monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Quote:

I think by this time anyone denying Trump campaign aides "collusion" just has to deny in the teeth of proof to the contrary. Why is it so important to deny it?

It's a good question, rev. There's no rational reason for Trump to repeat so frequently the assertion that "there was no collusion" (16 instances in the last interview alone plus 50, 60 100? earlier instances) or to work so hard at attempting to crush investigations. That is, there's no rational reason other than that he's very worried about what will be turned up re collusion or re some serious financial or other matters.

And the other figures here (Fox, Limbaugh, GOP reps in Congress, etc) it's not difficult to grasp why they are supporting Trump's behavior. For GOP voters that make up Trump's base, it's tribal affiliation. I suspect that the right wing folks posting here - certainly the majority of them - are not concerned with anything Trump might have been guilty of.

there's no rational reason other than that he's very worried about what will be turned up re collusion or re some serious financial or other matters.

I doubt that Trump has made any more references to the supposed "collusion" than have his Democrat and media accusers.

The most remarkable thing so far about this matter are (1) the absence of any as yet disclosed evidence of anything illegal on Trump's part;

The growing evidence suggesting a fairly systematic effort to whitewash Hillary in the Obama Justice Dept. and FBI, accompanied by efforts to develop materials to inhibit the success of then candidate Trump among the bureaucrats in both organizations - one that may well have carried over to the current Mueller investigation.

You are merely indulging in your habitual speculation based on your apparent inclination to assume you somehow know the motivations of other people.

"It appears that your reporters relied on leaks from the Gowdy committee to suggest that Clinton was involved in some kind of criminal malfeasance around the emails".

As Trump had pointed out from the beginning, this whole "alleged collusion" matter is doing a great deal of damage to our country, both domestically and abroad. That provides a very "rational reason" for refuting it.

Media Contempt for Facts Grows Along With the Dangers of War With Russia--“Russiagate” has become a grave threat to US national security—but its discredited foundational allegations persist.

By Stephen F. Cohen
The most influential US media outlets continue to report what is now an established falsehood. Considering the outlets, the most indicative example may be Maggie Haberman, a lead New York Times reporter on “Russiagate” and regular CNN panelist, who wrote, on June 26, that President Trump “still refuses to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies…Russia orchestrated the attacks and did it to help get him elected.”

It is Haberman and the Times that refuse “to acknowledge a basic fact.” And they are far from alone. On June 26, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen repeated the same falsehood, which issues almost daily from CNN and MSNBC hosts and carefully selected guests.

[Editorial comment: Hmmm, I would guess that if "the most influential US media outlets" mention collusion "almost daily," then, collectively that would exceed, BY FAR, Trump's references to it. And that doesn't even count all the references by the (tens of millions of) democrats George included, eh?]

....One day, all of this reckless media malpractice may be critically exposed by media historians or journalism schools, though they scarcely do so today. But in real time, it is exceedingly dangerous—distracting, distorting, or paralyzing a sitting American president as the new Cold War with Russia slouches toward hot war.

Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation.

Colorado deputy killed, 4 others shot in 'ambush-style' attack outside Denver

A New Year's Eve domestic disturbance call sparked an “ambush-style” attack that left one deputy dead, four others injured and two civilians wounded at an apartment complex just south of Denver.

The suspect fired off around 100 rounds with a rifle at the Copper Canyon apartment community in Highlands Ranch, Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock said. “They all went down, almost within seconds of each other,” Spurlock said.

The MSM is full of stories about the supposed "collusion" that are endlessly repeated.

Ezra Klein
‏Verified account
@ezraklein 31 Dec 2017
More Ezra Klein Retweeted Sam Stein
Trump keeps proving that if you simply refuse to be ashamed of your corruption and lying, there’s not much the media can do to you, and the conversation eventually moves on. It’s a real weakness in the system, at least while the opposition party is powerless.

Quote:

Criminally Insane!

I think the very last direction Trump might ever give his lawyers is to argue in court that he ought to get off on any charge because he is or was insane.

But in a less formal sense, yes, I think it more than likely that Trump is both.

I have made the perhaps foolish assumption that your references were to criminal collusion - anything less would not merit either an investigation or follow up action.

Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law), so we should all just stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality. But that doesn’t mean that the alleged cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia is of no criminal interest. To the contrary, if true, it may have violated any number of criminal prohibitions.

For example, if Donald Trump Jr. sought “dirt” on Hillary Clinton from the Russians, he might be charged with conspiring to violate the election laws of the United States, which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value” to an electoral campaign. The opposition dirt is at least plausibly a thing of value. And to the extent that the Trump campaign aided, abetted or advised the Russians (or any other hackers) about what would be most useful to steal from the Democrats or how best to enhance the impact of their release, they may well have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The word “collusion” has been a terrible one to use in the Trump-Russia saga, since it doesn’t accurately describe either the criminal or counterintelligence aspects of what we know. On the criminal side, the word that would best describe an agreement between the Trump campaign and Russia to commit any number of crimes (say, election fraud) would be “conspiracy”—something that the recent release of Donald Trump Jr.’s email chain might support.

On the counterintelligence side, collusion is best described by the word “recruitment.” The aim of a foreign intelligence service is to find and convince individuals to help them achieve intelligence objectives.

I don't think that mentioning what Trump clearly believes (or merely insists) is a fundamental truth 16 times in an interview with a normally very hostile media source is evidence of insanity or derangement. Trump is unorthodox in many ways and was seriously underestimated by his opponents, both Republican and Democrat in the 2016 elections. That is a very effective strategy, one that figures prominently in history going back a very long time. You should read more history.

the simple fact he understands right from wrong