Call it speculation. If they are going to go to the lengths of accusing her of being a communist, and not telling her what the allegations are, I'm fine with going out on a limb and guessing the whole thing is just a smear.
I mentioned the accusation about involving students in partisan political activity because, as you acknowledge, that would be something that would cross a line if it was true.
If they are going to go to the lengths of accusing her of being a communist
That's where the line is for me, too.
If she encouraged students to get involved with their own governance, and to be interested in the issues then it's my opinion that she's doing her job as an educator.
But if she's telling students "... and this is what makes sense" -- if she's interpreting the world FOR THEM -- then I really don't see this as a witch trial at all.
But what's your take? Was she encouraging political engagement? Or promoting one political opinion above others? I feel like we might have the opportunity to agree here!
I don't know, Magoo. I wasn't there, and she hasn't even been told what the complaint was.
So despite the line for the media, that is the main thing that makes me think this whole thing is not in good faith.
OK. I wasn't there either. If it shakes out that she was honestly just encouraging her students to be engaged with the process then that's great. If she was encouraging her students to believe as she believes then that's not so great. And if nothing can shed any light on how it went down then she deserves the benefit of the doubt.
McCarthyism involved the use of immense state power against a large, shape-shifting mass of fairly powerless ordinary people who, with rare exceptions, had done nothing more than exercise their right to freedom of speech and association. That’s quite different from the calls by Democrats to investigate whether Russian agents hacked the Democratic National Committee at the behest of Vladimir Putin, or whether Trump’s financial interests are tied up with Russia, or whether people like former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, former campaign foreign-policy adviser Carter Page, and former national-security adviser Michael Flynn were up to no good. McCarthyism was a miasma of innuendo, divorced from facts. In the matter of Russia and Trump, a small number of individuals are suspected of serious and specific crimes. Moreover, this time around, the state is firmly in the grip of the supposed victims of the witch hunt. Donald Trump isn’t a high-school teacher who once subscribed to The Daily Worker; he is president of the United States
"McCarthyism was a miasma of innuendo, divorced from facts."
I like that line. Nice use of the word "miasma". And certainly applicable to today. Or maybe I missed some facts. Very possible, so many out there. The Nation could have helped me out a bit by describing the serious and specific crimes, and the facts in support of them.
The Political and Social Roots of the Democratic Party's Anti-Russia Hysteria
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/05/13/pers-m13.html
"...It is signficant that it is the 'left' that has been mobilized most directly in the McCarthyite campaign against Russia...'
...and the facts in support of them.
Don't know about the logical leaps to McCarthyism, or even the assumption of crime rather than wrongdoing. But if you are asking about facts, here are some which raise questions about members of the Trump team lying about contact with foreign governments during the campaign, and about Trump keeping that person in a position of security after learning about the lie, and those contacts.
What I'm asking for is for the Democrats to either shut up or impeach Trump on some actual impeachable grounds that progressives should care about. The entirely illegal airstrike in Syria, not authorized by Congress, would be a promising place to start. Do you wonder why they don't do that? Maybe the DNC is listening to Van Jones too much.
If you believe Trump should be impeached because he or his associates lied to congress, well, that's a pretty wide net. You'd catch a lot of politicians in that, including Mr. Clinton.
I'm not even saying there are grounds yet, though in trump's firing of Comey there may now be.
But it isn't in the Democrats' hands. They would need to have enough Republicans onside to pass it in congress.
We don't know if the Russia investigation will find anything that is grounds for impeachment. That isn't really the point. The point is to have a fair and thorough investigation. Comey's firing was an attempt to impede that.
Smith, do you really think the Democrats are interested in a full, fair impartial airing of facts so that proper measures may be taken to ensure Russia never again influences an American election? Have any full, impartial facts been aired? Come on.
The DNC is hoping to impede Trump's ability to enact his agenda, and they are hoping for electoral gains in 2019 by playing on old cold war tropes. And the DNC media is seeing a great story that sells. And many progressives who should know better are on the rollercoaster, retweeting and posting things said by yet another anonymous government official.
Do you see the Republican end game here? They've been hinting at it for months. The Russia investigation WILL continue, don't worry. They will just expand it to include the Clinton Foundation ties to Russia, the leaks to the media by intelligence officals before and after the election, and let's not forget Susan Rice. Wouldn't be surprised to see Clinton's email server and the partisan investigations of Conservative charities by the IRS make an appearance as well. Maybe they will appont Trey Gowdry as head of the FBI, and the farce will be complete.
It doesn't matter what the democrats want. Again, they don't have the power to impeach.
You raised the question of what the facts are. I pointed out a couple of them.
And for that matter, partisan politics has no bearing on the fact that Trump has very likely committed obstruction of justice by firing Comey.
Why would an investigation into collusion of American government officials with the Russian government be expanded to include people who were not elected? That makes no sense.
What I'm asking for is for the Democrats to either shut up or impeach Trump on some actual impeachable grounds that progressives should care about. The entirely illegal airstrike in Syria, not authorized by Congress, would be a promising place to start. Do you wonder why they don't do that? Maybe the DNC is listening to Van Jones too much.
If you believe Trump should be impeached because he or his associates lied to congress, well, that's a pretty wide net. You'd catch a lot of politicians in that, including Mr. Clinton.
Why should they "shut up"? Impeachment is the final step. Especially when you're in the minority in congress. FBI, congressional and supposedly justice department investigations are ongoing. As more evidence is uncovered, and more incompetence and malfeasance by Trump is revealed, the hope is that some Republicans can be convinced to come on board.
Josh: I get the strategy. Throw mud, hope it sticks, tell republicans hey better disavow or you'll get the mud too.
They should shut up because their open end never ending investigation that has revealed no facts is instead promoting militarism and war. They should shut up because they are using this investigation to train progressives to trust intelligence agencies, secret evidence, and secret courts. The investigation is a distraction from substantive matters. They should oppose Trump's policies on factual, pragmatic progressive grounds. They should talk about what his administration is actually doing, why it's wrong, and what their better way would be. But sadly, if they took my advice, they wouldn't be Democrats.
Here is a great recent article by Matt Taibbi. I've always admired his work, but he's been particularly great since Trump was elected:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-how-did-russiagate-...
But when it comes to the collusion investigation, there are serious questions. A lot of our civil liberties protections and rules of press ethics are designed to prevent exactly this situation, in which a person lingers for extended periods of time under public suspicion without being aware of the exact nature, or origin, of the accusations.
It's why liberal thinkers have traditionally abhorred secret courts, secret surveillance and secret evidence, and in the past would have reflexively discouraged the news media from printing the unverified or unverifiable charges emanating from such secret sources. But because it's Donald Trump, no one seems to care.
We should care. The uncertainty has led to widespread public terror, mass media hysteria and excess, and possibly even panic in the White House itself, where, who knows, Trump may even have risked military confrontation with Russia in an effort to shake the collusion accusations. All of this is exacerbated by the constant stream of leaks and hints at mother lodes of evidence that are just around the corner. It's quite literally driving the country crazy.
Uh . . . they are not conducting an investigation. They don't have control of congress. And the "accusations" aren't being made by Democrats, but by people in the justice department, including the FBI, and the CIA leaking to the press. Maybe you want the press to "shut up" also.
