Good for Strzok!

We 100% know that the hacked e-mails were used as a weapon against Clinton. As to whether Trump was personally involved, probably but I don't know for sure. If he wasn't it's only because he was too busy finding ways to manipulate the right deplorables with his own speeches, not because he has some kind of basic sense of ethics or lawfulness.

The dossier was originally opposition research by republicans against Trump before he was their nominee, and then continued under the direction of lawyers of Clinton. The dossier turned things up because Trump is, in fact, a filthy person, and that information was turned over to law enforcement because of that. There's not much more to it than that. Not much of it stuck to Trump because many of his supporters don't really care about, know, or believe in, reality. Fox news is an impressive, if terrifying, thing.

The constitution certainly has some high points in terms of freedom (speech, assembly, can't be forced to incriminate yourself, etc.), but I like it because it enshrines those high points, not as equivalent to freedom. The law of the land, sure, assuming people even believe in the rule of law. And Trump is eroding that belief, attempting to nominate a justice who believes the president is above the law.

 

It wasn't rigged. America is the victim of Russia and Trump doesn't care because it benefited him, and republicans will likely continue not to care as long as it benefits them because we've all seen the ethics of Nunes, McConnell, etc. To their credit though, not quite as bad as trump in entertaining the idea of turning over political enemies to Mr. KGB. But sure both sides are underhanded, though I think we will see within a few years which side was more underhanded unless you only watch. Fox News, and no Trump was not spared because he was good at cybersecurity, he was spared because he didn't have the wrong enemies.

 

A couple of clarifying comments. Weaponizing campaign tactics is not something private parties, like actual campaigns, do; it is only what government does, and does illegally and unethically.. Two, the dossier didn't "turn up things;" it made up things. Three, Trump does not nominate justices that think the president is above the law. He nominates justices that don't think they -- the justices -- are above the law.

 

Each of those "high points" you mention (and I would include the right to keep and bear arms among them) are all factors in protecting freedom and political liberty, and restraining government's ability to infringe upon them. Too many people today, sadly, are willing to surrender essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety... and we all know what Franklin said about such people.

Trump may be part of eroding that belief, as you say; but powerful political figures have been above the law for years. To say otherwise is to ignore history. Politicians and other connected figures have committed crimes that any ordinary citizen would have been prosecuted and imprisoned for, and haven't gotten so much as a slap on the wrist. If we truly want to restore belief in the rule of law then it is time we aggressively prosecute any and all political leaders proven to be responsible for corruption and malfeasance.

 

I'm referring specifically to the current nominee arguing the president is above the law, for example in saying the Nixon tape release was incorrect. The dossier has been partly corroborated last I heard, and haven't heard evidence of anything made up, but maybe we'll hear about the rest in the next few years.

 

There is considerable evidence and thought that Judge Sirrica (sp??), a Nixon opponent, was wrong in his ruling. This is what the nominee is talking about.