Rising fascism in the US

This current conversation reminds me of why I find myself Apolitical - in Australia:
- both parties lie to their constituency
- both parties think it is the normal thing to do
- both parties engage in lies occasionally so blatant, that it can only indicate utter contempt for their constituency
- both parties act in their self interest
- both parties cater to the interests of corporations over the population (here I'm talking about acts over decades that slowly but consistently increase the corporation/populace balance towards corporations)
- both parties consistently engage in fear politics

I'm not sure how anyone can trust, let alone support any party that displays such ethical (or moral if that is your bent) corruption.

The above very much appears to also be the case in the US. And while there are people in Australia who view their political party religiously as the ideal of political virtue (something I view as akin to having a malady against reality) - the situation appears way worse in the US.

Of course that doesn't mean that one party can't be worse than the other...but if that what the case is, then to me it does mean that (if you find them both to be corrupt) neither should have your trust, or unconditional support.

The existence of corruption in any organisation doesn't mean that the entire organisation is corrupt. And the presence of honest people within a system doesn't mean the system can't have a level of corruption.

As far as I can tell (in Australia at least), the corruption tends to occur the closer to the top people get. I'm pretty sure that a decent percentage, and perhaps even the majority of those who run for office actually do it for the right reasons.

And then there are of course different levels of corruption - as different systems/cultures/environments/common beliefs etc lend themselves to differing levels of overall corruption. I think you made reference to this in your post.

In a two party political system, where one is worse than the other, some will favour the 'other major party'. I've been voting independent for many years (I don't buy the lie that 'voting that way won't make a difference' - it only doesn't make a difference if enough people buy that lie)

Still, there is value in special counsel John Durham’s tireless effort to reveal the secrets of the dirtiest dirty trick ever. His assignment was to probe how and why the FBI took the unprecedented step of spying on the campaign of the opposing party’s presidential candidate and while the going has been slow, he is adding important details to a major stain on our national history.

The Biden administration would surely love to shut Durham down, but convicting Sussmann likely would give the prosecutor new impetus and save his probe from the Democrats’ ax.

(...) After six hours of deliberation, a federal jury today acquitted Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman of making a false statement to the FBI. This is the outcome of the Trump administration’s attempt to discredit the investigation into the ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign.

In May 2019, then–attorney general William Barr appointed John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation to see if it was “lawful and appropriate.” This was a pretty transparent attempt to salt the media with stories about how Trump was being persecuted by Democrats and how the connections between his campaign and Russian operatives were, as he said, a “hoax.”

Using “investigations” to sway public opinion has been a Republican tactic since House Speaker Newt Gingrich ran investigations about "voter fraud" in the 1990s. Those investigations never turned up any evidence, but the constant news coverage convinced many voters that voter fraud was a huge problem. Ditto with Benghazi, and Hillary's emails. Trump tried to get Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to say he was investigating Hunter Biden's work in Ukraine.

Durham’s investigation seemed to be in this vein. Although a Department of Justice inspector concluded that the investigation had been begun properly and the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed that conclusion, in summer 2020, Barr publicly disagreed, saying that the Russia probe was “one of the greatest travesties in American history” and that Durham’s job was not to “prepare a report” but to establish criminal violations that would lead to prosecutions. Trump supporters expected that Durham’s report would help Trump in 2020, and although DOJ policy is to avoid roiling the country in the 60 days before an election, Barr said that he would feel free within that period to release the results of Durham’s investigation.

In September 2020, then–White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told Fox News Channel personality Maria Bartiromo that he had seen “additional” documents from Durham’s investigation that spell “trouble” for former FBI officials who began the inquiry into the ties between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. “Additional documents that I’ve been able to review say that a number of the players, the Peter Strzoks, the Andy McCabes, the James Comeys, and even others in the administration previously are in real trouble because of their willingness to participate in an unlawful act and I use the word unlawful at best, it broke all kinds of protocols and at worst people should go to jail as I mentioned previously,” Meadows said.

That month, a top aide to Durham resigned from the investigation, allegedly out of concerns about political pressure. A Republican congressional aide told Axios: “This is the nightmare scenario. Essentially, the year and a half of arguably the number one issue for the Republican base is virtually meaningless if this doesn't happen before the election.”

But it was not until September 2021, days before the statute of limitations ran out, that Durham announced a grand jury indictment of Michael Sussman, a lawyer working for the Clinton campaign, for lying to the FBI. Sussman worked for the same law firm that represented the campaign, and he took to the FBI the information that cybersecurity security experts had uncovered a possible computer link between Russia’s Kremlin-linked Alfa Bank and Trump Tower.

Durham said Sussman had lied to the FBI by saying he was not working for a client when he alerted them to the issue. Sussman denies he said he did not have a client, and identified himself as working for the cybersecurity experts. In his indictment, Durham said the cybersecurity experts did not believe their own suggestion of connections between Alfa Bank and Trump Tower and were trying to hurt candidate Trump. They responded by accusing Durham of editing their emails misleadingly and stood behind their earlier conclusions. In any case, the DOJ inspector general concluded that the FBI investigation started over something completely different: a boast from a member of the Trump campaign to an informant that the campaign had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

In a court filing in February 2022, Durham chummed the waters by vaguely suggesting that one of the cybersecurity experts, who was working for the White House as part of a cybersecurity contract, “exploited” his access there to find “derogatory information” about Trump. This was false, and Durham quickly walked it back, but ​​Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) told the Fox News Channel: “They were spying on the sitting president of the United States…. And it goes right to the Clinton campaign,” and the former president claimed that Durham had provided “indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia.… In a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death.”

And today, a jury found Sussman not guilty. Asked if the prosecution was a good idea, the foreperson of the jury said: “Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted because I think we have better time or resources to use or spend [on] other things that affect the nation as a whole than a possible lie to the FBI. We could spend that time more wisely.”

But the Durham investigation did accomplish what it set out to. It lasted a year longer than the Mueller probe, and in that time, it manufactured an alternative narrative for right-wing media that undermined the reality Mueller’s report set out: that the Trump campaign worked in tandem with Russian operatives. (...)

Those on the MSN discussion section blamed DC's jury pool. It is always someone else's fault or some deep dark conspiracy theory with these people.

I think it’s healthy to be skeptical about government.
I think it’s wildly unhealthy for citizens to find excuses for one set of corrupt tyrants because they prefer them compared to the other set of corrupt tyrants.
I enjoy pointing that out.

Maybe people should get with themselves and come to terms with why they can’t tolerate criticism of corrupt tyrants.

Peter Navarro Admits the Coup -- Our New Interview

(...)there is some corruption in both...but only someone sleep-walking through life sees any equal proportionality.

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

George Orwell wrote in 1944 that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist,'" and in 1946 that "...'Fascism' has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies something not desirable."