Monday, October 11, 2021

Get ready, get ready, the worrrld is coming to an end

 Oh, not this again. 

When I was a young Christian Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth was popular. If Lindsey had been right, the Rapture would have happened around 1981. 

But here is a new book saying that Jesus will return in our lifetime. 

What part of “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." don't you understand? 

On the other hand, I was starting to wonder when the Antichrist was elected President in 2016. (Just kidding). 

124 comments:

Kevin said...

On the other hand, I was starting to wonder when the Antichrist was elected President in 2016. (Just kidding).

That joke would be funnier on a blog that wasn't afraid to also mention the innumerable failures of, and harm caused by, the Biden administration. Otherwise your criticism of Trump or Republicans isn't based on principle, but the fact they aren't on your team. And if you can't think of any massive failures of this administration, that's just sad. Or SAD, as the Antichrist would have tweeted.

No one knows the hour, so they can all be ignored by anyone who has ever read the Bible.

Starhopper said...

No kidding required, Victor. Never apologize for speaking the truth.

Victor Reppert said...

Well, you don't actually think that Trump is the anti-Christ and that the world is coming to an end, do you?

On the other hand you can complain all you want about the Biden administration, but an administration who seeks to empower partisan hacks with the ability to overturn election results because they don't like them is a threat to our fundamental system of democracy. It is one thing to believe that an election was stolen. You then have to put up or shut up in court. That is your legal recourse, period. Trying to cajole elected officials into overturning results, running bogus unprofessional "audits" by partisans when proper audits had already been done, calling secretaries of state, appealing to party loyalty and threats to get the exact number of votes needed, filing lawsuits that had a snowball's chance in the infernal regions of being supported not for the sake of the court but in order to influence public opinion, trying to get the DOJ, without evidence, to assert election fraud in order to get party hacks in the Congress to refuse to accept the electoral college outcome, and, of course, making an inflammatory speech to the assembled crowd on Jan. 6 and then then not acting quickly to provide National Guard protection for the Capitol once the riot occurred (in fact maybe conspiring to prevent the Guard from being there).

We can argue, if we like, about whether Biden's or Trump's policies were bad. I don't think Biden has done anything as egregious as the disgraceful children in cages/zero tolerance policy at the border, but that is still a policy matter. Trying to get people for partisan reasons to decertify election results, ultimately, because they don't like t hose results--that is evil. Hillary might have complained about the 2016 election results, but she conceded and did not engage in a decertification campaign. Al Gore accepted the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision. There were claims made about Diebold voting machines turning the election for Bush over Kerry in 2004 (sound familiar?), but these were not pursued by the candidate. Nixon, not a paragon of civic virtue, even accepted his electoral defeat even though there was good reason to suspect irregularities in Texas and Illinois when he lost to JFK.

If you think you lost an election unfairly, you can pursue it in court, facing the burden of proving to impartial parties that there was real fraud. These things have to be decided in real courts, not in the court of FOX news. That is our system. Trump and those who support him to the hilt are trying to undercut that system. If my candidate appears to win, and a court determines he or she really lost, that's one thing. For partisan hacks, governors, or state legislators to be empowered to overturn election results, that will totally destroy our system as we know it. My complaints about Trump are different in kind from complaints about bad Biden policies that might be doing harm. It's apples and oranges.

Kevin said...

You criticized Trump throughout his presidency and before, not just the 2020 election. Including Trump lying, which Biden has also frequently done without a blip of protest from you. That just shows that the problem was simply the source of the lie, and not the lying itself. That's not a principle.

I'm not a Trump supporter. I voted for him in neither election. But this partisan complaining does lasting harm far beyond one administration, and I wish those with wider audiences would stop doing it.

Starhopper is out there enough to think that Trump is as bad as Hitler and the Antichrist, despite that being as obviously untrue as the planet being flat, which pretty well undercuts any argument he ever makes about anything ever again. Bush was objectively worse. But his extremism is simply your position on steroids, until you and everyone else begins applying standards equally. For the lowest hanging fruit, if Trump lying is a problem, Biden lying is a problem.

Starhopper said...

"You have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour." (1 John 2:18, my emphasis)

So, there have been many antichrists. I could think of quite a few over the past 2 millennia.

Nero
Mohammed
Frederick II
Napoleon
Hitler
Stalin
Trump

And for the record, the "end times" began at Pentecost, and have been ongoing ever since. Who knows how much longer they'll last? (Rhetorical question. Answer: no one.)

Starhopper said...

"pretty well undercuts any argument he ever makes about anything ever again"

I find it interesting that you believe that politics trumps everything else. So if you disagree with a person politically, then he has nothing to say to you?

Victor Reppert said...

Actually I was happy to be getting away from politics. I made a throwaway comment at the end of a post on the end of the world, and look what happened.

bmiller said...

Kevin,

They're both the same.

bmiller said...

TDS apparently has no cure.

Kevin said...

I find it interesting that you believe that politics trumps everything else.

It's not that you disagree politically, it's that your position on Trump - which far surpasses simply opposing him politically and recognizing he has trash morals - is obviously false. Hitler, Stalin, Trump? And if you can't recognize that, then where is your standing on other subjects?

I suppose emotion does undercut rationality at times for everyone, so perhaps I was hasty and the issue isn't reasoning per se, but rather an inability to set aside visceral hatred to look at the facts. Bush was objectively worse than Trump. Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal was an absolute disgrace, but ultimately we are still dealing with the harm Bush caused. And by "we" I mean the entire world. Trump might have loved the idea of having dictatorial power - Bush exercised it. Just ask all the millions of people who lost loved ones due to his foreign policy.

I could think of quite a few over the past 2 millennia.

Depending on your definition of antichrist, I would say the majority alive today currently vote Democrat. Rather telling isn't it? Not to give Republicans and their base a pass, since they happily stain the Christian message with conservative policies that go against basic tenets of the faith.

Kevin said...

Actually I was happy to be getting away from politics.

Now that Democrats are in control and the messes are theirs and the lying is theirs. That's the problem. Had you set aside politics when Democrats weren't in power, now that would have been admirable.

But I apologize for hijacking the post.

Starhopper said...

"Trump might have loved the idea of having dictatorial power"

And he did everything in his power to get it, to include spreading the Big Lie about alleged (and disproven) electoral fraud, fomenting the insurrection at the Capitol, and colluding with the Russians to influence the 2016 election (and yes, he did). Even mercifully out of office, he continues to be the greatest threat to our democracy and our Constitution ever. If his sycophants are successful in changing the law to enable state legislators to overturn future election outcomes in their respective states, then it's bye bye democracy.

"TDS apparently has no cure."

Here I agree with bmiller. People suffering from TDS, defined as continuing support for Trump despite his documented criminality and contempt for our Constitution and the rule of law, apparently cannot be cured of their delusions.

As a matter of curiosity, bmiller. Have you been vaccinated against COVID?

bmiller said...

Kevin,

It's pretty clear to me that some people are only going to yell at you and that's their idea of political augmentation.

I don't know who you voted for in 2020 but there were only 2 possibilities. Trump or Biden. Both were less than ideal,

Leftists knew Biden was dumb even before he started showing signs of dementia but they voted for him anyway. That's the mentality of the enemy and it plays into his hands to convince you to only vote for non-existent political saints

Starhopper said...

"before he started showing signs of dementia"

He's never shown the slightest sign of such. And I should know, having lived through my father's descent into that state. For the last years of his life, he had no idea who I was. For the last 6 months or so, he didn't even recognize my mother.

The (totally false)idea that Biden suffers from dementia is nothing more than a Trumpist lie, akin to the Big Lie that he did not lose the election.

bmiller said...

See?

Don't believe your lying eyes. Believe leftist gaslighters.

Do they actually think they're fooling anyone?

Starhopper said...

It is truly pathetic when a person (bmiller, to be specific) confuses enlightening people with the truth with "fooling them".

This is why TDS (definition: still falling for Trump's lies) is incurable.

Victor Reppert said...

Holy Toledo. When numerous psychologists diagnosed Trump with psychopathy, Republicans didn't bat an eye. But these same people can, from their armchair, diagnose Joe Biden with Alzheimer's. Really. BDS.

bmiller said...

Wow. When you tell a truth in front of lefties they go even more nuts. No wonder they're totalitarians

bmiller said...

I mean there may be people that react to claims of Trump being an egomaniac by counterclaiming he's the humblest person they know. But all sane people would know that's nuts.

One Brow said...

bmiller,

Doesn't the type of libel you put into the October 12, 2021 7:30 PM comment ever bother you? Do you really feel no shame about so insulting your fellow citizens?

Starhopper said...

One Brow,

bmiller's pathological partisanship knows no bounds. He's right up there (down there?) with Kevin, who smeared Democrats as being antichrists. I myself am a registered Democrat (although I am a Catholic first, an American second, a Veteran For Peace third, and a Democrat only fourth), and I think I would know if I was an antichrist.

Kevin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevin said...

What I said:

Depending on your definition of antichrist, I would say the majority alive today currently vote Democrat.

What Starhopper accuses me of saying:

He's right up there (down there?) with Kevin, who smeared Democrats as being antichrists.


Not the same thing at all.

Starhopper said...

I doubt an antichrist would support:

- raising the minimum wage
- combatting climate change
- championing science over demagoguery
- expanding the electorate
- welcoming "the stranger amongst you"
- working to end racism and mysogyny,
- defending the rights of minorities and at-risk populations
- preserving our National Parks and Monuments
- and defending the Constitution

So why would an antichrist ever even consider voting Democratic?

Kevin said...

When I read 1 John, he doesn't define an antichrist as someone who opposes raising the minimum wage.

Kevin said...

Someone who utterly rejects Christ, someone who gleefully mocks Christ, someone who glories openly and proudly in sin, is far, far more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. That's just a fact.

This isn't a moral comparison, as I mentioned previously. By no means am I giving the Republican base a pass. Vipers, hypocrites, etc can be applied to many of them. Many will be shocked to learn that the works they did in Christ's name will burn and he never knew them.

But the majority of the Republican base will tell you that Christ is the son of God. Antichrist denies Christ entirely. And those that do overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

And since I have to spell it out, not all Democrats operate under the spirit of Antichrist. Your concern for the poor is certainly compatible with Christ's teaching (conservatives truly believe their policies help the poor the most), and if you believe voting Democrat is the best vehicle for helping them, that's fine. But that Democratic vote also enables those who gleefully reject Christ entirely and seek to erase Christianity from the public square.

That's the problem with umbrella political parties, and the reason I stopped voting for them.

bmiller said...

Kevin.

You disagree with Starhopper's politics and in his book that makes you a pathological partisan. Doesn't matter what else you say.

That's the mentality you're dealing with.

Victor Reppert said...

Most (American) antichrists are Democrats is not equivalent to most Democrats are antichrists. But to me it's antichrist to use and exploit Christian loyalty for personal gain. It has been beyond my comprehension how someone who thinks the book of Two Corinthians is in the Bible can get so many people to think that a vote for him is a vote for Jesus, especially when, after he was confronted with the teachings of Christ on forgiving his enemies, said that, no, those were awful people who impeached him and he was going to get back at them any way he could.

I tired of writing about politics years ago and had stopped doing it, pretty much, before the 2016 election. But Trump made me fear for our system of government in America. It didn't seem as if he had a grasp of the idea that the President may be the biggest player in the American political world, but the President is a role player, the head of only one of three branches of government. Hence, you can't try to be President with an I-alone-can-fix-it attitude, because Constitutionally, then isn't too much that you alone can fix. Basic civics. I am a system-first voter. If I have to choose between two candidates, one whose policies I agree with 100% but whose attitude is likely to undercut our system, and a candidate whose policies I disagree with 100% but who will operate within the limits laid out by the Constitution, then I am voting for the one who will protect the system even if I disagree with his politics. If you want. say, laws against abortion, then you've got to have a system in which our government operates with a respect for the rule of law. Otherwise, laws become meaningless and you end the law being what the Dear Leader says it is. I didn't think Trump was exactly kidding when he said he wanted to be President for life, and I think he meant it literally and without qualification when he said Article II of the Constitution said he could do anything he wanted as President. He's lived his life with a "rules don't apply to me attitude" which is terrifying in a President. (I guess a willingness to take Trump literally when he says things is a sure sign of TDS). By contrast I disagreed very strongly with George W. Bush on the Iraq War and on torture, but I never perceived him as a threat to our very system. While he was President, I was never fearful that we would cease to be a democratic Republic, but become something else instead. By the way, Bush was ten times the conservative Trump ever was.

I suppose no one will believe me when I say that it isn't about Left and Right, it's about the system. But that is what I believe.

One Brow said...

Starhopper,

I don't need to to intervene for me in an attempt at conversation with bmiller. All you accomplished was to annoy me and re-affirm bmiller's opinion.

One Brow said...

Kevin,
Someone who utterly rejects Christ, someone who gleefully mocks Christ, someone who glories openly and proudly in sin, is far, far more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. That's just a fact.

I'm not too sure about that. There are a lot of gleeful mockers who find the Democrats are too supportive of transgender rights, racial equality, and women's liberation. They have booths at CPAC, write for Quillette, and speak in front of (what I would consider) dubious groups.

Starhopper said...

"I don't need [you] to intervene for me in an attempt at conversation with bmiller."

One Brow, are you trying to cancel me? :)

One Brow said...

I did criticize you, which some people seem to think is the same thing.

bmiller said...

I suppose no one will believe me when I say that it isn't about Left and Right, it's about the system. But that is what I believe.

It might have started to approach believability except for 2 things.

1. The completely unhinged criticism of everything Trump.
2. The complete silence regarding Obama's unilateral actions (and now Biden's).

A lack of congressional acquiescence didn’t stop this president. Even in Obama’s first term, the administration launched a “We Can’t Wait” initiative, with senior aide Dan Pfeiffer explaining that “when Congress won’t act, this president will.” And when the reelected President Obama announced his second‐​term economic plans, he said that “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.”

If someone is so exercised about preserving the "system" that they would go so far as to take quotes out of context and mind-read president's thoughts so they can accuse them of wanting to be a dictator and it has nothing to do with political parties, then why was there not a peep about Obama?

For partisan hacks, governors, or state legislators to be empowered to overturn election results, that will totally destroy our system as we know it.

It's the constitutionally prescribed job of state legislators to ensure federal elections are conducted fairly, so it is actually a system-preserving act to audit election results if there are reasonable grounds for doing so. It is system-destroying act to allow any voter disenfranchisement to continue. I would expect my fellow system-loving citizens to celebrate the chance to alleviate their fellow citizen's concerns by embracing 3rd party audits if they don't trust their election officials. Only good can come from it for people who believe in fair elections. Either shenanigans happened and the guilty or incompetent can be dealt with and laws passed to prevent it in the future, or no problems were found and everyone can rest assured their vote counted.

What has been curious is the resistance of election officials to provide auditors what they need to conduct the audit.

Kevin said...

There are a lot of gleeful mockers who find the Democrats are too supportive of transgender rights, racial equality, and women's liberation. They have booths at CPAC, write for Quillette, and speak in front of (what I would consider) dubious groups.

I googled Quillette and looked over the first few hits, they seem to have a wide variety of views published from what I can see. Wikipedia, that bastion of truth, describes them as libertarian. I would think most libertarians turned off by Democrats would do so over the size and scope of government more than individual rights.

I also see references to the so called intellectual dark web, which includes Sam Harris. I can't imagine him voting Republican.

One Brow said...

bmiller,
If someone is so exercised about preserving the "system" that they would go so far as to take quotes out of context and mind-read president's thoughts so they can accuse them of wanting to be a dictator and it has nothing to do with political parties, then why was there not a peep about Obama?

Obama did not public claim the elections were rigged, Trump did that for both of the elections he was in (he dropped the claim after winning in 2016, but he made such claims before the election). That puts an entirely different context on Trump's Presidency right from the start.

One Brow said...

Kevin,

Quillette regularly published writers that engage in theories that black people are intellectually inferior and other racist nonsense. I can easily see Sam Harris voting for, say, Mitt Romney over Bernie Sanders.

There are plenty of libertarians who think that LGBTQIA+ people are deviants who have the rights to be deviant, as opposed to people expressing their nature. Politicians with libertarian tendencies seem to predominantly participate in the Republican party.

Starhopper said...

To get away from politics and to address the OP, I do not believe the world is necessarily going to end anytime soon. I base this on 1 John 2:18, where John states that we are living in the "last hour". Yet John was living in the 1st Century A.D.! Therefore the "last hour" must refer to all times since the Resurrection of Christ (or perhaps since Pentecost), to include our own.

I've never really understood the obsession by some with the End Times, since we all are capable of dying at any moment. So regardless of when the Parousia occurs, there is no doubt that we are all, each and every one of us, going to meet Jesus within a few years at the most.

bmiller said...

We must give voters the confidence that their ballot was counted as cast by supporting
mandatory, statistically meaningful post-election audits and full transparency of all election
results and data.


This is in one of the party's platforms. Guess which one. Democrats are now calling anyone wanting an audit supporters of the "Big Lie". Who lied?

Limited Perspective said...

Personal reflection: My business requires a lot of drive time. For years I would get up, read my bible, have breakfast, read the "straight" news, kiss my wife before going to see my clients. Driving early morning I had four radio options for news (sometimes I just preferred the silence or 70's soft rock).

After taking in the news of the morning I had four stations to listen to for commentary. Station #1, admittedly my favorite for many years, was the bombastic right channel. Then there was Station #2, NPR with the smooth mellowed tones of quiet condensation with great variety and content, not my favorite but probably the one I spent the most time listening to. Station #3 was the local mundane news of my county with a right-centered take on national politics. Station #4 was Radio Pacifica which varied from progressive to communist to genuine lunatics (like the crazy Star guy).

It was interesting reading and listening to the "straight" news (hard for me to write with a straight face) and then listen to how the events of the day fit into the narrative/perspective of each channel's interpretation of the events.

I would put Victor's narrative/perspective into the NPR category. A perspective that is coherent and reasonable.

One Brow said...

bmiller,
This is in one of the party's platforms. Guess which one. Democrats are now calling anyone wanting an audit supporters of the "Big Lie". Who lied?

That would be the people claiming the elections were fraudulent and stolen, and that to prevent this in the future we need mandatory audits of urban areas (these audits only seem to be conducted in urban areas).

bmiller said...

I would put Victor's narrative/perspective into the NPR category.

Until Covid-crazy happened I did a lot of driving too. When I wasn't listening to music or comedy I listened to NPR, like you, most of the time. They are certainly biased in their slant and the stories they choose to air, but AFAIK they did not advocate that the US was in danger of Trump becoming a dictator like Victor. So I have to disagree.

I saw people from the American right who proclaimed that Obama was the anti-Christ and were afraid that he was going to be a dictator. They were fringe. It seems like all Democrats are that kind of fringe now.

Starhopper said...

The rightists who feared Obama would become a dictator were a fringe element because their fears were groundless, and mostly a product of racism. But those who feared a Trump dictatorship were mainstream, because the threat was all too real.

bmiller said...

Obama is the ANTICHRIST.

There may be some truth to the idea that when you get to the fringe they all come up with the same ideas. The opposition is evil incarnate and will enslave us all.

Starhopper said...

Sometimes the opposition IS evil, and will enslave us all. Do you deny this?

bmiller said...

I don't think America will turn full socialist anytime soon so I'm not too worried about full-on sudden enslavement. I am concerned about the steady efforts of the socialist Democrats to take away citizens' freedoms like boiling a frog. But I think most Americans are waking up to what's going on despite the best efforts of the MSM.




Starhopper said...

You realize that idea that a frog will not jump out of gradually heating water is a myth, right? The frog will jump out as soon as the temperature becomes uncomfortable.

bmiller said...

I don't doubt socialists are experts at boiling frogs.

What is absurd about thinking Trump was going to be a dictator is the fact that his supporters want less government control not more. What made him so popular with his base was that he started getting government out of citizens lives allowing them to make their own decisions rather than taking those decisions away from them by EO's. Trump supporters would drop him like a hot potato if he started taking away their freedoms.

On the other hand, lefties have fought tooth and nail to make sure the federal government bestows or withholds individual rights as totalitarians are wont to do. So it appears that the lefties don't fear dictatorships just so long as their dictator is sufficiently socialist.

Victor Reppert said...

It is interesting that Biden got the same amount of electoral votes in 2020 that Trump got in 2016 against Hillary. What if Hillary had attacked the electoral college result in the same way Trump did? Trump supporters would have said what they said anyway, "Lock her up!"

bmiller said...

You mean like you want Trump locked up?

Regardless, she did attack the electoral college and it was her destruction of evidence that was the origin of the chant.

Starhopper said...

"You mean like you want Trump locked up?"

Whether or not anyone wants him locked up, he needs to be either "locked up" or else severely punished for his many crimes, both in and out of office. Otherwise, the principle of the Rule of Law in the USA is dead, dead, dead. Future wannabe Mussolinis need to see that there are consequences for attempting to subvert the Constitution and overthrow our democracy.

bmiller said...

I suppose opposing socialism is considered a crime to socialists. Counter-revolutionary and all that. But that is the only "crime" he was guilty of.

bmiller said...

Hillary on the other hand actually did destroy evidence and admitted it.

Even the leftist Huffington Post noticed.

Kevin said...

We were getting a crook in 2016 no matter what.

bmiller said...

I get it that people may think Trump is immoral and immoral people aren't fit to be president. But just being immoral doesn't mean you're a criminal.

If you would have said we were getting an immoral president in 2016 not matter what, you'd have a better case.

Limited Perspective said...

The Mueller investigation is one place where I depart from the NPR narrative on the 2016 election. President Obama started the Mueller investigation in the DOJ to investigate Russian interference, fine. The report should have focused on Russian influence in U.S elections. The report should have been historical, beginning with Soviet influence on our democracy from circa 1917 until 2016.

Deceitfully, the Mueller investigation was used to find crimes against people (who had nothing to do with Russia) that surrounded President Trump. Mueller's investigators digging into financial records, travel records, tax records, asking questions not to seek information about Russian interference, but to entrap in anyway possible Trump’s people. This is a far more sinister way to overturn an election than whatever Trump is saying. Until the NPR crowd acknowledge this level of subverting the constitutionally elected president, whatever they say about Trump’s bombast about the election is their insular narrative.

This President Obama sinister tactic was an attack against our democracy. I would be as critical if President Trump had started an independent investigation before leaving office on ALL foreign influence in our elections (something I would like to know about) as an excuse to try to destroy President Biden's people.

bmiller said...

The worst part is that the federal agencies went along with it. They knew the basis was bogus from the beginning and still went forward.

We're worse off than most people think when government agencies themselves decide to overturn elections.

Limited Perspective said...

You're right Miller. I don't have any connection with Trump as a personality but he exposed something rotten in our government that any fair minded person can see.

Starhopper said...

"he exposed something rotten in our government"

Like what?

Limited Perspective said...

Nothing Starhopper. Nothing at all. How could Hitler, Stalin, and the Antichrist say anything wrong about the opponents of evil.

Starhopper said...

So, I take it from your answer that you cannot name any specifics. Perhaps because he didn't expose anything, other than his own bottomless corruption?

Limited Perspective said...

You nailed it. Here's something specific, in 2016 there were 7.6 million Jews in the U.S. In 2020, the population hardly grew at all. I'm on board with you, there was something Nazi going on. I'm trying to be agreeable with Star.

Starhopper said...

Thank you for demonstrating that the only way to show support for Trump is to be an idiot.

bmiller said...

that any fair minded person can see.

Limited.
Remember who you're dealing with.

Limited Perspective said...

Damn, every time I allow myself to get into one of these I regret it. Thanks Miller, keep up the good fight. Going to spend the rest of the evening with the Mrs. Good grief, even after coming home from church.

bmiller said...

Have a good night Limited.

Limited Perspective said...

Thanks Miller. You as well

One Brow said...

bmiller,
I don't think America will turn full socialist anytime soon so I'm not too worried about full-on sudden enslavement. I am concerned about the steady efforts of the socialist Democrats to take away citizens' freedoms like boiling a frog.

Fortunately, we will also not be turning to full-on capitalism, and the slavery that results from that. We can thank the steady efforts of the Socialists and their ilk in securing citizens freedoms.

One Brow said...

Limited Perspective,
The Mueller investigation is one place where I depart from the NPR narrative on the 2016 election. President Obama started the Mueller investigation in the DOJ to investigate Russian interference, fine.

The Mueller investigation started in May, 2017. Obama had little to do with it. You should rethink you claims.

Limited Perspective said...

One Brow. I should have clarified.

The FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into Trump's presidential campaign on July 31, 2016. This investigation started under President Obama turned into the Mueller investigation investigation in May so that it could not be interfered with by the President's DOJ. Again, it was dirty

One Brow said...

Limited Perspective,

I'm afraid your account is still a little lacking. Trump's own Deputy Attorney General appointed Mueller, and that was because of interference in the investigation by the Trump Administration.

Limited Perspective said...

A little lacking? Of course. Enormously lacking! Take any important topic and boil it down to a few words in a combox. Whatever I write will be extremely lacking. My point remains the same.

bmiller said...

Actually acknowledged I would say.

Victor Reppert said...

LP: Deceitfully, the Mueller investigation was used to find crimes against people (who had nothing to do with Russia) that surrounded President Trump. Mueller's investigators digging into financial records, travel records, tax records, asking questions not to seek information about Russian interference, but to entrap in anyway possible Trump’s people. This is a far more sinister way to overturn an election than whatever Trump is saying. Until the NPR crowd acknowledge this level of subverting the constitutionally elected president, whatever they say about Trump’s bombast about the election is their insular narrative.

VR: That isn't sinister, that should happen to every President. Anyone who can't survive a good witch hunt shouldn't be President. It couldn't overturn the election in any event. I'm a big fan of witch hunts.

Limited Perspective said...

"I'm a big fan of witch hunts."

For some reason, that gave me a good laugh. It's a line both unexpected and ghastly that appeals to my grim sense of humor. I hope you don't mind if I borrow it on occasion.

bmiller said...

You see, you gotta lie to a FISA court in order to preserve the rule of law. Then you can legally spy on and get people of the opposition party on process crimes all in an attempt to get to an impeachment. That's the way you protect democracy.

Victor Reppert said...

Let me be a little more precise. What I support is presidents being held accountable for their actions, and I oppose the idea that the President has such a big job to do that we don't dare distract him by investigating him. Our country was not harmed by Nixon and Clinton being investigated thoroughly. The idea, first floated by Falwell Jr. and taken up by Trump, that somehow Trump is owed an extra couple of years beyond his two terms, should be be re-elected because two years were taken away from him by the Mueller investigation, is insane. I thought it was a bit much that Ken Starr started out investigating land deals in Arkansas, but ended up with Monica Lewinsky, but I'd rather have that than giving the President the kind of insulation from responsibility that Trump consistently sought as President. In fact, I am opposed to the idea that a sitting President can't be indicted. If that means a few witch hunts, I'd rather have those than accept the idea that you have to protect the President and not investigate him or hold him accountable for anything. We have impeachment for a reason. This is what is needed to prevent a President from abusing power.

bmiller said...

It's good to see someone your age still able to dodge. You must work out.

The pretext of the investigation was fake and was known to be fake by those who presented it to the FISA court....repeatedly. If people in the federal agencies charged with enforcing the then break the law in order to get the newly elected president impeached then the voters have been disenfranchised. Maybe that's how the system works and so maybe that's what you mean when you say you want to preserve the "system"? Is it OK in your book for agents of the court to lie to the court?

bmiller said...

Limited,

It's a line both unexpected and ghastly

Is it unexpected because you think Christians should seek the truth and be fair?

Starhopper said...

Fake? How in the world could the investigation be considered fake? "Russia, if you're listening..." was a public acknowledgement of our former president's desire to collude with a foreign power to influence an election (all by itself a crime). That, plus the countless meetings with shady Russian operatives and the highly suspicious meeting in Trump Tower. All of those things, plus more, warranted at least an investigation.

Without investigations, we can never learn the truth.

One Brow said...

bmiller,
You see, you gotta lie to a FISA court in order to preserve the rule of law.

Lying on official reports is a common law enforcement tactic.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

The FBI lied to the FISA court in order to spy on Trump campaign members and by the “two-hop” rule it means pretty much everyone in Trump's campaign including Trump himself. You sound like you're ignorant of the FBI's claims. But go ahead and tell everyone you disagree with that they're an idiot.

“The FBI’s handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the [Office of the inspector general] report, was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor described above. The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable,” federal Judge Rosemary Collyer wrote in an order from the court published Tuesday.

Starhopper said...

I never personally had any dealings with the FISA courts, but my deceased wife worked closely with them for several years. She would often relate to me how incredibly difficult it was to get a FISA warrant, and told me that most requests were turned down, or at the least sent back for clarification and further justification. I find it highly improbable (read: next to impossible) that any fraud could ever make its way through the system in such a potentially highly politicized case.

bmiller said...

How could you be this uninformed? I just showed you the quote for goodness sakes.

bmiller said...

So now I'll wait for the explanation of why it was justified because Orange Man Bad.

bmiller said...

The FBI, inspector general Michael Horowitz found, had changed or withheld significant information used to build its application to surveil Page. The FBI attorney who changed the information is now under criminal investigation.

Collyer called these “troubling instances.”

The court specifically noted on Tuesday new information that should have cast doubt within the FBI about the accuracy of ex-British spy Christopher Steele’s dossier on Donald Trump and Russia, which was cited in the Page warrant.

The FBI withheld information “which was detrimental to their case for believing that Mr. Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power,” Collyer wrote.


From the same CNN story in 2019.

Starhopper said...

You want to believe there was fraud, and therefore you will.

By the way, I never met Steele myself, but I know (and worked with) several persons who worked with him in British intelligence, and they all vouch for his professionalism and integrity. I would wager Yankee dollars that, at a minimum, 90% of what was in the dossier was accurate and true (the other 10% being plausible enough to warrant at least an investigation). It's too bad that your hyperpartisan politics prevents you from objectively examining the evidence.

bmiller said...

I want to believe the truth. Do you?

You're alleging that the FBI Inspector General and the Mueller team all lied. I guess to protect Trump? That's pretty funny.

Starhopper said...

I'm not saying that anyone* is lying. You're the one doing that.

* Other than Trump, of course, who can't open his mouth without lying.

bmiller said...

I really don't know what you're saying and I don't think you do (or care) either.

Starhopper said...

R=Yes, relitigating events of 2015-16 holds very little interest for me. But it is amusing to watch Trump supporters getting their undies in a bundle over the past while the present is on fire. If they would only spend a tithe of such effort on climate catastrophe, expanding voting rights, eliminating systemic racism, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, and downsizing the "defense"* budget to rational levels, well... maybe then we'd get somewhere.

* An Orwellian term, if ever there was one.

bmiller said...

I was right.

Starhopper said...

"Right" is indeed the operative word here. No thinking required, just ideology.

bmiller said...

So much for the fake concern about the "rule of law".

Limited,

Do you really still think that there's a significant difference between Victor's position and this guy's? I think neither one cares about justice or preserving democracy.

Starhopper said...

bmiller, allow me to ask you one question. Do you think that Biden is the legitimately elected president of the USA, who won won the 2020 election fair and square? Or do you believe that Trump actually won the election and was somehow cheated out of a second term?

bmiller said...

I just quoted 2 snippets from a CNN article from 2019 that in turn quoted the Inspector General of the FBI and one of the FISA court judges that the FBI lied to, and you called me hyperpartisan partisan.

Victor Reppert said...

The theory that Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller investigation were partisan efforts to hurt Trump and expose him to impeachment founders on the fact that the FBI chose to release the fact that Clinton was being investigated once again for her e-mails, while they kept the investigation of Trump's Russian connection under wraps until after election day. If they were partisan actors, it would have been the other way around. If the FBI had released the fact that they were investigation Russia, that would have elected Hillary for sure.

It makes ten times more sense to say that the Trump campaign's relationship with the Russians was troubling, and they thought it their duty as law enforcement officers to get to the bottom of it. As such, the Mueller report was not even sufficient to get PELOSI to start impeachment proceedings. A little more disregard for the truth on the part of investigators would surely have produced a more convincing product. Paying attention to FISA violations doesn't prove a conspiracy theory, though it might show that the FBI has some bad habits when it comes to FISA warrants in general. Lying to FISA judges seems to have been FBI practice. The Trump campaign should not feel singled out. It doesn't prove partisan motives.

When I heard Trump say "Russia if you're listening," I thought he was asking Russia to find Hillary's e-mails and leak them to help him get elected President. Must have been my TDS, I keep taking Trump at his word when he says things. Darn it.

Limited Perspective said...

Miller,

I scrolled through the boxes, didn't really read anything beyond the witch hunt line. I check out earlier than I used to when things become absurd. Learned to laugh it off.

Keep up the good fight. You are on the side of truth and reason.

Kevin said...

Victor,

I'll agree not to mention politics if you don't. Deal? :)

bmiller said...

Victor,

The FBI lied to the FISA court and you just shrug your shoulders. This is why your long story about how you're so worried about protecting the "system" and the "rule of law" rings hollow. Especially when you lament that they didn't lie well enough to convince anyone. Maybe you think you're better at it?




One Brow said...

bmiller,

The FBI lied to the FISA court and you just shrug your shoulders.

When you start caring about the FBI lying when they investigate Muslims, police lying when they investigate black people, etc., then we can take your outrage as being genuine and sincere. When you only care about such lying when it affects the Trump campaign, it comes across as hypocritical, and the proper response is a shoulder shrug.

Starhopper said...

I ditto the shrug. Methinks that bmiller doth protest too much.

Bmiller, save your outrage for things that actually matter, such as systemic racism, police brutality, poverty, income inequality, gun violence, homelessness, voter suppression, rampant militarism in US foreign policy, and conspiracy theorists (such as anti-vaxxers and supporters of the Big Lie).

bmiller said...

I think crooks should go to jail period. That especially includes those sworn to uphold the law. Should be extra jail time for them, regardless of political party, race, religion, gender etc. Why would people make things up about me? Don't answer. That's a rhetorical question.

But it's interesting to watch the "reasoning" at play here. Because bmiller doesn't care about every instance of the FBI lying (which is a false premise to begin with) that makes it OK for lefties to ignore FBI lying when it furthers their agenda to unseat a president. One moment they are all "democracy" and "rule of law" and then because they give the reason that they think lil ole bmiller is a hypocrite all that stuff doesn't matter any more.

Then this:

One leftie:
I find it highly improbable (read: next to impossible) that any fraud could ever make its way through the system in such a potentially highly politicized case.

Same leftie after he realizes the "next to impossible" happened:
save your outrage for things that actually matter

It's been interesting in a science experiment kind of way.

Starhopper said...

"I think crooks should go to jail period. That especially includes those sworn to uphold the law."

Well then, to be consistent, you must be in favor of long prison terms for ex-president Trump (a crook who was sworn to uphold the law, but didn't) and his criminal associates. Glad we're in agreement about that!

bmiller said...

Well, I didn't mean I want to jail people just because you've convicted them in the courtroom of your mind. But thanks for the close up look of that courtroom. Pretty much confirms what I thought.

Victor Reppert said...

I'm not shrugging--if FBI officials can be proven to have lied to the FISA court they should be prosecuted. What I deny is that they lied for left-wing political reasons. Again, these are issues that have to go through our court system. Do I think Trump, for example, should be locked up? In my opinion probably, but you can rest easy in the knowledge that people can't, and shouldn't be locked up based on my opinion. The court of Victor, or the court of FOX News or MSNBC, have no standing to put anyone in jail, and that is a good thing. I oppose any idea that because it would be divisive to indict Trump, the DOJ or the relevant state courts shouldn't do it. IF he did so much as one tenth of what I think he did, he should go to jail. But that would require proving these things in court beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm more than happy to leave it to Merrick Garland to figure out if it's doable or not.

Someone's opinion that someone broke the law doesn't mean squat. You might think Hillary broke the law with her e-mails, but the DOJ didn't think that they had a case they could put through a jury, so she was never indicted. You will have noticed that Trump's DOJ didn't indict her either, even when it was run by Trump lackey Bill Barr. Prosecutors don't like to lose cases, so they don't put them through unless there is a good chance of winning.

Victor Reppert said...

Applying it to the FISA fraud case, it has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Biden and the DOJ have not shut Durham down, so he is free to prove it in court. But even if he proves it, while it would be a black eye for the FBI, it would not be proof that Trump is innocent, or that there was no cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russians, or that the whole investigation was somehow wrongheaded. If the police officers who investigated O. J. Simpson engaged in questionable tactics, that would not prove O. J. innocent.

bmiller said...

I don't think the FBI should lie to the FISA court regardless of the motives. The fact that they did it during a presidential campaign in order to surveil one of the candidates, something you would expect from Putin's bureau, makes you think this wasn't one-off. Especially since FBI contractors were caught doing unauthorized searches of particular individuals from the NSA database dating from 2012 until April of 2016 when the head of the NSA found out and shut it down.

But OK, I get it that you think people should be considered innocent until an investigation is done they are indicted and found guilty in a court of law. There were people who testified under oath to the Inspector General and they might have perjured themselves. If so, then those perjurers should suffer the same fate as other perjurers. I'll withhold judgement of what individuals are guilty of until charged convicted. So far that is only Clinesmith that falsified info that Page worked for the CIA. He probably would have got turned down with the true info.

But then will you give Trump the same benefit of the doubt? He was investigated for years and the DOJ found no crimes.

Haha. Just kidding. With Trump, no matter what the charge, he is not proven innocent regardless of any investigation and lack of indictment. He's a special case.

it would not be proof that Trump is innocent, or that there was no cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russians, or that the whole investigation was somehow wrongheaded.

It's wrongheaded to outright lie to the FISA court as Clinesmith did. They could still have done an investigation without spying on the campaign. Better yet, they could have warned the campaign that some workers may have ties to Russia. Sort of like what they did with the Clinton campaign.

Limited Perspective said...

I've been drawn back into this for some reason. I think it is Miller's grit and the crazy Star guy's lunacy that makes the comments interesting.

One Brow: Why care about an isolated incident when the whole justice system has a history of corruption? To rephrase your question in a personal way: why should I care about someone who busted my windshield and stole things from my car when all across the world there are horrible conflicts causing unimagined harmed and suffering to people? Okay, It would be nice if were able to focus on the worldwide suffering and not something so trivial as my stuff getting stolen. Of course, you know that's total BS. We all focus on the injustices closest to our affections. Your comment is not insightful.

A brief thought: One of my many responsibilities to my clients is to inform them how to be compliant with CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 1910.1200 App D: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.1200AppD.

This is just one of the regulations I try to keep my clients up to date with. These few pages of the CFR are very difficult to constantly be in compliance with for a business that has hundreds of other priorities.

If the justice department wants to take someone out, they can find something in the 18,000 (last time I checked) pages of CFR to make them a criminal. When the DOJ decides to focus the exact letter of law on its political opponents and ignore the same standard to its favored politics, we have accepted a police state.

Victor Reppert said...

I'm entitled to a personal opinion about Trump, and he was shielded under Barr. The DOJ strictly adhered to the policy that you can't indict a sitting president. Now he's not sitting, so we shall see. But there are the requirements of the legal system. No shortcuts--the case has to be proved. Otherwise we are in a police state.

Limited Perspective said...

Jeff Sessions was AJ from February 9, 2017 – November 7, 2018. He recused himself from the Mueller investigation while being AJ. President Trump was not "shielded" by the AJ for about two years. They should have given it their best shot before Barr recognized what a fraud they were.

Just remember Victor, on October 18, 2021 7:17 PM on your own blog you advocated for investigators to find women and accuse them of casting spells, flying on broomsticks, and giving poison apples to women more attractive than themselves. These are your own words that you might have to defend in court after your adversaries have destroyed your public reputation. Some people will never let you escape from your misogamy.

Beware if they turn against you and do everything in their power to ruin you. There are over 18,000 pages of rules in the CFR you must follow (not counting your state and local laws). If I were an investigator and wanted destroy you in court I think I could do it.

Limited Perspective said...

AG instead of AJ. My point is, if someone is malevolent and has the authority to dig into all your documents, take literal what you have written when you're joking, they can destroy your reputation in public and ruin you financially in the court system and possibly convict you of some violation of law.

One Brow said...

bmiller,
(which is a false premise to begin with)

Top anyone who follows this stuff regularly, it's well-known to be true.

If you want to join with in in condemning all acts of FBI/police misconduct, I'll be grateful for the support. It's rare among our right-wing brethren. The FBI misled in presenting the warrant because it's what they do, all the time. Most people don't have the resources to challenge it.

However, if you just want to claim that an traditionally conservative institution like the FBI behaved badly just this one time towards a conservative President for political reasons, laughter is all you get, because is all you deserve.

One Brow said...

Limited Perspective said...
One Brow: Why care about an isolated incident when the whole justice system has a history of corruption? To rephrase your question in a personal way: why should I care about someone who busted my windshield and stole things from my car when all across the world there are horrible conflicts causing unimagined harmed and suffering to people?

You should care about it. You should also not deny that it happens to other cars in your neighborhood. When you say that you are the only victim in the world, that becomes an issue. If you want the police to arrest the guy who vandalized you, but not arrest the vandal of the car two blocks away, that's an issue.

I'm more than happy to stretch metaphors.

When the DOJ decides to focus the exact letter of law on its political opponents and ignore the same standard to its favored politics, we have accepted a police state.

It was Trump's DoJ investigating Trump's campaign with a hand-picked Republican lead (Mueller). Who is the political opponent here?

One Brow said...

bmiller,
But then will you give Trump the same benefit of the doubt? He was investigated for years and the DOJ found no crimes.

That's not what the Mueller report says. It's says it can't pursue a a prosecution against Trump for crimes he committed. There is a difference.

bmiller said...

Victor,

I'm entitled to a personal opinion about Trump, and he was shielded under Barr. The DOJ strictly adhered to the policy that you can't indict a sitting president.

The guy in charge of the majority of the investigation (Rosenstein) agreed with Barr that not only was there no Russian collusion but it was clear that there was no intent to obstruct that investigation. In fact he thinks the accusations against Barr are "bizarre". He apparently had his TDS vaccine.

Barr, in his four-page summary of the Mueller report, also wrote that he and Rosenstein dismissed the possibility of filing charges against Trump, saying it was clear it was not the president’s “intent” to obstruct the investigation.

No one is going to indict Trump for obstruction. You know the DOJ doesn't take cases it knows it can't win. Especially after they've already told us that.

bmiller said...

Mid-Year Exam vs Crossfire Hurricane

In some ways, though, the 2 ended up the same. Partisans from each side claim the DOJ favored the other side and the person under investigation should be in jail. If the DOJ or any other federal agency decides to take sides, then it really is bye bye democracy. Maybe it's already a done deal.

I suppose for the Mid-Year Exam investigation, the FBI might have not wanted to look too close since Hillary was certainly going to be elected and then there would be hell to pay when she came into office.

The Crossfire Hurricane investigation started in July and they didn't even bother to interview the primary source of the dossier. Not till 5-6 months later. No need to move forward quickly since Trump was going to lose and then maybe they'd quietly drop it.

There could be many motives for the unequal treatment. Certainly more than the Dem/Rep narrative. Pretty sure Jeb Bush wouldn't have had this happen to him. Maybe it was because someone from outside campaigned on "draining the swamp".

Victor Reppert said...

But, the Mid-year investigation, and its re-opening, were publicly announced when people were voting. Crossfire Hurricane was not. All Comey had to do to insure that Hillary won would have been to announce the CH investigation. If he does that, Trump is toast. That's what ruins the partisanship narrative. Even if there was no chargeable misconduct, (and I will take Mueller's word that there was not)we had to find out if there was. If you are investigated, welcome to the Presidency.

bmiller said...

This is why it was re-opened.

But why do you insist that the only motive was partisanship. Maybe it was preservation of the reputation of the FBI? It seems they tried to ignore it until some whisteblower made a stink and they couldn't ignore it anymore. Comey apparently thought it would look bad to have evidence handed to them and ignore it until after the election.

What they didn't do was blatantly lie to a FISA court in order to spy on Hillary. No one thought Trump was going to win anyway. If he didn't, they could drop the investigation. If he did, they had an insurance policy.

Neither investigation made the FBI look good.

Even if there was no chargeable misconduct, (and I will take Mueller's word that there was not)we had to find out if there was.

What chargeable misconduct? They knew Page worked for the FBI from the start. They also knew the dossier was op-research from Hillary's campaign (didn't tell the judge that either). They had to do some heavy-duty obfuscation to get the warrant. What kind of police state do you want us to become? Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.

bmiller said...

Sorry. Carter Page worked for the CIA not the FBI. Changing that in the FISA document was what Clinesmith pled guilty to.

Maybe they thought he was Chuck Barris gone rouge.

bmiller said...

Limited,

Thanks for your info on the CFR. 18K!
Every living person is a criminal. We can laugh at that until the MIB show up at our door.

Ever deal with a HOA? My first experience with it was amazing to me. Most of us just want to live our lives, but there's a subset of people who crave power. Even when there is little to no money involved. These are exactly the people you don't want to have power over you.

Limited Perspective said...

Miller,

I've never been in an HOA. Mrs. Perspective and I bought a small house with a very large lot when we were a young couple. It's in a conservative enclave in California. The houses were built from 1945 to 1949 in the post-war boom. It was mostly retired folks in the neighborhood when we bought the place. I added on to the house as my family grew (I don't recommend spending your Saturdays building bedrooms and bathrooms--it's 10x the work it looks like but a good life experience). Now the Mrs. and I are the old folks with mostly young families in the neighborhood. It's still conservative, with lots of American flags and during the election, Trump signs in the yard. We are a live and let live neighborhood. Two guys keep their place immaculate. The rest of us keep our place tidy. When someone lets the place go for a couple of weeks, it stands out and no one has to say anything. The guy realizes things don't look good and spends the weekend on the lawn and repairs. It all works pretty good in my mind.

The Lord has given me, my wife, and the kids a good life here. The kids all moved out when young, but stayed in the area. I consider that a good sign.

Starhopper said...

I envy people who have deep roots in one place/home. I've lived in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, four different places in Arizona, California, Texas, Massachusetts, two places in (West) Germany, the United Kingdom, South Korea, and six different homes in Maryland. I currently (as a widower) live with my daughter and her family in an in-law sweet in their home. I hope to die here, and not have to move again.

Limited Perspective said...

You were protecting the country Starhopper. I did my four years and left to go to college. Thanks for your service.

Limited Perspective said...

...someone had to hang in after guys like me left.