Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo

Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

Recommended Posts

I believe those who think his testimony can't change anything, have short memories. What was the impact of the bengazi hearings over and over with nothing new coming out? How many people still clamor for the 30k emails? Did the drip drip drip lead to the public perception Clinton was hiding things and acting illegally? Even if nothing comes of his testimony, it goes towards a narrative, one which has dogged Trump since day one. If that is all that comes of this, it is still damaging to Trump. Personally, I found the lawfare reading linked Monday to be compelling. Anything that raises awareness of what is in the report is powerful.


For better or worse, our minds become conditioned to believe that which we hear most often.  We find ourselves victims of confirmation bias where everything we experience becomes further proof of what we thought going into the situation. As a country, we need to be very careful about what narratives we allow ourselves to believe. It is the easiest way to lead us around like a man with a fish hook stuck in his groin. The bearer of the pole can lead us where ever they want.  Furthermore, the big money we currently allow in politics means there are some expert anglers waiting to cast their lines towards us. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Chachie said:



You're right. I was wrong. However, in the European Parliament elections last month, LePen's party won 23% of the vote to Macron's party's 22%. Things are changing there.


You can't read too much into that because EU parliament elections have notoriously low turn out and they essentially function as the first round of Presidential elections in France, where every party is allowed to nominate candidates.


In the first round of their last Presidential election Macron got 24% of the vote, while Le Pen received 21%. So it's not surprising that their vote totals in the EU parliament elections were around these percentages, since their were other candidates from the far left, greens and the center-right.


I think what we see in France is basically that the extreme right grew in popularity enough to displace the center-right Republicans and become the primary right wing party, but they are resoundingly disliked by the center, liberals, far-left and a good portion of the center-right.

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2019 at 2:59 PM, visionary said:



Maybe he forgets he's President of the United States. Because it IS our ****ing business what he talks to Putin about. The mother****er.

Edited by Dan T.
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hersh said:


It’s sad that Trump gets away with talking like this with a guy that has people killed. 


And on the 1-year anniversary of the Capital Gazette murders in Annapolis, no less. To the very day. 



  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites



This is a good description of the strategy formulating by Trump's protectors in the House in anticipation of Mueller's upcoming testimony.  It is, to no one's surprise, based on misrepresentation and lies.


The new GOP attacks on Mueller will backfire on Trump — bigly

by Greg Sargent


Given that Robert S. Mueller III’s findings supposedly amounted to “total exoneration” for President Trump, you might be puzzled to learn that Trump’s top allies are spending enormous amounts of time scheming about how to undermine the former special counsel’s credibility and cast doubt on those findings.


With Mueller set to testify to Congress on July 17, Politico reports that Trump’s leading Republicans defenders in the House are putting together a new battle plan that will finally expose the Mueller investigation once and for all as the fraud it has always been.


If Mueller’s investigation exonerated Trump, you would think the best strategy for Trump’s allies would be to simply sit back while Mueller describes his findings in as detailed and unvarnished way as possible. Oddly enough, that’s not what they’re planning on doing.


The monumental absurdity at the core of this disconnect is the reason this strategy is likely to backfire on Trump. Yet, at the same time, the very existence of this strategy, despite its obvious ridiculousness, opens a window on how the Trump propaganda network wields disinformation, and how in certain respects, it does serve his ends.


The Republicans developing this strategy explained it in multiple interviews with Politico. They include Trump’s most determined bodyguards against scrutiny and accountability on Capitol Hill, such as Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio) and Matt Gaetz (Fla.).


These modern-day Clarence Darrows intend to ruthlessly expose “that Mueller’s team was biased against the president from the start and that the Russia investigation was tainted by inappropriate surveillance,” as Politico puts it.


Some of these lines of attack are matters Republicans have already obsessed over endlessly. They will try again to reveal that early surveillance warrants were improperly obtained. So far, those efforts have ended up producing nothing more than buffoonish pratfalls such as the comically ill-fated “Nunes memo.”


Then there are those texts between FBI agents, which were supposed to prove that the FBI tried to derail Trump’s candidacy. They didn’t actually prove anything of the sort.


But Republicans are also set to target Mueller with an attack that appears relatively new. I’ll let Jordan explain:

“The obvious question is the one that everyone in the country wants to know:

when did you first know there was no conspiracy, coordination or collusion?” said Jordan,

one of the Republicans’ fiercest investigators. “How much longer did it take Bob Mueller to figure that out?

Did he intentionally wait until after 2018 midterms, or what?”


This is extraordinary. Mueller did not conclude that there was “no collusion.” His report clarified that “collusion” is a legally meaningless term, while also documenting extensive ways in which Trump and his campaign advisers encouraged, sought to profit from, and attempted to conspire with Russia’s “sweeping and systematic” attack on our political system, and then extensively lied about it.


Mueller did not find enough evidence to charge anyone in Trumpworld with a deliberate criminal conspiracy. That is nothing like what Jordan claims. But the monumental distortion that Mueller found no “collusion,” which is meant to imply that he found no wrongdoing or misconduct of any kind, will serve as the foundation for the line of questioning designed to undermine Mueller.


In other words, the Republican line of attack is basically: So when, exactly, did you reach this conclusion that you never actually reached — that no wrongdoing or misconduct of any kind took place — and how long did you conceal this nonexistent conclusion from the American people?


What’s really telling here is Jordan’s claim that “everyone in the country” wants to know when Mueller concluded there was no “collusion” and thus began suppressing it. As a substantive matter, this is silly: Polls show that majorities think Mueller did not clear Trump of wrongdoing and even still believe “collusion” may have happened.


But what this all illustrates is how this kind of disinformation is supposed to work. Jordan knows that the real intended audience for these attacks on Mueller — that is, the Trump base — exists in an alternate universe where Mueller found no corruption or wrongdoing whatsoever. He also knows pro-Trump media can be counted on to spin the events at the Mueller hearings — no matter what happens — into proof of that nonexistent total exoneration, and into proof that Mueller nefariously concealed the nonexistent total exoneration, too.


The fact that so many previous efforts to unmask the Mueller investigation as illegitimate imploded proves the point: Those implosions do not complicate the spinning of this alt-narrative in the least, because in spite of them, the alt-narrative’s purveyors just keep on claiming it has been proved right.


Rest here


  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...