Desperately seeking closure with Liz Cheney

"Left" and "right" are concepts that have no objective universal meaning in political science. The meaning varies depending on particular circumstances at any particular time or place. In the U.S., they simply mean that you are "right-wing" if you tend to agree with Republicans, and "left-wing" if you agree with Democrats.

But that's not what alerted me that you might be having some sort of "stroke" or something... You came out babbling something about distribution of goods and services that had NOTHING to do with anything in the post you quoted.

 

No, I don't accept that premise whatsoever.

This investigation, of all investigations in the history of the FBI, this investigation must be, and is, based on factual evidence. No way in Hell is Garland, Wray, and the Federal Magistrate going to allow a mistake like that on this one.

 

Your first statement is misinformation. Dude, left means being more inclined to advocate for socialism economically to distribute goods and services and right means being more inclined to advocate for capitalism economically to distribute goods and services. Leftness and rightness are economic terms period.

 

Dude, the Muller investigation convicted Manafort on a charge which occurred before Manafort was a member of the Trump campaign and Roger Stone was never a member of the Trump campaign...Manufactured evidence.

 

The original meaning of left and right was to designate, in the French General Assembly, those who supported the Revolution sat to the Left of the President, and those who supported the King to the right.

You suddenly fixated on the economic aspects. The discussion you jumped into was about fascism. Which is NOT an economic position. It's a political philosophy that favors an authoritarian (see above paragraph) regime, and opposes democracy, with an emphasis on nationalism and defense of "racial purity"

You should try to understand what is being discussed before you jump into a discussion. When you don't, it alarms us into thinking you might be having a stroke, or something...

 

Your argument is absurd. In any trial, if the evidence is faulty, if the attorney's are competent, the evidence won't survive cross examination, and any prosecutor or lawyer entering false evidence in a trail can him or herself be prosecuted, because to do so is a felony.

On August 21 ....the jury found Manafort guilty on 8 of the 18 felony counts, including five counts of filing false tax returns, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to disclose a foreign bank account.[90][91][92]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trials_of_Paul_Manafort

None of those counts were dependent on his being a manager of Trump's campaign, nor were any of the charges based on manufactured evidence, he was convicted by a jury.

As for Roger Stone the jury convicted Stone on all counts – obstruction, making false statements, and witness tampering, none of which the evidence was manufactured nor were dependent on his being on Trump's staff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ston

You are literally imagining things.

 

In the US, rightness and leftness deals with economic terms. You're right, fascism isn't an economic discussion so why do so many want to make fascism an economic issue? I know that answer, BTW, some want to defame capitalism by obfuscating the definition of fascism to include only those on the right...Which makes even less sense since Mussolini, the father of fascism, was a lefty who hated communism.

 

All of Manafort's convictions were over actions which occurred before Manafort became a member of the Trump campaign and Stone was never a member of the Trump campaign which further proves the Trump campaign was never guilty of collusion with Russians over the 2016 election. Matter of fact, the only collusion in the 2016 election came from the Hillary campaign (Steele dossier) and the FBI with its false claims to warrant investigations of certain Trump campaign members.

 

Well, then, in that case, the old '(jail) birds of a feather flock together' principle fits nicely. Trump hires a lot of crooks, it seems, so, perhaps he's one, too, eh?

So? I mean, it has been established there were some 12 criminal referrals arising from the Mueller report. As to who? It doesn't really matter, because the claim by the right is that it was a 'hoax' and those referrals proves that the investigation was not a hoax, moreover, 10 cases of obstruction, not to mention the fact that the Republican led Senate Judiciary Committee stated that Trump's 2016 campaign posed "a grave counterintelligence threat".

See above.

 

It appears Trump hired some questionable characters for his staff. It also appears many were out to get Trump and his staff.