I was going to say decades of propaganda and a decaying public education system, but those things pretty much stem from this.
For the record, I never voted for Cornyn nor that other guy in the Senate that seems to be everybody’s favorite person Ted Cruz. As a matter of fact, I haven’t voted for anybody with an R next to their name in at least a decade and let’s just say current events haven’t provided a compelling reason to change that habit…
I guess that’s a long way of saying that I’ve been asking myself questions that are variations on the theme “How did that idiot get elected” for many years and none of the hypothesis I’ve come up with are very comforting.
Shouldn’t the same message be sent to every viewer of some of the cable news networks or fair and balanced tv stations out there? I’m sure these too have been wrong many times, or tried to influence behaviour, or is it accepted that the viewer/user is able to distinguish between fact and fiction and/or is critical enough to identify when something is fake or not whereas a “internet” user is not? Or is the “new media” / internet just a convenient scape goat?
Also: if the twitter or media station that is attempting to influence a person in a particular way is just reinforcing or “confirming” something they already “know”, are they (the recipient) then being influenced (enough to warrant hysteria)?
The weird thing is the FBI seems to tilt conservative anyway. It’s just that breaking laws isn’t something they are willing to put up with. To bad the GOP is headed up by a bunch of outlaws now.
The FBI has always been an extremely conservative agency. Like most law enforcement organizations and security services. I bet there has never been a plurality of Democrat agents. Certainly not in the 20th century, when Hoover was famous for hiring Mormons.
I’m reading that and I’m getting the feeling you describe… and then there’s that Trump thing in there. Trump calls missing FBI texts ‘one of the biggest stories in a long time’ And I’m, like, oh yeah, that’s right.
… and while I’m typing this there are more developments. Mueller can also ask him about this: Trump says he wouldn’t have picked Sessions if he knew he’d recuse himself in an interview with NYT. In the interview Trump makes it clear he thinks the Attorney General’s main responsibility is to personally protect the president, not to enforce the law.
as has long been expected, Sessions decided to give up Trump in order to save himself. Now an additional detail has surfaced about that interview which gives away that Sessions had to have cut a deal with Mueller before their interview.
It’s a felony to lie to, mislead, or obstruct federal investigators. If you’re a subject or target in a criminal investigation, there are only two reasons you’d go into an interview with the Feds without an attorney present. One is if you’re a naive fool like Carter Page who doesn’t know any better. The other is if you already know you’re legally off the hook for anything you’re about to say, because you already have a deal in place. Guess who didn’t bother to bring an attorney last week?
Jeff Sessions declined the opportunity to bring counsel with him to his interview with Mueller,
Sessions did bring a lawyer, just not a Criminal defense lawyer. Constitutional however, but the headline was misleading to me, appearing to corroborate the Palmer Report article until I read further. Oops.
Is The Palmer Report credible? I had been following them on Twitter but they always had these sensational articles that never panned-out to anything noteworthy.
No idea if that’s credible, but I suspect sessions wouldn’t care if Trump got impeached.
Pence would become president, sessions would likely get to stay as AG, and he’d be able to do all of his fascist anti drug stuff without the isn’t saying how terrible he is every day.
I mean, sessions must really hate Trump at this point. How could he not?
