Pilot: Editorial: After Mueller report, a need for action

Well, it has finally happened, the Pilot has now gone to full on political censorship of its comments section.  The following comment was “Content Disabled” this morning.

“Is it really so hard to admit you were wrong?

But action indeed is needed. We must find out who was involved in the weaponization of our intelligence agencies and Justice Dept against private citizens involved in a political campaign. That has been shown to have been a massive abuse of power.

We may yet see a President in handcuffs, as Democrats and the press so giddily wished for, but it would be former President Obama if it is shown he knew what Lynch and Comey were up to.”

The comment certainly disagrees with their position, but it does not violate any of their rules.

24 thoughts on “Pilot: Editorial: After Mueller report, a need for action

  1. Abuse of power? You are quite the fantasist. These “private citizens involved in a political campaign” broke the law. Period. They have plead guilty or been convicted of serious crimes in connection with the Russian matter. Trump was the person who hired them and was the person who lead them. He has in no way been exonerated by the Barr summation of the Mueller report.

    You decry “weaponizing” of law enforcement but cheer mightily while exactly that is done to bring down Hillary Clinton with one phony investigation after another. And now, you cheer when Trump promises to do EXACTLY that with respect to people who responded professionally to the evidence of criminality that was abundant.

    It is ironic and pitiful for someone whose shtick has been . . .
    support for the rule of law,
    promised armed opposition to tyranny,
    and abhorrence of the abuse of government power

    to have become a full-throated running dog for a person such as Trump who, throughout his private and public life, has displayed nothing but venality, bullying, corruption and a complete disdain for the law.

    Like

    1. ” These “private citizens involved in a political campaign” broke the law.”

      Some had broken laws unrelated to the issue, such as Manafort, and others broke laws by answering questions inconsistently in the course of the investigations, but most of those surveilled had broken no laws and none had broken laws consistent with the purpose of the investigation.

      Carter Paige, for example, broke no laws, but lost his home to legal fees defending himself against relentless and baseless Federal allegations pushed by Mueller in hopes he would implicate Trump. That is a clear abuse power.

      Your inability to graciously accept that you are wrong is duly noted.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Page had been on the intelligence radar since 2013 for a variety of reasons regarding his Russian connections as a self-described expert on Russian energy. Yet other experts in the same field never heard of him.

        So when he joined the Trump campaign he naturally aroused interest.

        Trump and his sons did a lot of business with oligarchs.

        Manafort was practically in bed with the Russians as they were encroaching in Ukraine. It just so happens that he was also a big time crook and tax cheat.

        Bottom line? If It was Obama people would wonder why the FBI didn’t do more and earlier. Here an interesting take on Page and the FBI, including pros and cons.

        . https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-09/we-should-care-about-what-happened-to-carter-page

        Like

      2. Yeah, “some” of the many crimes were not directly related to the Trump campaign but that means that “some” were.

        You are quite simply amazing with your creative euphemisms. Lying to law enforcement is now “answering questions inconsistently.”

        Poor innocent little Carter Paige. Boo Hoo. People with nothing to hide and who are willing to answer questions truthfully do not need to hide behind a phalanx of high priced lawyers.

        The chairman of Trump’s Presidential campaign was involved in criminal conspiracies with Russian actors and is going to jail for his crimes and for continuing to lie about his activities. THAT is very obviously highly relevant to the question that Mueller was tasked with pursuing. But there you go, trying to pretend that investigating him was an “abuse of power” and that people should go to jail for doing so. Kind of sickening, actually.

        Like

  2. RE: “We may yet see a President in handcuffs, as Democrats and the press so giddily wished for, but it would be former President Obama…”

    There’s a perverse logic in The Pilot’s censorship. Media just spent two years promoting suspicion that President Trump might be guilty of high crimes. Now that those suspicions can no longer be sustained, the public will look for a new villain. Former President Obama is the logical choice, since his administration initiated the scandal, but his supporters will do everything in their power to keep public attention from turning his way.

    That’s the problem with mobs. Once you create them, you lose control.

    Like

    1. Papadopolus started the investigation when he got drunk and bragged knowing about the Russian hack long before anyone else did.

      Not investigating that would have been the scandal.

      Making the report public is necessary. No matter what side you are on, keeping it under wraps or redacting it is not good for the country.

      Like

      1. There are parts that cannot be released unredacted.

        Some of it is classified and some of it could be damaging to the reputations of people who committed no crime.

        Further, some of it is based on Grand Jury testimony, which is secret with very limited exceptions.

        Like

  3. A statement like “Now that those suspicions can no longer be sustained . . .” is a testament to monumental gullibility. Not only are those suspicions sustainable, they are reinforced by the role of his hand-picked cover-up artist (see Iran-Contra, etc.) try to spin away the Mueller report.

    Like

    1. RE: “Not only are those suspicions sustainable, they are reinforced…”

      You are obviously welcome to harbor any suspicions you may have for as long as you wish, but please don’t waste our time with conspiracy theories until you can offer substantive reasons to reject the DoJ’s findings in this matter. Currently, those findings consist of two not-guilty decisions:

      • Not guilty of collusion
      • Not guilty of obstruction

      An existential argument that Truth is always subject to doubt is perfectly irrelevant.

      Like

      1. Funny, in a very similar DOJ decision not to prosecute Clinton for her emails, you STILL have not given up YOUR conspiracy theories. In fact, following Chump’s lead, you continue to repeat them with renewed vigor and vehemence even long after the matter is completely moot. Clinton is not the President. Trump is and this continued cover-up is beyond obvious. The Starr Report was issued in its entirety. Where is the Mueller Report?

        Like

        1. RE: “Funny, in a very similar DOJ decision not to prosecute Clinton for her emails, you STILL have not given up YOUR conspiracy theories.”

          Why should I? I believe there are substantive reasons to question the DOJ’s handling of the Clinton email matter. In fact, the current DOJ is reviewing its conduct in that case even now, and is expected to issue a report sometime in the next 90 days or so.

          Like

  4. I had two comments disabled in a few minutes on the same thread. They were just saying that my comments were disabled.

    I doubt they were picking on you.

    Yesterday I was called a “nut” by a regular because she disagreed with a comment of mine and it was not disabled.

    Like

      1. Here they are:

        Lennart A. Rothman, Norfolk, VA
        5 hours ago
        CONTENT DISABLED Reply to @William Tabor, Chesapeake, VA:

        I’ve had comments lost or disabled also. So if it’s political censorship I have no idea what the agenda is.

        Lennart A. Rothman, Norfolk, VA
        5 hours ago
        CONTENT DISABLED Reply to @William Tabor, Chesapeake, VA:

        I just had a comment disabled. And it was to tell you that I have had comments removed also.

        I’m puzzled.

        See anything nefarious?

        I’m still puzzled.

        Like

      2. Here is another one disabled;

        Lennart A. Rothman, Norfolk, VA
        1 hour ago
        CONTENT DISABLED Reply to @William Tabor, Chesapeake, VA:

        We know what Comey was up to: making absolutely sure that Clinton lost the election.

        Papadopoulus got drunk and told an Australian diplomat that he knew about the Russian hack and Wikileaks months before anyone else. That is what started the investigation in July 2016.

        If it been an Obama campaign you’d be singing hosannas.

        There is no doubt a conservative bias in the censorship.

        Like

  5. Just wondering if I am the only one who cannot comment on ANYTHING in the Opinion section … cartoon, editorial, or LTE’s? The “Click to Comment” phrase blinks when I click on it, but nothing happens after that. I have no problems opening comments and commenting on anything in the News section.

    This is occurring on both my desktop and laptop computers.

    Anyone else having this problem?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s