https://www.vox.com/2017/7/18/15983910/donald-trump-russia-putin-natalia-veselnitskaya-collusionThere has been little revelation or exposure of any substantial quid pro quo. — Thanatos Sand
There has been little revelation or exposure of any substantial quid pro quo.
— Thanatos Sand
https://www.vox.com/2017/7/18/15983910/donald-trump-russia-putin-natalia-veselnitskaya-collusion
You wrote:
The big question is what is he scared of.
Few doubt that he has had sketchy dealings with Russia and probably many other countries. But if that's all there is, and all that happens is he pays millions in fines or is even impeached for those dealings, the hordes obsessed with the hope that Russia tampered with the election, and Trump facilitated that, are going to be extremely disappointed.
Thanatos Sand
You wrote:
The big question is what is he scared of.
In a Trump's situation, if that actor is not scared, it could be for one of only two possible reasons. Either he's done nothing wrong, and he trusts the judicial system's capacity/ability to render proper judgment. Or he's done all sorts of stuff, and he trusts the system to render improper judgment. Being under investigation for criminal wrongdoings such as being part of a proven conspiracy to get yourself elected bears a heavy heavy toll on one's emotional state(s), we can all be assured of that.
Few doubt that he has had sketchy dealings with Russia and probably many other countries. But if that's all there is, and all that happens is he pays millions in fines or is even impeached for those dealings, the hordes obsessed with the hope that Russia tampered with the election, and Trump facilitated that, are going to be extremely disappointed.
If that investigation can legitimately lead to financial records that help prove criminal wrongdoing of any variety, then Trump had damned well better believe that he is innocent and that the judicial system will render sound judgment, or that he is guilty and that the judicial system will get it wrong.
These (i.e. members of Trump entourage) are not the best Americans. They are nihilists à la Steve Bannon, “idiots” like Page [judged thus by a Russian agent], neophytes like Trump Jr., or opportunists like Manafort. They have acquired, over many months of politicking and quasi-governing, the language of the patriot without understanding what they are saying. Not only that. Their pretend patriotism, their ignorance of American history, its poetries and injustices, its constant existential confrontation with itself, leaves them especially susceptible to the allure of the authoritarian. There is a logic and clarity to the authoritarian, with his shiny toys and Potemkin bullet trains and airport terminals. The authoritarian knows how to put on a good show, and these people love to be dazzled. They are vulnerable to Putin because they admire him while not understanding where he comes from nor who he is. They have no idea whom they are doing combat with. They do not even know that they are engaged in battle, and that the battle is already won.
Scaramucci used big brush strokes to paint a portrait of his skyscraper-high regard for Trump, even though it was a mere two years ago that he was dismissing Trump on Fox News as a “hack politician” with “crazy rhetoric” that was “anti-American” and “very, very divisive.”
The Daily Beast reported that, hours after he got the White House job, Scaramucci deleted his old tweets praising Hillary, calling her “the real deal.”
On Friday, it was all Trump love.
It is similar to Frankfurt's technical use of "Bullshit" in that truth and falsehood cease to be significant. The post-truth world is the result of the ascendancy of the bullshitter, who is contrasted with the liar in that while the liar knows what is true and what is false, and knowingly speaks falsehoods, the bullshitter does not know or care for truth. — Banno
The media I encounter uses bullshit to make money. Article after article dangles some tempting news before the reader only to fail to deliver in the fine print. Big speculations no news. I've generally turned away from it.
If by "there is no evidence" you mean that there has been no evidence provided, then I'm fine with that. A prudent prosecutor doesn't show evidence until s/he is actually making the case. With that in mind...
The investigation is broadening.
Thus, it is clear to anyone who knows how evidence is required for warrant and warrant required for expansion that there is most certainly evidence that the public does not know about... yet.
The claim that "there is no evidence the Russians hacked the DNC and no evidence Trump or his campaign facilitated that" means something quite different from "there has been no evidence provided that the Russians hacked the DNC and no evidence provided Trump or his campaign facilitated that".
The former, in order to be justified and true, requires knowledge of all evidence in question. The latter requires only knowledge of the evidence s/he has seen. The former presupposes knowledge of all the evidence, whereas the latter does not.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.