5 ms·

No, that's not "the only thing strange" about this. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with American history, but this is wildly without any remote precedent. Not to sa

No, that's not "the only thing strange" about this. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with American history, but this is wildly without any remote precedent. Not to say that previous Presidents haven't done bad things, abused laws, etc, (shit, even launched disinfo campaigns, used the press to attack enemies, etc) but this is just gobsmackingly different from what has come before. Obviously caveat "if this is true" blah blah blah because my Lord who knows what's true anymore. But knock off the jaded pseudo-educated bs; this is radically fucking strange and a departure from history up until this point.

creaghpatr 8y ago
You need to read about the measures great past Presidents like Abraham Lincoln, amongst others, took. It's gonna be an eye-opening experience for you if your comment is in good faith.
- abrahamepton 8y ago
  Uh huh. Please provide even a single example. Keep in mind the standard you've gotta match or beat: a President elected in significant part by collaborating with a foreign adversary to undermine our elections, and in significant part by using a media outlet to cover up his scandals. Said President is accused of using said media outlet to blackmail his enemies, going back at least years if not decades. One of those enemies, the richest man on Earth, also owns one of the most influential news organizations in the country. While we don't know all the details, it appears that said President and said media company also have extensive relations with yet another country that just murdered a US-resident journalist in their own consulate in a NATO country. Said President and his family worked with this other country on, among other things, instituting a blockade of an allied country that has one of the largest US military bases in the region. But please, I'm all ears. What have you got, that makes the above so mundane and unsurprising? I look forward to learning.
  - squozzer 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w304644/ajha/americanjournalism/fall09.pdf http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w304644/ajha/americanjournalism/fa... "During the Civil War the federal government was responsible for the greatest amount of newspaper suppression in the nation’s history. More than 300 newspapers were shut down, most of them Democratic papers that were sympathetic to the Confederacy. Some historians have criticized President Abraham Lincoln for allowing such widespread constraints on the press. This article reconsiders the nature of Lincoln’s view of press freedom. Based on a letter the president sent to a Union general, it concludes that Lincoln changed his thinking about midway through the war and began to believe that suppression of the press was not the appropriate policy."
- vict00ms 8y ago
  I agree that Abraham Lincoln took some questionable measures but that smacks of "whataboutism" and has no bearing whatsoever on this situation. I have difficulty taking your comment in good faith because if there is truth to this (i.e. one of our spy agencies or a foreign gov't was spying on and leaking information about a U.S. citizen with the sitting president's knowledge and/or tacit endorsement) it is unprecedented.
  - chillwaves 8y ago
    It's as if our country being in a literal civil war was a bigger crisis than just trying to cover up the current president's crimes and attempts to hide his crimes!
- wahern 8y ago
  But did Abraham Lincoln ever outright lie about it? Did he ever make a political speech where he categorically denied ordering the house arrest of a D.C. Circuit judge, or categorically deny that such a house arrest even occurred? That's what's unprecedented. It's not abuse of power or corruption that's unprecedented. It's serial, bald faced lies to a willfully, spitefully credulous audience. Not even Nixon or his defenders were so unscrupulous, although it's fair to say that in Nixon lies some precedence. I used to think it quaint that the dominant principle behind the 6th Amendment prohibition against compelling testimony against oneself remains the so-called cruel trilemma-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_officio_oat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_officio_oat). But I realize now that, even without the metaphysical threat of damnation, a society must leave space for even the most corrupt and malicious individuals to avoid outright lying. Lies are the greatest poison to civil society by threatening the very notion of accountability and therefore of fairness or justice. Even when we know somebody is lying it's crucial that we grant them the fiction of plausible deniability, a quid pro quo for not violating the cardinal rule. In so far as the body politic permits and tolerates open lying, it destroys the last and perhaps only common bond between citizens--commitment to a shared truth, even if only nominally. When a politician says that they can't remember, or even qualifies what would otherwise be a lie with "not to my recollection", that's actually a powerful gesture--submission to a critical civic virtue. When we get to a point when politicians, especially national leaders, don't bother with such gestures, and supporters don't even nominally demand them let alone exact some price, we're in a very bad place. EDIT: Now that I think about it, there's solid evidence that Reagan openly lied when he denied any knowledge about Iran-Contra. But I think it's telling that we've convinced ourselves he was suffering from Alzheimers, forcing plausible deniability upon him. Even most Reagan detractors have reflexively internalized that narrative. (Obviously he was suffering from Alzheimers, but it's not very reasonable to believe that he was suffering to such an extent that he lacked the capacity for even complicity.)
jki275 8y ago
You should probably read about J. Edgar Hoover... He was arguably more powerful than the Presidents he supposedly served.
- abrahamepton 8y ago
  See my reply to a sibling comment; I'm not unaware of history, though there's an incredible amount I am ignorant of, certainly. But I'm familiar with Hoover; this is wildly different. For one thing, unless I'm mistaken, he was never actually President. "Arguably more powerful than the Presidents he supposedly served" is a neat line and not unreasonable, but doesn't really approach what I'm arguing: that this moment is without precedent in American (world?) history. That's because the story here likely goes beyond simply AMI going after Bezos at the White House's direction - that would be a hell of a story but also hardly original. A President conspiring with two separate foreign powers to undermine our elections in order to enrich himself is just one part of the overall story that I contend is novel here. It may not even be the seediest part, depending on what comes of, say, the Seychelles meeting.
  - jki275 8y ago
    Well, none of that has been proven yet, it's not even charged, perhaps (we don't even know for sure) it may be under investigation by the special counsel. I suspect we'll find out in some measure in the future. If it happened, even then I think it would not be unprecedented -- I'd have to think for a bit about specific examples but I suspect we've even done it to other countries ourselves.
  - hindsightbias 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_th...

creaghpatr 8y ago

You need to read about the measures great past Presidents like Abraham Lincoln, amongst others, took. It's gonna be an eye-opening experience for you if your comment is in good faith.

abrahamepton 8y ago
Uh huh. Please provide even a single example. Keep in mind the standard you've gotta match or beat: a President elected in significant part by collaborating with a foreign adversary to undermine our elections, and in significant part by using a media outlet to cover up his scandals. Said President is accused of using said media outlet to blackmail his enemies, going back at least years if not decades. One of those enemies, the richest man on Earth, also owns one of the most influential news organizations in the country. While we don't know all the details, it appears that said President and said media company also have extensive relations with yet another country that just murdered a US-resident journalist in their own consulate in a NATO country. Said President and his family worked with this other country on, among other things, instituting a blockade of an allied country that has one of the largest US military bases in the region. But please, I'm all ears. What have you got, that makes the above so mundane and unsurprising? I look forward to learning.
- squozzer 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w304644/ajha/americanjournalism/fall09.pdf http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w304644/ajha/americanjournalism/fa... "During the Civil War the federal government was responsible for the greatest amount of newspaper suppression in the nation’s history. More than 300 newspapers were shut down, most of them Democratic papers that were sympathetic to the Confederacy. Some historians have criticized President Abraham Lincoln for allowing such widespread constraints on the press. This article reconsiders the nature of Lincoln’s view of press freedom. Based on a letter the president sent to a Union general, it concludes that Lincoln changed his thinking about midway through the war and began to believe that suppression of the press was not the appropriate policy."
vict00ms 8y ago
I agree that Abraham Lincoln took some questionable measures but that smacks of "whataboutism" and has no bearing whatsoever on this situation. I have difficulty taking your comment in good faith because if there is truth to this (i.e. one of our spy agencies or a foreign gov't was spying on and leaking information about a U.S. citizen with the sitting president's knowledge and/or tacit endorsement) it is unprecedented.
- chillwaves 8y ago
  It's as if our country being in a literal civil war was a bigger crisis than just trying to cover up the current president's crimes and attempts to hide his crimes!
wahern 8y ago
But did Abraham Lincoln ever outright lie about it? Did he ever make a political speech where he categorically denied ordering the house arrest of a D.C. Circuit judge, or categorically deny that such a house arrest even occurred? That's what's unprecedented. It's not abuse of power or corruption that's unprecedented. It's serial, bald faced lies to a willfully, spitefully credulous audience. Not even Nixon or his defenders were so unscrupulous, although it's fair to say that in Nixon lies some precedence. I used to think it quaint that the dominant principle behind the 6th Amendment prohibition against compelling testimony against oneself remains the so-called cruel trilemma-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_officio_oat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_officio_oat). But I realize now that, even without the metaphysical threat of damnation, a society must leave space for even the most corrupt and malicious individuals to avoid outright lying. Lies are the greatest poison to civil society by threatening the very notion of accountability and therefore of fairness or justice. Even when we know somebody is lying it's crucial that we grant them the fiction of plausible deniability, a quid pro quo for not violating the cardinal rule. In so far as the body politic permits and tolerates open lying, it destroys the last and perhaps only common bond between citizens--commitment to a shared truth, even if only nominally. When a politician says that they can't remember, or even qualifies what would otherwise be a lie with "not to my recollection", that's actually a powerful gesture--submission to a critical civic virtue. When we get to a point when politicians, especially national leaders, don't bother with such gestures, and supporters don't even nominally demand them let alone exact some price, we're in a very bad place. EDIT: Now that I think about it, there's solid evidence that Reagan openly lied when he denied any knowledge about Iran-Contra. But I think it's telling that we've convinced ourselves he was suffering from Alzheimers, forcing plausible deniability upon him. Even most Reagan detractors have reflexively internalized that narrative. (Obviously he was suffering from Alzheimers, but it's not very reasonable to believe that he was suffering to such an extent that he lacked the capacity for even complicity.)

jki275 8y ago

You should probably read about J. Edgar Hoover... He was arguably more powerful than the Presidents he supposedly served.

abrahamepton 8y ago
See my reply to a sibling comment; I'm not unaware of history, though there's an incredible amount I am ignorant of, certainly. But I'm familiar with Hoover; this is wildly different. For one thing, unless I'm mistaken, he was never actually President. "Arguably more powerful than the Presidents he supposedly served" is a neat line and not unreasonable, but doesn't really approach what I'm arguing: that this moment is without precedent in American (world?) history. That's because the story here likely goes beyond simply AMI going after Bezos at the White House's direction - that would be a hell of a story but also hardly original. A President conspiring with two separate foreign powers to undermine our elections in order to enrich himself is just one part of the overall story that I contend is novel here. It may not even be the seediest part, depending on what comes of, say, the Seychelles meeting.
- jki275 8y ago
  Well, none of that has been proven yet, it's not even charged, perhaps (we don't even know for sure) it may be under investigation by the special counsel. I suspect we'll find out in some measure in the future. If it happened, even then I think it would not be unprecedented -- I'd have to think for a bit about specific examples but I suspect we've even done it to other countries ourselves.
- hindsightbias 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_th...