagree) involve projection of your own failings and defects (of which we all have in too much abundance). Enjoy your Easter in humility and reflection, as will I.

     

    • #19
    • April 19, 2019, at 2:54 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  20. Reagan

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I have a quick question for Rodin, the post’s author. Is it better that I write a dissenting comment explaining myself, or post a two word comment of “I dissent,” or just let the doggone thing go?

    I don’t want to be a broken record, but I also don’t want my silence to be deemed agreement.

    My gut hunch is to let it go. I wasn’t cited by name, nor by class (e.g. NeverTrumper or The Bulwark reader), hence give it a rest and prepare for a Passover Seder and Easter Sunday.

    All my best, my fellow Ricochetti! Have a great weekend.

    Your silence deemed agreement?

    Gary, what the heck do you mean by that? Do you honestly think if someone makes a Trump post that is pro, that if you don’t chime in we will think you agree with it?

    Do you really think that? Really?

    @garyrobbins, you are not a progressive. Ergo, I do not think that your accusations of Trump’s unfitness (with which I disagree) and your preference for a different Republican candidate in 2020 (with which I disagree) involve projection of your own failings and defects (of which we all have in too much abundance). Enjoy your Easter in humility and reflection, as will I.

    I just got back from a moving Good Friday service. I really didn’t want to fight, and your comment was an absolute blessing. Bless you.

     

    • #20
    • April 19, 2019, at 4:09 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  21. Thatcher

    The one important psychological concept Sigmund Freud got exactly right. [says the woman who earned her MA at the bastion of Behaviorism]

    • #21
    • April 19, 2019, at 10:09 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  22. Member

    namlliT noD (View Comment):

    Rodin:

    But that doesn’t matter. It never matters in the Progressive Projection Project. In the Project, you accuse your opponent of that with which you are most familiar — your own unlawful or unethical conduct. Are you a racist? Accuse your opponent of racism. Do you support violence? Accuse your opponent of supporting violence. Do you profit from your political activities? Accuse your opponent of profiting from their political activities. Have lust in your heart? Accuse your opponent of sexual impropriety. And so on and so forth.

    The beauty of projection is its inexhaustible creative source: Mine your own soul for all the dirt to be thrown.

    I call it Tactical Projection. It’s used a lot because it’s very effective.

    1. It makes headlines.
    2. It gets your side all riled up, and gives them ammunition.
    3. The other side is not going to do a Peewee Herman “I know you are buy what am I?”
    4. Instead they go on the defense, and offer denials, which always come off as lame.
    5. Their entire history gets reinterpreted for potential examples of the accusation.
    6. If the accusations are made with enough energy, nobody will question the accuser.

    That is a *lot* of bang for the buck.

    Tactical Projection is also weirdly consistent:

    “So I accuse the other side of our own sins?”

    “That’s right.”

    “Isn’t that hypocritical?”

    “Sure. And that means… you accuse the other side of…”

    “… hypocrisy?””

    “Bingo! There’s a certain beauty to it.”

    There’s one more upside to tactical projection: Once you are back in power you can do all those things and any accusations look like retaliation. And the public is sick and tired of the subject, so it’s a political loser.

    • #22
    • April 20, 2019, at 5:01 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  23. Moderator

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I have a quick question for Rodin, the post’s author. Is it better that I write a dissenting comment explaining myself, or post a two word comment of “I dissent,” or just let the doggone thing go?

    I don’t want to be a broken record, but I also don’t want my silence to be deemed agreement.

    My gut hunch is to let it go. I wasn’t cited by name, nor by class (e.g. NeverTrumper or The Bulwark reader), hence give it a rest and prepare for a Passover Seder and Easter Sunday.

    All my best, my fellow Ricochetti! Have a great weekend.

    Your silence deemed agreement?

    Gary, what the heck do you mean by that? Do you honestly think if someone makes a Trump post that is pro, that if you don’t chime in we will think you agree with it?

    Do you really think that? Really?

    Could not agree more.

    If you asked me to describe @garyrobbins the first adjective I would use is anti-Trump. That stands out more than being a fan of Reagan or being a lawyer. This is a very memorable thing about you, Gary – we are not going to suffer Garymnesia and assume you have become a Trump supporter if you miss a thread. Take a break, these hours are not billable. Enjoy Easter and the arrival of Spring. Making your life into a constant chorus of Trump Delenda Est is not healthy.

    • #23
    • April 20, 2019, at 9:42 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  24. Coolidge

    namlliT noD (View Comment):

    I call it Tactical Projection. It’s used a lot because it’s very effective.

    1. It makes headlines.
    2. It gets your side all riled up, and gives them ammunition.
    3. The other side is not going to do a Peewee Herman “I know you are buy what am I?”
    4. Instead they go on the defense, and offer denials, which always come off as lame.
    5. Their entire history gets reinterpreted for potential examples of the accusation.
    6. If the accusations are made with enough energy, nobody will question the accuser.

    It also insulates against the counter charge of the actual bad behavior. The topic is effectively neutralized. This is a pro-active variation of the “Admit Nothing, Deny Everything, Counterattack” defense.

    • #24
    • April 20, 2019, at 10:47 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  25. Thatcher

    DonG (View Comment):
    This is a pro-active variation of the “Admit Nothing, Deny Everything, Counterattack” defense.

    When I first started work as a Federal employee, the advice I got was:

    1. Admit nothing.
    2. Deny everything.
    3. Demand proof.
    • #25
    • April 20, 2019, at 11:27 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  26. Thatcher

    Rodin: It is now factually and legally known that President Trump committed no crime.

    Taken out of context, that statement is simply not true. He was investigated for something specific. He’s been involved heavily in real estate in New York and peripherally involved in its politics as a rent seeker (in the capitalist/socialist sense).

    New York City and New York state are known for their low to medium corruption.

    It’s more accurate to say that they can’t prove anything.

    I’m a lukewarm Trump supporter. There shouldn’t have been a special counsel, and those conservatives that say, “The system worked.” makes me blanch.

    Just remember, Trump’s no saint, and he has a propensity to push the envelope.

    • #26
    • April 20, 2019, at 11:42 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  27. Thatcher

    Al Sparks (View Comment):
    New York City and New York state are known for their low to medium corruption.

    So true. This is why I think if the SDNY goes after Trump, someone will call and tell them to back the eff off. The reason? Going after Trump for questionable real estate practices in NYC (bribes, kickbacks, money under the table, whatever) would expose all the others involved, which would be just about everybody – heck, maybe even the Clintons.

    New York City can’t afford to lose any more rich people, and putting rich people behind bars won’t solve their impending fiscal crisis . . .

    • #27
    • April 20, 2019, at 11:56 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  28. Member
    Rodin Post author

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    Rodin: It is now factually and legally known that President Trump committed no crime.

    Taken out of context, that statement is simply not true.

    Well, yes, your statement applies in infinite contexts. But “the statement” is in context. And we are not litigating a person’s entire life. That is what the election was about that the Obama-Clinton-FBI-DOJ-CIA-MSM did not want to accept. Thus the selection of the target, then the search for the crime. How many of us could remain at liberty (or even sane) if we were targeted in this manner?! That is why we are supposed to be protected by our constitution. And why we must examine carefully the conduct of those empowered to enforce law who coordinated a search and destroy operation.

    • #28
    • April 20, 2019, at 12:00 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  29. Member

    Stad (View Comment):

    DonG (View Comment):
    This is a pro-active variation of the “Admit Nothing, Deny Everything, Counterattack” defense.

    When I first started work as a Federal employee, the advice I got was:

    1. Admit nothing.
    2. Deny everything.
    3. Demand proof.

    Was that before Fire no one?

    • #29
    • April 20, 2019, at 1:43 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  30. Member

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    One wonders what David French is projecting today when he declares “the President’s word simply cannot be trusted.”

    What really disturbed me about that piece is this statement: “the lies help demonstrate why the underlying investigation was so very necessary” which he followed up with a paragraph of Russia nonsense, as though he were either unaware it had all been discussed at length and refuted in Mueller’s report or felt we had to hear it again for old times sake.

    This is the same rotten thinking that started the wheels of government turning its massive power on candidate Donald Trump: Trump is bad, therefore he must be guilty of something…we just have to find it.

    A lawyer thinks it’s okay to put the nation through the trauma of wondering if its president conspired with a foreign entity because he thinks said president is a liar in chief among a den of liars. To prove it, he’s willing to subvert longstanding DOJ policy and sic a Special Counsel on a POTUS without benefit of a crime…all based on an unverified dossier of lies and innuendo.

    • #30
    • April 20, 2019, at 1:47 PM PDT
    • 12 likes
  1. 1
  2. 2