Trump's Russian Collusion

[a fan]

And just like that, I have a new hero. UMich grad, and was likely a customer of a fan’s place in Ann Arbor. Imagine putting country before party.

Notice no tin foil hat stuff from the guy. Just plain talk , and he actually read the damn report, like he’s paid to do.

Didn’t see anything about collusion. He just pretty much blew the whistle on Trumps **itty behavior and non stop lying.

Good for him. Not sure I agree on his impeachment call, but at least the man is drawing the line

[old salt]

Who's Amash, did he sign the prosecutors' letter ?

Obstruction -- the ham sammiches are laughin' at him too.

[a fan]

Laugh all you want.

Man seems to understand that there's more to leading than "almost-but-not-quite" breaking multiple laws. Odds of the man's reelection just plummeted. Tip of the hat for that, no?


You'd admit that you like the guy too, if you weren't so busy stubbornly defending Trump in front of the Forum.

[dislaxxic]

an OPINION read at TPM:

"I think there are a couple of key points we agree on: One is that even the redacted Mueller report presents evidence of impeachable acts. The other is that the biggest practical barrier to impeachment is the unification of Senate Republicans against it under McConnell’s control, regardless of that evidence. (I think we disagree on the conclusion the latter leads to, but I do agree about the significance of the fact itself.)

It looks to me like we’re seeing a two-pronged response to the Mueller report and specifically to Democratic investigations in Congress that build on it: Prong one is the Whitehouse’s stonewalling and attempting to run the clock out, which keeps critical figures from testifying and helps build public indifference and a general perception of Democratic weakness. Prong two is Barr running out Fox News talking points (and DOJ investigations) intended to paint a picture of the Mueller investigation as the corrupt product of conspiracy. Besides the obvious benefit of undermining a report that clearly shows the President as commissioning criminal acts, this also helps paint all further investigations as “attempts to relitigate the election” or “attempts at a soft coup,” etc. I don’t think that you need me to point out the synergy between these two strategies and how that helps Congressional (and especially Senatorial) Republicans remain allied with the President.

I think that this overall strategy also grows stronger the longer its successful. And this is where impeachment comes into my thoughts too. Going back to my first backtrack point, and objective reading of the (even redacted) Mueller Report establishes a more-than-reasonable basis for impeachment. But the longer that it sits there without being used as such, the less likely many people are to believe that’s true, and the weaker and weaker it becomes as the basis for a successful impeachment. Its very hard to convince people who are otherwise undecided that it’s a legitimate case if that case isn’t being made. In some ways this goes back to what you used to indelicately call “complain slap” politics. Refusal to act is seen as weakness which becomes weakness in political terms regardless of what any objective set of facts might be. (I understand why you don’t want to use the phrase anymore. If I had a better substitute, I would use it.) If the Mueller report’s clear case for Obstruction of Justice isn’t actionable as impeachment, then how could these piddling little inquiries be a worthwhile use of taxpayer dollars? That’s where this whole strategy goes. The aim is to turn “exoneration” from a lie to a publicly accepted fact.

I’m to the left of Nancy Pelosi generally, but I also generally respect her judgment. Because of this, and because of my backtrack fact #2 up there about McConnell’s control of the Senate Majority, I do have some, slight, wariness about impeaching right exactly now. But taking it off the table in just about any way, shape, or form, is also clearly a problem. Saying “well, we could impeach him but that would rile his base up” isn’t helpful because it’s another admission of weakness. Maybe, maybe a case could be made that establishes that its only the corruption and malfeasance of Senate Republicans that’s keeping Trump in office, but that’s not the case that’s being made. I’d love to be wrong about this, but it really feels like the opportunity for the Mueller Report to have anything like the impact it should, and the opportunity for Democrats to do something besides fight the Whitehouse in court while the clock ticks out and voters come to accept as fact that Trump was spied on, is fading."

..

[old salt]

Laugh all you want.

Man seems to understand that there's more to leading than "almost-but-not-quite" breaking multiple laws. Odds of the man's reelection just plummeted. Tip of the hat for that, no?


You'd admit that you like the guy too, if you weren't so busy stubbornly defending Trump in front of the Forum.

Like him ? Did he play hockey at U of M ?

[a fan]

No, no. You know what I mean. The dude is going to get primary-ied for speaking out. His career may be done because he spoke his mind. I admire that.

[old salt]

Steele, Halper, Azra Turk & the other spies who loved us.

[jhu72]

an OPINION read at TPM:

"I think there are a couple of key points we agree on: One is that even the redacted Mueller report presents evidence of impeachable acts. The other is that the biggest practical barrier to impeachment is the unification of Senate Republicans against it under McConnell’s control, regardless of that evidence. (I think we disagree on the conclusion the latter leads to, but I do agree about the significance of the fact itself.)

It looks to me like we’re seeing a two-pronged response to the Mueller report and specifically to Democratic investigations in Congress that build on it: Prong one is the Whitehouse’s stonewalling and attempting to run the clock out, which keeps critical figures from testifying and helps build public indifference and a general perception of Democratic weakness. Prong two is Barr running out Fox News talking points (and DOJ investigations) intended to paint a picture of the Mueller investigation as the corrupt product of conspiracy. Besides the obvious benefit of undermining a report that clearly shows the President as commissioning criminal acts, this also helps paint all further investigations as “attempts to relitigate the election” or “attempts at a soft coup,” etc. I don’t think that you need me to point out the synergy between these two strategies and how that helps Congressional (and especially Senatorial) Republicans remain allied with the President.

I think that this overall strategy also grows stronger the longer its successful. And this is where impeachment comes into my thoughts too. Going back to my first backtrack point, and objective reading of the (even redacted) Mueller Report establishes a more-than-reasonable basis for impeachment. But the longer that it sits there without being used as such, the less likely many people are to believe that’s true, and the weaker and weaker it becomes as the basis for a successful impeachment. Its very hard to convince people who are otherwise undecided that it’s a legitimate case if that case isn’t being made. In some ways this goes back to what you used to indelicately call “complain slap” politics. Refusal to act is seen as weakness which becomes weakness in political terms regardless of what any objective set of facts might be. (I understand why you don’t want to use the phrase anymore. If I had a better substitute, I would use it.) If the Mueller report’s clear case for Obstruction of Justice isn’t actionable as impeachment, then how could these piddling little inquiries be a worthwhile use of taxpayer dollars? That’s where this whole strategy goes. The aim is to turn “exoneration” from a lie to a publicly accepted fact.

I’m to the left of Nancy Pelosi generally, but I also generally respect her judgment. Because of this, and because of my backtrack fact #2 up there about McConnell’s control of the Senate Majority, I do have some, slight, wariness about impeaching right exactly now. But taking it off the table in just about any way, shape, or form, is also clearly a problem. Saying “well, we could impeach him but that would rile his base up” isn’t helpful because it’s another admission of weakness. Maybe, maybe a case could be made that establishes that its only the corruption and malfeasance of Senate Republicans that’s keeping Trump in office, but that’s not the case that’s being made. I’d love to be wrong about this, but it really feels like the opportunity for the Mueller Report to have anything like the impact it should, and the opportunity for Democrats to do something besides fight the Whitehouse in court while the clock ticks out and voters come to accept as fact that Trump was spied on, is fading."

..

Why do the democrats care what Orange Duce's base thinks, even a little bite? His poll numbers today are underwater by 11.4 percentage points. This doesn't change by more than 2 percentage points +/- no matter what happens, no matter what stupid, gross, disgusting, illegal, immoral thing he does. This isn't going to change. Impeach him all you like, the people who dislike Trump, 53% of the registered voters aren't going to like him any more, the 41% of the registered voters who like him aren't going to like him any more or less. There are only 4.2 percentage points that have any chance of moving one way or the other. Even if everyone of them decide they like him, he is still underwater. There is no risk in impeaching him. The democrats are just plain gutless. It does not matter what the republicans do or don't do in the Senate. That cannot be determined before hand. You are not going to get republicans coming out for impeachment unless and until they are staring it in the face. Not impeaching him is just enabling him, the democrats are starting to behave like republican traitors to the constitution.

[dislaxxic]

Agree jhu...Dems are pretty spineless in this situation. They're over-thinking it and it really stinks.

Some Republicans unsettled by Trump’s sweeping claims of immunity

Worm is turning for some GOPers in the House, too...

..

[seacoaster]

A little rule of law for the day:

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/no ... pdf#page=1

[njbill]

sc, thanks for posting.

I wonder if "covfefe" had its origins in the Covode Committee.

[dislaxxic]

THE MUELLER REPORT REDACTIONS AND THE CLAIMS ABOUT “COLLUSION”

Marcy Wheeler takes a deep dive into how what is redacted (and why) is so potentially damaging to Don the Con.

"The most damning revelations about the President’s own actions during the campaign in this report pertain to his exploitation of the WikiLeaks releases. They go directly to the question of criminal liability (which Mueller says he couldn’t charge for evidentiary reasons, not because he didn’t think it was a crime), and if you want to talk “collusion” as opposed to “conspiracy” — as the President does — it goes to “collusion.”

And in the guise of protecting Roger Stone’s right to a fair trial — and possibly with an eye towards preserving the President’s ability to pardon Stone before a trial reveals even more of these details — DOJ used a heavy hand on the redactions pertaining to Trump’s own personal involvement in exploiting the benefit his campaign received from WikiLeaks releasing emails that Russia stole from Hillary. These details are the bulk of what DOJ is hiding by offering just a small number of members of Congress to review the less-redacted version of the report.

Perhaps Mueller agreed with all these redactions; it’s a question I hope he gets asked when he finally testifies. But the redactions serve to hide what was clearly a close call on prosecution and one of the most damning explanations for Trump’s obstruction, an explanation that involved his own actions on the campaign."

Deplorables shrug. SaltyRad dances a jig.

..

[CU88]

Jerry Nadler Won’t Stop Until the Full Mueller Report is Out
The House Judiciary chair and New York congressman has brawled with Trump for more than 30 years

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... ry-821364/

[foreverlax]

a fan, the FBI does what the DOJ tells it to do (e.g., the linked article). This is just the tip of iceberg as to why I believe Obama's DOJ should be investigated in regards to all the things OS has listed for you.

Ah, so you picked that you DO believe the FBI when they said Hillary should have been charged?

So they're not corrupt, then? Got it. Noted for future discussions.


Obama's DOJ? So the DoJ was no longer corrupt after Trump took office and appointed----well, everyone---- as a new AG?

Noted for future discussions.

That's rather convenient, considering the only change at the DoJ was at the top----Lynch. So Lynch was corrupt, but those who remained under Trump, weren't. Do I have that right?

As for the investigations, Horowitz already did that, no one charged with any corruption. But that doesn't bother you, right? Soldier on, and keep looking, right? Ok. Fine.

Your gripe is that he didn't look into FISA, correct? What do you think happened that was illegal?

Loretta Lynch: Obama never ordered politically motivated infiltration of Trump campaign

Appearing before a joint task force of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Lynch was asked if she believed the Justice Department or FBI ever got political in their handling of the inquiry, which began as a counterintelligence investigation in the summer of 2016.

"I know that they did not," Lynch said on Dec. 19.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., who is now the House Judiciary chairman, asked: "Did President Obama, or anyone in his administration, ever make a demand or request that the FBI or DOJ infiltrate or surveil the Trump campaign for political purposes?"

Lynch gave a one-word answer: "Never." Asked how she would react if she had received such a request, Lynch said, "I would have declined it and told them how inappropriate it was."

So there it is....under oath. "This all winds up at Obama's desk."

[dislaxxic]

WHY TRUMP BELIEVED HE COULD WITHHOLD THE JUNE 9 EMAIL: BECAUSE HE SUCCEEDED IN WITHHOLDING MOSCOW TRUMP TOWER ONES

Further: HPSCI TESTIMONY PROVES TRUMP LIED IN HIS ANSWERS TO MUELLER

Criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice...?

..

[dislaxxic]

House Democrats subpoena former White House communications director Hope Hicks



..

[dislaxxic]

IV. CONCLUSION

"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Mueller Report, Page 182.

..

[old salt]

Late this a.m., Trump booted Pelosi & Shumer out of the WH, throwing down the impeachment gauntlet.

Then early this p.m., the man Trump just pardoned published this. Coincidence ?

Trump's next move = declass & release the Deep State investigation documents -- dribble or deluge ?

[CU88]

Late this a.m., Trump booted Pelosi & Shumer out of the WH, throwing down the impeachment gauntlet.

Then early this p.m., the man Trump just pardoned published this. Coincidence ?

Trump's next move = declass & release the Deep State investigation documents -- dribble or deluge ?

I don't see the d game as Impeachment. They are just looking finding o d lies to throw up against the general election and see what sticks. o d keeps giving them material.

The phrase "cover up" ticked o d off and that will start to get used more.

[MDlaxfan76]

Late this a.m., Trump booted Pelosi & Shumer out of the WH, throwing down the impeachment gauntlet.

Then early this p.m., the man Trump just pardoned published this. Coincidence ?

Trump's next move = declass & release the Deep State investigation documents -- dribble or deluge ?

I don't see the d game as Impeachment. They are just looking finding o d lies to throw up against the general election and see what sticks. o d keeps giving them material.

The phrase "cover up" ticked o d off and that will start to get used more.

Yes, definitely got under his skin...he understands the power of a phrase.

"cover-up" fits to a tee.

I think "corruption" is the charge that will also stick.
Across the Administration, his business, his family, his cronies.
So many examples. Extraordinary really.

Dems would be wise to stick to those two themes, "corruption" and "cover-up", rather than "collusion" and "obstruction".