Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Canada => American Politics => Topic started by: Queefer Sutherland on June 14, 2017, 07:11:43 pm
-
This is a major lesson from Vietnam, and a major lesson from Iraq and "WMD's", among thousands of other lessons. Government can't be trusted, many of them are trained lawyers, and all of them are professional liars. Solid, verifiable evidence should be necessary before we believe ANYTHING.
As much as I dislike Trump, this includes Comey & the leaked dossier from months ago that implicated Trump in all sorts of scandalous Russian encounters. Maybe Comey is telling the truth (at least he volunteered to testify under oath). But personal memos are not evidence. Comey is a trained lawyer. He was also the head of the FBI, who you'd think would be smart enough to bring along a gadget James Bond-style to record conversions with Trump if he felt threatened rather than rely on he-said she-said.
We need to keep in mind that Trump is a jerk capable of anything, but we also have to keep in mind that he is still an outsider who doesn't play the typical corrupt Washington political games, which is unprecedented in the modern era. The GOP and their donors can't control Trump, and that's a huge threat to them and the trillions $$$ the special interests are worth, which is a massive amount power. Consider that Trump is now in more legal trouble than W. Bush was ever in...and Trump has only been in office a few months! Consider that virtually the entire GOP was behind Dubya & his lies before Iraq, & almost half of the Democrats too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage_of_the_full_resolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage_of_the_full_resolution) And consider that the CIA & George Tenet was in on the sham with Dubya, & consider if the FBI should be trusted any more than the CIA?
My main point is: do not believe anything on face. WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?
-
There is actually a lot of evidence for some of things that Comey says - Russian interference for example, is proven. As for Trump, well, he way not be Washington corrupt, but he's probably the most corrupt president in history. That's after less than 150 days.
-
There is actually a lot of evidence for some of things that Comey says - Russian interference for example, is proven. As for Trump, well, he way not be Washington corrupt, but he's probably the most corrupt president in history. That's after less than 150 days.
Where's the evidence? People saying it's so doesn't make it so.
Russian interference is proven? It probably happened, but what's the "proof"? A newspaper article of some government official saying it happened isn't proof.
-
Where's the evidence? People saying it's so doesn't make it so.
Russian interference is proven? It probably happened, but what's the "proof"? A newspaper article of some government official saying it happened isn't proof.
I don't personally have proof of how quantum physics works either. Should I disbelieve that?
-
He was also the head of the FBI, who you'd think would be smart enough to bring along a gadget James Bond-style to record conversions with Trump if he felt threatened rather than rely on he-said she-said.
Maybe he didn't feel threatened until after the meeting. In his testimony he said Trump had been praising him prior to the meeting, after all.
I don't think there is any way you could argue Comey was against Trump with the way he openly investigated Clinton's email, twice, right before the election, yet kept quiet about the Trump investigation which had been going on since June.
Consider that Trump is now in more legal trouble than W. Bush was ever in...and Trump has only been in office a few months! Consider that virtually the entire GOP was behind Dubya & his lies before Iraq, & almost half of the Democrats too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage_of_the_full_resolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage_of_the_full_resolution) And consider that the CIA & George Tenet was in on the sham with Dubya, & consider if the FBI should be trusted any more than the CIA?
I remember things very differently than you, I don't remember W being in any trouble at all, in spite of all his lying. The Republicans defended him to the end the way they are doing now with Trump.
They only turned on him at the end when the housing market tanked.
-
I kind of think recording a private conversation with a President without their knowledge would be illegal.
-
I don't personally have proof of how quantum physics works either. Should I disbelieve that?
Was quantum physics theorized by politicians? Or by thousands of scientists publishing tens of thousands of research papers showing results of repeatable experiments? I'd assume you'd take thousands of scientists word for it because they're generally very reliable. Government officials? Not so much.
Personally, I think politicians and certain government officials should should usually be assumed to be lying until proven otherwise. Or at least their words taken with huge grains of salt & face heavy skepticism until proven otherwise, with evidence.
"We know where they (WMD's) are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." - Donald Rumsfeld, prior to2003 Iraq invasion. Did you take his word for it at the time smallc? I'll admit i probably did...oops! Well now we have another Donald in hot water...WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE EVERYONE??
-
The Director of the CIA George Tenet to the FRICKIN PRESDIENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq.[41] At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence that Iraq had WMDs amounted to a "slam dunk case."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet#Iraq_WMD_controversy
I'm only using this Tenet/Trump case as just one example to a larger point. This is the point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgubG-MOPT4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgubG-MOPT4)
-
James Comey is not a politician. That's where your theory falls apart. Donald Trump, despite your insistence otherwise, is a politician - just not a very good one. Assuming that James Comey is lying without evidence when we in fact have leaked NSA reports that show otherwise is foolish.
-
BTW, James Clapper thought that the WMDs were in Iraq - and are now in Syira:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/are-syrias-chemical-weapons-iraqs-missing-wmd-obamas-director-of-intelligence-thought-so./article/2007610
-
James Comey is not a politician. That's where your theory falls apart
No he isn't a politician, he's a very high-ranking government official, and he sure behaves more politically than the vast majority of FBI Directors & other civil servants. George Tenet wasn't a politician either, nor J. Edgar Hoover. Slam dunk i says.
Donald Trump, despite your insistence otherwise, is a politician - just not a very good one.
I never said Trump wasn't a politician, I said he wasn't a tradition Washington politician...until now that is.
Assuming that James Comey is lying without evidence when we in fact have leaked NSA reports that show otherwise is foolish.
I shouldn't have said "assume he is lying", like I said...more like be very skeptical of everything he and every other high-ranking government official says. Comey, Trump, Trudeau, whoever regardless.
Comey might be right, Trump smells rotten, we know the Russians are a rotten lot. I'm just amazed at all these people (not saying you) who are so desperate to hang Trump's head on a stake because he's such an a-hole that they buy in to all of this, including the leaked dossier allegations, without much evidence (so far).
-
::) to this thread.
Moonlight Graham reminds me of some contrarian MRA type who would defend Bill Cosby after the 36th woman came forward.
Whatevs.
-
As much as I dislike Trump, this includes Comey & the leaked dossier from months ago that implicated Trump in all sorts of scandalous Russian encounters.
Keep in mind that the current line of investigation is not into Trump himself colluding with the Russians, the investigation is whether Trump interfered with an existing investigation.
Had Trump not fired Comey, he would probably have not been under investigation (at least at this point).
Maybe Comey is telling the truth (at least he volunteered to testify under oath). But personal memos are not evidence.
Actually, they are.
Granted, its not as strong as (for example) a taped conversation, but the fact that the memos were written (and seen by others) shortly after the events occurred gives them a higher amount of gravitas than just a straight claim made weeks/months after.
Comey is a trained lawyer. He was also the head of the FBI, who you'd think would be smart enough to bring along a gadget James Bond-style to record conversions with Trump if he felt threatened rather than rely on he-said she-said.
Not sure if such recordings would be considered illegal in that situation. So even if he caught Trump saying "I'm guilty", Comey himself might have been subject to various laws regarding wiretapping/eavesdropping/etc.
The GOP and their donors can't control Trump, and that's a huge threat to them and the trillions $$$ the special interests are worth, which is a massive amount power.
Even though the big donors can't "control" trump, he is friendly enough to their interests (big tax breaks to the rich, loosing financial/environmental regulations, etc.) that they don't need to.
Consider that Trump is now in more legal trouble than W. Bush was ever in...and Trump has only been in office a few months! Consider that virtually the entire GOP was behind Dubya & his lies before Iraq, & almost half of the Democrats too
I think the reason that Trump is in more legal trouble than Bush is because, well, he's dirtier and more incompetent than Bush ever was.
There were many reasons to criticize Bush. But even at his worst, I don't think Bush was anywhere near as bad as Trump when it comes to lying, etc.
My main point is: do not believe anything on face. WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?
There's plenty of circumstantial evidence.
We know (for example) of the following links between Russia and various people within Trump's organization:
- Flynn lied about contacts with Russian officials
- Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was a business partner of several Russian businessmen
- Eric Trump admitted that they don't get funding from American banks, but they get the financing they need from Russian banks
- Meetings between Trump's son-in-law and adviser Kushner and Russian banks and Russian officials prior to Trump being sworn in
We also have multiple U.S. intelligence agencies stating that the hackers involved in the U.S. elections were based in Russia.
Now, none of that is concrete proof of collusion. However, it is enough to sustain investigations. Which is the whole point... to build on evidence to see what crimes may have been committed.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/06/15/mueller_reportedly_investigating_kushner_s_financial_dealings_with_russia.html
http://nypost.com/2017/05/07/eric-trump-said-dads-golf-courses-were-funded-by-russia/
Now, as for Trump himself: As I pointed out, the main issue isn't whether Trump himself colluded with the Russians, but whether Trump attempted to influence the investigations into the other people. (Trump may himself have been involved but that doesn't appear to be the main problem right now.) So what evidence do we have that Trump may be guilty of interfering with the election? We have:
- Comey's testimony and memos. (Yes, its not hard proof, but the fact that he wrote things down ahead of time gives his testimony more weight than just a simple claim after the fact.)
- The fact that Comey himself was actually fired, along with conflicting claims about why he was fired. (If Trump couldn't keep his story straight, it kind of affects his credibility.)
- Reports that people like NSA chief Rogers and Director of Intelligence Dan Coats were asked by the whitehouse to make statements about how "the president was not under investigation". (Now, part of that information comes from 'anonymous sources'; however, they were reported in fairly respectable mainstream publications.)
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/22/15678342/trump-russia-probe
-
::) to this thread.
Moonlight Graham reminds me of some contrarian MRA type who would defend Bill Cosby after the 36th woman came forward.
Whatevs.
Do you understand my point!??! I'm not saying what Comey is saying is false! And it certainly looks like Trump has had some shady dealings with Russia, I'm NOT defending Trump, that's not my point. I'm saying don't under-estimate what government is capable of, & don't take anyone's word on its face no matter how "official" it sounds. Be skeptical, use critical thinking.
-
Do you understand my point!??! I'm not saying what Comey is saying is false! And it certainly looks like Trump has had some shady dealings with Russia, I'm NOT defending Trump, that's not my point. I'm saying don't under-estimate what government is capable of, & don't take anyone's word on its face no matter how "official" it sounds. Be skeptical, use critical thinking.
No kidding, Sherlock.
You may think this is what you sound like but it isn't. You sound like a MRA with a freezer full of pudding pops jumping at the chance to defend Bill Cosby as yet another woman comes foward.
Trump has self-incriminated himself with his Twitter TL and what his sons have said publicly about Trump's relations with Russia.
Just this evidence alone goes back nearly a decade so we do not need anything from Comey's memos.
In fact, it is how Comey was fired and Trump tweeted about it being related to Russia, to then have Session's testify that Comey was fired for reasons unrelated to Russia, that are so obvious.
Hence why I laugh at your thread. Evidence is not sealed up in a vaccuum full of Comey's memos.
It's been staring us in the face long before the election.
Sort of like a cocktail served by Mr. Pudding Pop.
-
We know (for example) of the following links between Russia and various people within Trump's organization:
- Flynn lied about contacts with Russian officials
- Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was a business partner of several Russian businessmen
- Eric Trump admitted that they don't get funding from American banks, but they get the financing they need from Russian banks
- Meetings between Trump's son-in-law and adviser Kushner and Russian banks and Russian officials prior to Trump being sworn in
We also have multiple U.S. intelligence agencies stating that the hackers involved in the U.S. elections were based in Russia.
Now, none of that is concrete proof of collusion. However, it is enough to sustain investigations. Which is the whole point... to build on evidence to see what crimes may have been committed.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/06/15/mueller_reportedly_investigating_kushner_s_financial_dealings_with_russia.html
http://nypost.com/2017/05/07/eric-trump-said-dads-golf-courses-were-funded-by-russia/
Now, as for Trump himself: As I pointed out, the main issue isn't whether Trump himself colluded with the Russians, but whether Trump attempted to influence the investigations into the other people. (Trump may himself have been involved but that doesn't appear to be the main problem right now.) So what evidence do we have that Trump may be guilty of interfering with the election? We have:
- Comey's testimony and memos. (Yes, its not hard proof, but the fact that he wrote things down ahead of time gives his testimony more weight than just a simple claim after the fact.)
- The fact that Comey himself was actually fired, along with conflicting claims about why he was fired. (If Trump couldn't keep his story straight, it kind of affects his credibility.)
- Reports that people like NSA chief Rogers and Director of Intelligence Dan Coats were asked by the whitehouse to make statements about how "the president was not under investigation". (Now, part of that information comes from 'anonymous sources'; however, they were reported in fairly respectable mainstream publications.)
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/22/15678342/trump-russia-probe
It just smells completely fishy. Why do so many people around Trump have connections to Russia? You didn't even mention Carter Page or Robert Mercer. Then you have crazy-person Roger Stone bragging about his "back channel" to WikiLeaks. Then you have Trump's insistence on Michael Flynn being in his cabinet, even after he was told Flynn was compromised. And what's with Flynn and Sessions and Kushner all having secret meetings with Russian officials? What in the fizzityuck is going on?
Given all this stuff, and the ongoing investigation, it creates the unavoidable appearance that Trump meddled in the investigation because Trump was worried about what the investigation would find.
-k
-
Do you understand my point!??! I'm not saying what Comey is saying is false! And it certainly looks like Trump has had some shady dealings with Russia, I'm NOT defending Trump, that's not my point. I'm saying don't under-estimate what government is capable of, & don't take anyone's word on its face no matter how "official" it sounds. Be skeptical, use critical thinking.
Nobody is saying "just take someone's word for it".
In the previous post I provided, evidence about russian contacts and/or questionable dealing by Trump has been: 1) admitted to (example: the white house admitting to contacts between Kushner/Flynn and the Russians), 2) verified by multiple sources (e.g. Manafort's dealings with Russians), 3) comes from a respectable news source, or 4) has some other validation (Comey's memos).
Being a skeptic and using critical thinking doesn't mean automatically questioning all evidence; you can make some basic assumptions about the accuracy of the evidence based on the quality of the source and/or the motivations of those involved.
-
It just smells completely fishy.
Yes, it does smell fishy. But, the previous poster was asking for 'evidence', and I wanted to post examples of things where the connections were well laid out and goes above being "just fishy".
Why do so many people around Trump have connections to Russia? You didn't even mention Carter Page or Robert Mercer. Then you have crazy-person Roger Stone bragging about his "back channel" to WikiLeaks. Then you have Trump's insistence on Michael Flynn being in his cabinet, even after he was told Flynn was compromised.
No I didn't. (I could have also mentioned Trump's claims of meeting putin, then his claims of not meeting him, etc.) But, I figured the evidence I provided was enough to make my point: The evidence against Trump rises above the level of just vacant claims.
-
I think my sneer towards the original post and this thread is as to how cynical it is (and it is so easy to be cynical).
There is lots of evidence about Trump's connections to Russia (among others).
But lets step back and remember: Comey is no politician.
He would take the oath to testify seriously. Much more so than a Bill Clinton or a Colin Powell (although I do not think Powell was under oath at the UN).
Comey also kept contemporaneous notes.
Trump? He keeps saying something about recordings but can't seem to find them.
If one is going to go down the lazy road of cynicism then I know which one I would be applying it to.
-
today he says there aren't any tapes after all - oops.
-
No kidding, Sherlock.
You may think this is what you sound like but it isn't. You sound like a MRA with a freezer full of pudding pops jumping at the chance to defend Bill Cosby as yet another woman comes foward.
Trump has self-incriminated himself with his Twitter TL and what his sons have said publicly about Trump's relations with Russia.
Just this evidence alone goes back nearly a decade so we do not need anything from Comey's memos.
In fact, it is how Comey was fired and Trump tweeted about it being related to Russia, to then have Session's testify that Comey was fired for reasons unrelated to Russia, that are so obvious.
Hence why I laugh at your thread. Evidence is not sealed up in a vaccuum full of Comey's memos.
It's been staring us in the face long before the election.
Sort of like a cocktail served by Mr. Pudding Pop.
There's obviously some kind of relationship between Trump & his admin and the Putin gov. There's pieces scattered all over the place to point to something that needs to be investigated. It doesn't look good for Trump. But some of the more serious allegations are still allegations. I think most people are just waiting to see it all come out from the investigations. Others, however, hate the man so much they believe all of the the allegations already. You can laugh at my thread, but there's a reason they're still investigating & not laying charges...yet.
-
I think my sneer towards the original post and this thread is as to how cynical it is (and it is so easy to be cynical).
There is lots of evidence about Trump's connections to Russia (among others).
But lets step back and remember: Comey is no politician.
He would take the oath to testify seriously. Much more so than a Bill Clinton or a Colin Powell (although I do not think Powell was under oath at the UN).
Comey also kept contemporaneous notes.
Trump? He keeps saying something about recordings but can't seem to find them.
If one is going to go down the lazy road of cynicism then I know which one I would be applying it to.
Trump has connections to Russia, that seems pretty obvious. But there needs to be a link to connect Trump to the other serious allegations.
Yes, this thread is extremely cynical. History has taught us lessons over and over again. Talk is cheap. I don't think anyone believes anything Trump say already.
-
Well we now know, after 6 weeks or so, that Trump was BSing about the tapes. Now he says he is "amused" by all the reportage that followed his "tapes tweet". Now I see he is doing his best to shackle the WH press briefings. I guess he's aiming for the day when the only way anyone will know what the POTUS is up to is what is found in his twitter account.
-
But some of the more serious allegations are still allegations.
Well, I think the most serious allegation at this point is 'obstruction of justice'... and there is more than enough evidence to elevate that from an 'allegation' to 'this is a thing that likely happened'.
-
I think most people are just waiting to see it all come out from the investigations. Others, however, hate the man so much they believe all of the the allegations already.
There wasn't enough evidence to charge OJ Simpson with murder but the reason I still believe he did it has nothing to do with hating him.
-
Well, I think the most serious allegation at this point is 'obstruction of justice'... and there is more than enough evidence to elevate that from an 'allegation' to 'this is a thing that likely happened'.
What about the alleged colluding with the Putin gov to undermine Hillary during the election cycle?
-
There wasn't enough evidence to charge OJ Simpson with murder but the reason I still believe he did it has nothing to do with hating him.
OJ was charged for double-murder & went to trial.
And there seemed like enough evidence to convict him - victims blood all over his bronco, victim-bloody glove on OJ's property - the brilliant defense just "planted" doubt into a largely black jury.
-
There wasn't enough evidence to charge OJ Simpson with murder but the reason I still believe he did it has nothing to do with hating him.
The difference is that the court system has to find him guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt in a criminal case. Public opinion works on the same premise as civil lawsuits, we find people guilty in our minds when the balance of the evidence suggests they're likely to have done it.
-
The difference is that the court system has to find him guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt in a criminal case. Public opinion works on the same premise as civil lawsuits, we find people guilty in our minds when the balance of the evidence suggests they're likely to have done it.
The standard is beyond reasonable doubt, not a shadow of a doubt in criminal cases but it's so that civil cases do not have as high a bar.
-
The difference is that the court system has to find him guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt in a criminal case. Public opinion works on the same premise as civil lawsuits, we find people guilty in our minds when the balance of the evidence suggests they're likely to have done it.
I know. My point wasn't so much that the two are the same, I was just refuting MG's claim that people have made up their minds because they hate Trump.
I didn't hate OJ when I reached the conclusion that the justice system failed. I reached my conclusion based on the mountain of evidence in spite of the fact that it wasn't enough.
Likewise, there is a mountain of evidence against Trump, but before they try and impeach a president for treason within a Republican controlled legislative branch, they need to be certain the evidence is air tight.
And believing that mountain of evidence even though no charges have been laid has nothing to do with my feelings for Trump.
It has to do with the evidence so far.
-
What about the alleged colluding with the Putin gov to undermine Hillary during the election cycle?
At this point, we don't have any evidence that there was any direct collusion with Trump himself (along the lines of Trump saying "Hey Putin, bro... do me a solid and help smear Hillary, and I'll make it worth your while"), and only circumstantial evidence that members of Trump's inner circle and the Russian government. But the thing is, most people who are critical of Trump aren't saying "We know for sure Trump directly colluded", they are saying "He obstructed investigations", for which there is plenty of evidence.
-
I know. My point wasn't so much that the two are the same, I was just refuting MG's claim that people have made up their minds because they hate Trump.
I didn't hate OJ when I reached the conclusion that the justice system failed. I reached my conclusion based on the mountain of evidence in spite of the fact that it wasn't enough.
Likewise, there is a mountain of evidence against Trump, but before they try and impeach a president for treason within a Republican controlled legislative branch, they need to be certain the evidence is air tight.
And believing that mountain of evidence even though no charges have been laid has nothing to do with my feelings for Trump.
It has to do with the evidence so far.
I was just elaborating on your point.
-
There's obviously some kind of relationship between Trump & his admin and the Putin gov. There's pieces scattered all over the place to point to something that needs to be investigated. It doesn't look good for Trump. But some of the more serious allegations are still allegations. I think most people are just waiting to see it all come out from the investigations. Others, however, hate the man so much they believe all of the the allegations already. You can laugh at my thread, but there's a reason they're still investigating & not laying charges...yet.
Poonlight vindicated 2 years later! Poonlight one of the only non-Republican supporter, non-Neo-Nazi, non-FOX News loudmouths that waited for the evidence before convicting the man. Once again Poonlight shows us the way...
;)
-
My main point is: do not believe anything on face. WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?
Read my OP, it still applies almost 2 years later. Have we learned nothing over the last century? Believe nothing government tells you, without proof.
This also applies to Barr's report of Mueller's investigation. Let's not believe his word. The American people and their elected representatives deserve to see the evidence before exonerating Trump of Russian collusion. They should see as much of Mueller's report as is legally possible.
Trump guilty of collusion? WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE? Trump not guilty? WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE? Now about those Iraq WMD's...
-
....Government can't be trusted...
...do not believe anything on face. WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?
Where's the means to collect evidence in the first place? Where are the cameras, microphones, GPS chips. Where are the tapes? What is there to audit and validate? Where are the human observers and process guardians? Where is the legislation that outlaws in-camera lobbying?
I've been asking these sorts of questions for decades now. I've pretty much lost faith in the willingness and capacity of the public to demand better. I'm pretty sure a critical mass of people even approve of corruption and believe that taking action against it will only wreck the economy.
Good article in this weekends Globe and Mail on bribery and corruption https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-give-and-take-whats-so-bad-about-bribery/
Best quote
Regulatory capture, whereby sectors overwhelm the force of government oversight, is a regular feature of all money-talks democratic systems. It is not in itself illegal, nor is it obviously bribery; but it creates pathologies in the system."
-
Where's the means to collect evidence in the first place? Where are the cameras, microphones, GPS chips. Where are the tapes? What is there to audit and validate? Where are the human observers and process guardians? Where is the legislation that outlaws in-camera lobbying?
I think the key is transparency in government. So that the Fourth Estate (an independent news media) can look at as much evidence as can be made available and report it to us. In a healthy democracy, opposition parties will also find any chance to make the other party look bad, so will report wrongdoing, unless it benefits them too, which it often does.
I've been asking these sorts of questions for decades now. I've pretty much lost faith in the willingness and capacity of the public to demand better. I'm pretty sure a critical mass of people even approve of corruption and believe that taking action against it will only wreck the economy.
I agree with the former, disagree with the latter.
Good article in this weekends Globe and Mail on bribery and corruption https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-give-and-take-whats-so-bad-about-bribery/
I'll try to check that out when i have time.