8 thoughts on “The Steele Dossier”

  1. I forget the details (somebody else here might remember) but Hillary has done this before asking for the release of information that she knew could not be made public (and would have soiled her pantsuit if it was.)

  2. Just had another thought… Being that we are decent Americans we would naturally assume that “can’t take the risk” refers to risk to this country, but now I’m thinking, since Hillery herself said pretty much the same thing about Trump winning, the risk they were talking about was to themselves getting caught because of their criminal acts?

  3. Love him or hate him, most seem to be acknowledging that it’s been a good year under President Trump, may God grant us another.

    Merry Christmas to you, Rand, and to all your readers!

  4. “most seem to be acknowledging that it’s been a good year under President Trump” It is interesting how those who are not acknowledging it do so.
    He has “ruined our standing among the community of nations”. That is, European intellectuals don’t approve of him. Somehow most of us don’t mind that.
    He has passed a tax bill that will ___ (fill in the blank). Whatever it is, most of us don’t mind that. (I mind the deficit, but they don’t.)
    He is messing up liberal judges. Word that as you will. Most of us don’t mind that at all.
    He is destroying the regulatory state, sorry, making it impossible for those noble public servants to do their jobs. Most of us etc.
    He is dissing the press that safeguards our freedoms. Most of us etc.
    In other words, they have a list of things that are bound to be bad according to their theories, and think that the rest of us will let that outweigh the things that have actually happened that are good.

  5. I voted for Trump, but reluctantly. I now regret only the “reluctantly” part.

    Trump is thin skinned, easy to anger, has poor judgement, etc. This worried me a lot. It still does. But damn, by and large, he’s getting the job done on most things. He’s done, and I’m sure will do, things I don’t like, but on the balance, he’s been very good. For all his flaws, and he’s got plenty, I rank him the best since Reagan, and I never thought I’d say that.

    As for the “insurance policy” issue, it’s looking more and more like the fake dossier was used as the excuse to wiretap, and also to destroy Trump. And there was collusion (actually, criminal conspiracy) on the part of these so called officials. And I share the view that they were out to protect their own criminal hides.

    For his own sake as well as America’s, Trump has to go after the rot at the DOJ and FBI. What they tried was nothing less than a coup.

    1. Is Mr. Trump’s “thin skin” his true personality or is it part of the “Art of the Deal”?

      If a person is truly that emotional and impulsive, I cannot see how they can be an effective negotiator. On the other hand, emotional outbursts can be a negotiating tactic, that is, if they are an outward act that can be inwardly controlled.

      I can see where when it comes to brass-knuckles negotiating that many would prefer a Michael to a Sonny, and Mr. Trump certainly gives vibes of being a Sonny. And the fictional Sonny certainly brought a great deal of harm to himself and others by not being able to keep a thought that came to his mind to himself.

      Is Donald Trump like that, that he cannot keep a thought private? Those who think he cannot are often in the who-voted-for-this-intemperate-person camp. Those who think he can regard him as playing “17-dimensional chess.”

      Yes, to “play” being thin-skinned and impulsive, he has to have those personality traits “in him.” But the real question is whether his opposition is “playing him” or if he is “playing them.”

  6. And one minor point of disagreement; the only collusion was not that between the Justice Department and the Clinton campaign. We’re forgetting the collusion with Russia, and Democrats are right when they say there was collusion with Russia.

    The proof is Fusion GPS (Hired by the DNC and Clinton campaign), which was paying Michael Steele to buy info from the Kremlin, plus having on call two actual Russian agents. So there you have it; collusion with Russia by a presidential campaign.

    1. The use of words to mislead is a common tactic. ‘Collusion’ is an example. It is suggestive of nefarious intent but does not actually require it. Everyone talks. When talking, everyone tries to persuade. Persuasion is about self interest.

      So collusion has to pass a threshold before it’s a criminal act. Otherwise it’s just normal and acceptable behavior.

      We have had supreme court justices looking to foreign courts for precedents. It’s one of the things I never liked about Sandra O’Conner.

      The thing is, actual treason, which Obama has demonstrated goes well past the threshold. Until we balance the scales of justice, Trump deserves a pass on any non treasonous ‘collusion’ (using the loosest definition of the term.)

      It would help if our legal system had well defined boundaries and penalties. But that would make everyone accountable and they can’t have that! The idea that justice is blind brings glee to the cheaters.

Comments are closed.