• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Let’s Not Get Carried Away - David Brooks not impressed with Russia evidence

rocket88

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
44,814
Reaction score
20,221
Location
A very blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"Im not saying there shouldn’t be an investigation into potential Russia-Trump links. Russia’s attack on American democracy was truly heinous, and if the Trump people were involved, that would be treason. I’m saying first, let’s not get ahead of ourselves and assume that this link exists."

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/...af38fe5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

Brooks is usually no fan if the President. I'm willing to bet that this won't elicit cries of "fake news" even if it is th Times.
 
rocket88 said:
"Im not saying there shouldn’t be an investigation into potential Russia-Trump links. Russia’s attack on American democracy was truly heinous, and if the Trump people were involved, that would be treason. I’m saying first, let’s not get ahead of ourselves and assume that this link exists."

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/...af38fe5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

Brooks is usually no fan if the President. I'm willing to bet that this won't elicit cries of "fake news" even if it is th Times.
Click to expand...

From the article:

There may be a giant revelation still to come. But as the Trump-Russia story has evolved, it is striking how little evidence there is that any underlying crime occurred — that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russians. Everything seems to be leaking out of this administration, but so far the leaks about actual collusion are meager.

There were some meetings between Trump officials and some Russians, but so far no more than you’d expect from a campaign that was publicly and proudly pro-Putin. And so far nothing we know of these meetings proves or even indicates collusion .
Click to expand...

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. ;)
 
Last edited:
In general terms, I believe Brooks is correct from what we know at this time.

And he is also right in that the investigation needs to continue.

Trump may very well be guilty of nothing illegal, but he - and especially his campaign and surrogates - seem to have played far too fast and loose.

If only for that, it is well worth the effort of reigning him and them in.

But I do very much believe several of Trump's key men are going to take hits from the fallout, most notably Flynn and Manaforte. Probably over non-reporting or illicit contact. But that's all fair game. Illegal or avoidance activities by our government officials is just that - illegal or avoiding. And they should pay the price.
 
I have long doubted that Trump is guilty of anything illegal in this particular case regarding "collusion."

It's patently obvious that some of his surrogates are -- Flynn, Manafort and likely Kushner, via lying regarding disclosing ties to said Russia. But those ties will likely never lead to the president being nailed to the wall on anything, and they probably shouldn't.

That said, Trump has done some nakedly obvious things to impede investigation into anything, largely due (IMHO) to pride, hubris and the fact that he's never once believed he's ever done ANYTHING wrong, so why would the people closest to him?

Nixon didn't break into Watergate; it's pretty much accepted he didn't directly order the break-in or even know about it in advance; however, he went down for it largely because he fired Cox. That move opened the floodgates for a lot of things that Nixon couldn't really answer for.

There are numerous parallels to Nixon's conduct during Watergate and Trump's conduct during this kerfuffle, and I hope they're not lost on the "HE DID NUTTIN WRONG" crowd. Because he most certainly has. Firing the FBI director because he won't lay off potentially illegal **** your surrogates did is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
From the article:



Even a broken clock is right twice a day. ;)
Click to expand...

David Brooks doesn't know what the F he's talking about. Last I knew, lying to federal investigators and Congress is a crime, and Sessions, Flynn, Manafort and Kushner have all done that. That's the definition of an "underlying crime." If Trump has any culpability, it's in his attempt to cover it up.
 
Kobie said:
David Brooks doesn't know what the F he's talking about. Last I knew, lying to federal investigators and Congress is a crime, and Sessions, Flynn, Manafort and Kushner have all done that. That's the definition of an "underlying crime." If Trump has any culpability, it's in his attempt to cover it up.
Click to expand...

No Brooks is speaking from years of experience, and in the beginning he even says that he could not follow all of the crap that was being put out.

But he does touch on several strong points, I understand how most of it looks, and how people feel when they read stuff like this. But they must be objective in all things, even if he still sides on the same tone that Trump is unfit for the presidency. There are a multitude of people on this site who can make the same claim about Hillary, but in the end she lost, and he won.

I'm fine with their being an investigation, and maybe even a trial against Flynn, Manafort, or anyone else.

But I know that when its over, and Trump is still in office. That there is going to be no shortage of people still crying, and whining about collusion from the sidelines. Still ranting that they need to have another investigation, or look into Putin's action ...blah.. blah so on, and so forth.

When this is over, those fools should shut the hell up.

But Brooks does save the best for last in these words here.
Things are so bad that I’m going to have to give Trump the last word. On June 15 he tweeted, “They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story.” Unless there is some new revelation, that may turn out to be pretty accurate commentary.
 
Last edited:
Look...the democrats have been into this mess since well before the election. The Obama administration ordered the unmasking of over 1900 citizens long before the election. Does anyone REALLY believe that if there was evidence of an actual criminal act, that that evidence wouldnt have surfaced before the election?

I still maintain...Lynch will be the scalp that will be offered up and when that happens, both sides will proclaim VICTORY!!!

Its REALLY ****ing pathetic that even though it can be shown that there is NO EVIDENCE of collusion between Putin and trump, democrats STILL cling to the Putin/Trump lie. It passed 'sad' a long time ago.
 
Kobie said:
I have long doubted that Trump is guilty of anything illegal in this particular case regarding "collusion."

It's patently obvious that some of his surrogates are -- Flynn, Manafort and likely Kushner, via lying regarding disclosing ties to said Russia. But those ties will likely never lead to the president being nailed to the wall on anything, and they probably shouldn't.

That said, Trump has done some nakedly obvious things to impede investigation into anything, largely due (IMHO) to pride, hubris and the fact that he's never once believed he's ever done ANYTHING wrong, so why would the people closest to him?

Nixon didn't break into Watergate; it's pretty much accepted he didn't directly order the break-in or even know about it in advance; however, he went down for it largely because he fired Cox. That move opened the floodgates for a lot of things that Nixon couldn't really answer for.

There are numerous parallels to Nixon's conduct during Watergate and Trump's conduct during this kerfuffle, and I hope they're not lost on the "HE DID NUTTIN WRONG" crowd. Because he most certainly has. Firing the FBI director because he won't lay off potentially illegal **** your surrogates did is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
Click to expand...

That's the thing. You'd think they learned from Watergate and Blowjobgate that what gets you in trouble is covering up and lying. I can live with "he didn't do anything," but then why the rush to cover it up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom