Trump's Russian Collusion

[old salt]

The FBI tricked Nunes into calling up his buddy Parnas. Boy. That's a real shame he got caught making those calls to Parnas.

Oh well. It was entrapment, and "doesn't count", right?

So now we have a cool million in Russian cash showing up in the account of the President's lawyer's Ukrainian partner.

Please, joke away, old salt....go riiiiight ahead. Make as many jokes as you want.

I don't believe anything about Parnas or Nunes unless it's reported by Vicky Ward on CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/12/0 ... -watching/
https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/03/de ... ion-story/

[calourie]

The FBI tricked Nunes into calling up his buddy Parnas. Boy. That's a real shame he got caught making those calls to Parnas.

Oh well. It was entrapment, and "doesn't count", right?

So now we have a cool million in Russian cash showing up in the account of the President's lawyer's Ukrainian partner.

Please, joke away, old salt....go riiiiight ahead. Make as many jokes as you want.

I don't believe anything about Parnas or Nunes unless it's reported by Vicky Ward on CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/12/0 ... -watching/
https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/03/de ... ion-story/

Like I said, Parnas is the good guy here. The deep state dark witchhunt web is going to get us all starting with Lev. Nunez is likely to be close behind.

[old salt]

The FBI tricked Nunes into calling up his buddy Parnas. Boy. That's a real shame he got caught making those calls to Parnas.

Oh well. It was entrapment, and "doesn't count", right?

So now we have a cool million in Russian cash showing up in the account of the President's lawyer's Ukrainian partner.

Please, joke away, old salt....go riiiiight ahead. Make as many jokes as you want.

I don't believe anything about Parnas or Nunes unless it's reported by Vicky Ward on CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/12/0 ... -watching/
https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/03/de ... ion-story/

Like I said, Parnas is the good guy here. The deep state dark witchhunt web is going to get us all starting with Lev. Nunez is likely to be close behind.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... ia-924944/

Not only did obtaining a FISA warrant allow authorities a window into other Trump figures with whom Page communicated, they led to a slew of leaked “bombshell” news stories that advanced many public misconceptions, including that a court had ruled there was “probable cause” that a Trump figure was an “agent of a foreign power.”

There are too many to list in one column, but the Horowitz report show years of breathless headlines were wrong. Some key points:

The so-called “Steele dossier” was, actually, crucial to the FBI’s decision to seek secret surveillance of Page.

Press figures have derided the idea that Steele was crucial to the FISA application, with some insisting it was only a “small part” of the application. Horowitz is clear:

We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team’s receipt of Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order.

The report describes how, prior to receiving Steele’s reports, the FBI General Counsel (OGC) and/or the National Security Division’s Office of Intelligence (OI) wouldn’t budge on seeking FISA authority. But after getting the reports, the OGC unit chief said, “receipt of the Steele reporting changed her mind on whether they could establish probable cause.”

Meanwhile, the OI unit chief said Steele’s reports were “what kind of pushed it over the line.” There’s no FISA warrant without Steele.

Horowitz ratifies the oft-denounced “Nunes memo.”

Democrats are not going to want to hear this, since conventional wisdom says former House Intelligence chief Devin Nunes is a conspiratorial evildoer, but the Horowitz report ratifies the major claims of the infamous “Nunes memo.”

As noted, Horowitz establishes that the Steele report was crucial to the FISA process, even using the same language Nunes used (“essential”). He also confirms the Nunes assertion that the FBI double-dipped in citing both Steele and a September 23, 2016 Yahoo! news story using Steele as an unnamed source. Horowitz listed the idea that Steele did not directly provide information to the press as one of seven significant “inaccuracies or omissions” in the first FISA application.

Horowitz also verifies the claim that Steele was “closed for cause” for talking to the media, i.e. officially cut off as a confidential human source to the FBI. He shows that Steele continued to talk to Justice Official Bruce Ohr before and after Steele’s formal relationship with the FBI ended. His report confirms that the Steele information had not been corroborated when the FISA application was submitted, another key Nunes point.

There was gnashing of teeth when Nunes first released his memo in January, 2018. The press universally crapped on his letter, with a Washington Post piece calling it a “joke” and a “sham.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slammed Nunes for the release of a “bogus” document, while New York Senator Chuck Schumer said the memo was intended to “sow conspiracy theories and attack the integrity of federal law enforcement.” Many called for his removal as Committee chair.

The Horowitz report says all of that caterwauling was off-base. It also undercuts many of the assertions made in a ballyhooed response letter by Nunes counterpart Adam Schiff, who described the FBI’s “reasonable basis” for deeming Steele credible. The report is especially hostile to Schiff’s claim that the FBI “provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reports."

In fact, far from confirming the Steele material, the FBI over time seems mainly to have uncovered more and more reasons to run screaming from Steele, to wit:

The “Steele dossier” was “Internet rumor,” and corroboration for the pee tape story was “zero.”

The Steele report reads like a pile of rumors surrounded by public information pulled off the Internet, and the Horowitz report does nothing to dispel this notion.

At the time the FBI submitted its first FISA application, Horowitz writes, it had “corroborated limited information in Steele’s election reporting, and most of that was publicly available information.” Horowitz says of Steele’s reports: “The CIA viewed it as ‘internet rumor.’”

Worse (and this part of the story should be tattooed on the heads of Russia truthers), the FBI’s interviews of Steele’s sources revealed Steele embellished the most explosive parts of his report.

The “pee tape” story, which inspired countless grave headlines (see this chin-scratching New York Times history of Russian “sexual blackmail”) and plunged the Trump presidency into crisis before it began, was, this source said, based a “conversation that [he/she] had over beers,” with the sexual allegations made… in “jest”!

Steele in his report said the story had been “confirmed” by senior, Western hotel staff, but the actual source said it was all “rumor and speculation,” never confirmed. In fact, charged by Steele to find corroboration, the source could not: corroboration was “zero,” writes Horowitz.

Meanwhile the Steele assertions that Russians had a kompromat file on Hillary Clinton, and that there was a “well-developed conspiracy of coordination” between the Trump campaign and Russians, relied on a source Steele himself disparaged as an “egoist” and “boaster” who “may engage in some embellishment.” This was known to the FBI at the start, yet they naturally failed to include this info in the warrant application, one of what Horowitz described as “17 significant errors or omissions” in the FISA application.

Finally, when the FBI conducted an investigation into Steele’s “work-related performance,” they heard from some that he was “smart,” and a “person of integrity,” and “if he reported it, he believed it.”

So far, so good. But Horowitz also wrote:
Their notes stated: “[d]emonstrates lack of self-awareness, poor judgment;” “[k]een to help” but “underpinned by poor judgment;” “Judgment: pursuing people with political risk but no intel value;” “[d]idn’t always exercise great judgment- sometimes [he] believes he knows best;” and “[r]eporting in good faith, but not clear what he would have done to validate.”

The Crossfire Hurricane team got all of this, but, again, didn’t pass it upstairs or include any of it in its warrant application.

I’ve written about how reporters used sleight of hand to get the Steele dossier into print without putting it through a vetting process. What Horowitz describes is worse: a story about bad journalism piled on bad journalism, balanced on a third layer of wrong reporting.

Steele in his “reports” embellished his sources’ quotes, played up nonexistent angles, invented attributions, and ignored inconsistencies. The FBI then transplanted this bad reporting in the form of a warrant application and an addendum to the Intelligence Assessment that included the Steele material, ignoring a new layer of inconsistencies and red flags its analysts uncovered in the review process.

Then, following a series of leaks, the news media essentially reported on the FBI’s wrong reporting of Steele’s wrong reporting.

The impact was greater than just securing a warrant to monitor Page. More significant were the years of headlines that grew out of this process, beginning with the leaking of the meeting with Trump about Steele’s blackmail allegations, the insertion of Steele’s conclusions in the Intelligence Assessment about Russian interference, and the leak of news about the approval of the Page FISA warrant.

As a result, a “well-developed conspiracy” theory based on a report that Comey described as “salacious and unverified material that a responsible journalist wouldn’t report without corroborating,” became the driving news story in a superpower nation for two years. Even the New York Times, which published a lot of these stories, is in the wake of the Horowitz report noting Steele’s role in “unleashing a flood of speculation in the news media about the new president’s relationship with Russia.”

No matter what people think the political meaning of the Horowitz report might be, reporters who read it will know: Anybody who touched this nonsense in print should be embarrassed.

[MDlaxfan76]

The FBI tricked Nunes into calling up his buddy Parnas. Boy. That's a real shame he got caught making those calls to Parnas.

Oh well. It was entrapment, and "doesn't count", right?

So now we have a cool million in Russian cash showing up in the account of the President's lawyer's Ukrainian partner.

Please, joke away, old salt....go riiiiight ahead. Make as many jokes as you want.

I don't believe anything about Parnas or Nunes unless it's reported by Vicky Ward on CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/12/0 ... -watching/
https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/03/de ... ion-story/

Like I said, Parnas is the good guy here. The deep state dark witchhunt web is going to get us all starting with Lev. Nunez is likely to be close behind.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... ia-924944/

Not only did obtaining a FISA warrant allow authorities a window into other Trump figures with whom Page communicated, they led to a slew of leaked “bombshell” news stories that advanced many public misconceptions, including that a court had ruled there was “probable cause” that a Trump figure was an “agent of a foreign power.”

There are too many to list in one column, but the Horowitz report show years of breathless headlines were wrong. Some key points:

The so-called “Steele dossier” was, actually, crucial to the FBI’s decision to seek secret surveillance of Page.

Press figures have derided the idea that Steele was crucial to the FISA application, with some insisting it was only a “small part” of the application. Horowitz is clear:

We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team’s receipt of Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order.

The report describes how, prior to receiving Steele’s reports, the FBI General Counsel (OGC) and/or the National Security Division’s Office of Intelligence (OI) wouldn’t budge on seeking FISA authority. But after getting the reports, the OGC unit chief said, “receipt of the Steele reporting changed her mind on whether they could establish probable cause.”

Meanwhile, the OI unit chief said Steele’s reports were “what kind of pushed it over the line.” There’s no FISA warrant without Steele.

Horowitz ratifies the oft-denounced “Nunes memo.”

Democrats are not going to want to hear this, since conventional wisdom says former House Intelligence chief Devin Nunes is a conspiratorial evildoer, but the Horowitz report ratifies the major claims of the infamous “Nunes memo.”

As noted, Horowitz establishes that the Steele report was crucial to the FISA process, even using the same language Nunes used (“essential”). He also confirms the Nunes assertion that the FBI double-dipped in citing both Steele and a September 23, 2016 Yahoo! news story using Steele as an unnamed source. Horowitz listed the idea that Steele did not directly provide information to the press as one of seven significant “inaccuracies or omissions” in the first FISA application.

Horowitz also verifies the claim that Steele was “closed for cause” for talking to the media, i.e. officially cut off as a confidential human source to the FBI. He shows that Steele continued to talk to Justice Official Bruce Ohr before and after Steele’s formal relationship with the FBI ended. His report confirms that the Steele information had not been corroborated when the FISA application was submitted, another key Nunes point.

There was gnashing of teeth when Nunes first released his memo in January, 2018. The press universally crapped on his letter, with a Washington Post piece calling it a “joke” and a “sham.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slammed Nunes for the release of a “bogus” document, while New York Senator Chuck Schumer said the memo was intended to “sow conspiracy theories and attack the integrity of federal law enforcement.” Many called for his removal as Committee chair.

The Horowitz report says all of that caterwauling was off-base. It also undercuts many of the assertions made in a ballyhooed response letter by Nunes counterpart Adam Schiff, who described the FBI’s “reasonable basis” for deeming Steele credible. The report is especially hostile to Schiff’s claim that the FBI “provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reports."

In fact, far from confirming the Steele material, the FBI over time seems mainly to have uncovered more and more reasons to run screaming from Steele, to wit:

The “Steele dossier” was “Internet rumor,” and corroboration for the pee tape story was “zero.”

The Steele report reads like a pile of rumors surrounded by public information pulled off the Internet, and the Horowitz report does nothing to dispel this notion.

At the time the FBI submitted its first FISA application, Horowitz writes, it had “corroborated limited information in Steele’s election reporting, and most of that was publicly available information.” Horowitz says of Steele’s reports: “The CIA viewed it as ‘internet rumor.’”

Worse (and this part of the story should be tattooed on the heads of Russia truthers), the FBI’s interviews of Steele’s sources revealed Steele embellished the most explosive parts of his report.

The “pee tape” story, which inspired countless grave headlines (see this chin-scratching New York Times history of Russian “sexual blackmail”) and plunged the Trump presidency into crisis before it began, was, this source said, based a “conversation that [he/she] had over beers,” with the sexual allegations made… in “jest”!

Steele in his report said the story had been “confirmed” by senior, Western hotel staff, but the actual source said it was all “rumor and speculation,” never confirmed. In fact, charged by Steele to find corroboration, the source could not: corroboration was “zero,” writes Horowitz.

Meanwhile the Steele assertions that Russians had a kompromat file on Hillary Clinton, and that there was a “well-developed conspiracy of coordination” between the Trump campaign and Russians, relied on a source Steele himself disparaged as an “egoist” and “boaster” who “may engage in some embellishment.” This was known to the FBI at the start, yet they naturally failed to include this info in the warrant application, one of what Horowitz described as “17 significant errors or omissions” in the FISA application.

Finally, when the FBI conducted an investigation into Steele’s “work-related performance,” they heard from some that he was “smart,” and a “person of integrity,” and “if he reported it, he believed it.”

So far, so good. But Horowitz also wrote:
Their notes stated: “[d]emonstrates lack of self-awareness, poor judgment;” “[k]een to help” but “underpinned by poor judgment;” “Judgment: pursuing people with political risk but no intel value;” “[d]idn’t always exercise great judgment- sometimes [he] believes he knows best;” and “[r]eporting in good faith, but not clear what he would have done to validate.”

The Crossfire Hurricane team got all of this, but, again, didn’t pass it upstairs or include any of it in its warrant application.

I’ve written about how reporters used sleight of hand to get the Steele dossier into print without putting it through a vetting process. What Horowitz describes is worse: a story about bad journalism piled on bad journalism, balanced on a third layer of wrong reporting.

Steele in his “reports” embellished his sources’ quotes, played up nonexistent angles, invented attributions, and ignored inconsistencies. The FBI then transplanted this bad reporting in the form of a warrant application and an addendum to the Intelligence Assessment that included the Steele material, ignoring a new layer of inconsistencies and red flags its analysts uncovered in the review process.

Then, following a series of leaks, the news media essentially reported on the FBI’s wrong reporting of Steele’s wrong reporting.

The impact was greater than just securing a warrant to monitor Page. More significant were the years of headlines that grew out of this process, beginning with the leaking of the meeting with Trump about Steele’s blackmail allegations, the insertion of Steele’s conclusions in the Intelligence Assessment about Russian interference, and the leak of news about the approval of the Page FISA warrant.

As a result, a “well-developed conspiracy” theory based on a report that Comey described as “salacious and unverified material that a responsible journalist wouldn’t report without corroborating,” became the driving news story in a superpower nation for two years. Even the New York Times, which published a lot of these stories, is in the wake of the Horowitz report noting Steele’s role in “unleashing a flood of speculation in the news media about the new president’s relationship with Russia.”

No matter what people think the political meaning of the Horowitz report might be, reporters who read it will know: Anybody who touched this nonsense in print should be embarrassed.

Interesting cat, that commentator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi

So, I just watched a clip of Horowitz definitively saying that that the Steele Dossier was not in any way used as a predicate for the opening of the investigation as it was not known to exist at that point.

While there is plenty to criticize about the Steele claims and the FISA process, the Trumpist conflation of the FISA on Carter Page with the actual predicates of the investigation is the real sham. It's always been a distraction from the very real reasons why Trump and those around him attracted so much attention in the context of a detected and very real Russian active measures campaign to benefit him and hurt his opponent.

Noticed you are dismissive of Parnas and Russia payment?

[Trinity]

We’ve said it along. Free Carter Page. And thank him for his service to the CIA. Doesn’t mitigate the Trump’s behavior. Never did. Don’t tell us this is a distraction for Trump. He wants the big long trial in the Senate, not Moscow Mitch.

Pence's office has rejected Schiff's request to declassify Jennifer Williams' supplemental testimony, declaring that the request is invalid because the impeachment inquiry has ended.
Not because it should be classified, but it’s over? Let the sun shine it, Mikey.

[Trinity]

Did you see Parnas got that million bucks? And did not disclose it?
The guy Trump was relying on to help him get Ukraine to destroy the Clintons and Bidens was being paid by RUSSIA.

[seacoaster]

Did you see Parnas got that million bucks? And did not disclose it?
The guy Trump was relying on to help him get Ukraine to destroy the Clintons and Bidens was being paid by RUSSIA.

Wait, I thought Russia was our friend.

[MDlaxfan76]

Did you see Parnas got that million bucks? And did not disclose it?
The guy Trump was relying on to help him get Ukraine to destroy the Clintons and Bidens was being paid by RUSSIA.

Wait, I thought Russia was our friend.

I continue to think that Dems are making a colossal mistake in rushing this through the House.

sure, I get the 'urgent' question, but for me that only holds water if you think that the GOP is willing to consider removing him.

Otherwise, it's just a rush to failure...and that would invite rampant cheating in the election process. A 'green light' to do whatever he wants, no constraints at all.

Seems to me that it is far better to just continue the process methodically, perhaps even slow it to a crawl and make sure you get other stuff done in the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. It needn't be all consuming.

But give the country time to see more and more, not just of this event, but all of the dishonorable actions of Trump and cronies.

Let the court process roll through.
Force the testimony under oath of key people, force the disclosure of documents.

Let the Trumpists whine about it 'taking too long'.

[Trinity]

Great news! Alan Dershowitz (see the Jeffrey Epstein thread) has been informally advising GOP Team. Free lawyers everywhere! What a country. I’m surprised Trump can’t get Bill Clinton to pitch in.

[DMac]

Trump is not doing anything as POTUS that he didn't do for decades as a civilian. Lying, cheating, ignoring laws, etc. are as ingrained into Trump's fabric as some of the most ardent criminals in all of america. And truth be told, cheaters do prosper... in a very specific way and in the short-term. Heroin dealers have good lives... in a very specific way and in the short-term. But, in the end, more often than not, they lose. None the less, for the past numerous decades, with a team of lawyers, Trump is the Teflon Don. Obviously being the POTUS changes the playing field but, historically, he's earned the name of the Teflon Don.

I don't think there was any question in the minds of the vast majority of folks who voted for him about that either. Nor do I think there was any question in their minds that he ranks real high on the list of biggest narcissists and most belligerent aszholes who ever walked the face of the earth. This was on full display during the campaign and it was just what his supporters wanted, a guy who was going to go in and play by his own rules and shake the whole place up. They got what they wanted X 1,000.
The Rs are able to establish enough reasonable doubt in the whole impeachment process, so there's not much of a doubt about how the whole thing ends. If the Ds, and country, want him out they better get their schidt together because to date I don't see them as a party with the right horse in the race, they've got to get one who can run and win....and it better be a mudder cuz 2020 is going to be real dirty.

[Matnum PI]

DMac, with no insult intended, your post is accurate and really depressing.

[Brooklyn]

[calourie]

Trump is not doing anything as POTUS that he didn't do for decades as a civilian. Lying, cheating, ignoring laws, etc. are as ingrained into Trump's fabric as some of the most ardent criminals in all of america. And truth be told, cheaters do prosper... in a very specific way and in the short-term. Heroin dealers have good lives... in a very specific way and in the short-term. But, in the end, more often than not, they lose. None the less, for the past numerous decades, with a team of lawyers, Trump is the Teflon Don. Obviously being the POTUS changes the playing field but, historically, he's earned the name of the Teflon Don.

I don't think there was any question in the minds of the vast majority of folks who voted for him about that either. Nor do I think there was any question in their minds that he ranks real high on the list of biggest narcissists and most belligerent aszholes who ever walked the face of the earth. This was on full display during the campaign and it was just what his supporters wanted, a guy who was going to go in and play by his own rules and shake the whole place up. They got what they wanted X 1,000.
The Rs are able to establish enough reasonable doubt in the whole impeachment process, so there's not much of a doubt about how the whole thing ends. If the Ds, and country, want him out they better get their schidt together because to date I don't see them as a party with the right horse in the race, they've got to get one who can run and win....and it better be a mudder cuz 2020 is going to be real dirty.

I agree with much of what is being said in these two quotes with perhaps one small caveat. In the end I think the 2020 election is going to be almost entirely a referendum on Trump and his behavior no matter who the democrat nominee is, policies be damned. The impeachment process hasn't changed the make-up of support or revulsion for Trumps actions to this point and isn't likely to whether it goes fast or slow. Evidence obtained by subpoenas for any of the big names (Pompeo, Giuliani, Pence, Perry et al) is unlikely to change that equation even if obtained in a somewhat timely fashion. Trump supporters will stand by the idea that the charges don't rise to a sufficient level of crimes or misdemeanors to warrant removal from office no matter what, and the pleading of the fifth by the actors mentioned won't been seen by all but a handful of impressionable undecideds as further proof of conspiratorial wrongdoing. This in itself won't be enough to put a dent in the electoral balance no matter how satisfying it might be to some of us. The dems are never going to come up with a candidate with appeal to every component of the political spectrum whom they profess to represent, but whichever candidate they put forth will indeed have to be able to get down and dirty and go toe to toe with Trump. A reliance on politeness and well thought out policy solutions isn't going to cut it. The shortcomings of Trumps economic policies and world view and abominable behavior are what will have to be wrangled over, and he will have to be called out ad infinitum when he tries to deflect and diminish and engage in his propensity for dishonesty and hyperbole. Hopefully the dems will be able to come up with a candidate who can do these things without being thrown off his/her game, and we can incrementally get back to being to being somewhat constitutionally well governed.

[ggait]

In the end I think the 2020 election is going to be almost entirely a referendum on Trump and his behavior no matter who the democrat nominee is, policies be damned. The impeachment process hasn't changed the make-up of support or revulsion for Trumps actions to this point and isn't likely to whether it goes fast or slow.

This is the negative partisanship worldview (which I agree with). Google Rachel Bitecofer.

Voters vote more out of hate than love. Dems hate Trump and will vote against him in 2020. Reps hate liberal fools and will vote against them in 2020. In this world, there's virtually no real independents or swing voters -- there's just Dem voters and Rep voters who call themselves indies. The Dem nominee only matters a little bit. A good economy only matters a little bit.

In this world, impeachment probably is a wash. No one's mind has been changed. No one's mind will be changed if more facts come out or if the proceedings are slow, medium or fast. This is not Richard Nixon's impeachment.

Both sides will be energized to turn out, which means advantage Dems (since their base is bigger). But Trump could still draw the rust belt EC inside straight again.

[youthathletics]

In the end I think the 2020 election is going to be almost entirely a referendum on Trump and his behavior no matter who the democrat nominee is, policies be damned. The impeachment process hasn't changed the make-up of support or revulsion for Trumps actions to this point and isn't likely to whether it goes fast or slow.

This is the negative partisanship worldview (which I agree with). Google Rachel Bitecofer.

Voters vote more out of hate than love. Dems hate Trump and will vote against him in 2020. Reps hate liberal fools and will vote against them in 2020. In this world, there's virtually no real independents or swing voters -- there's just Dem voters and Rep voters who call themselves indies. The Dem nominee only matters a little bit. A good economy only matters a little bit.

In this world, impeachment probably is a wash. No one's mind has been changed. No one's mind will be changed if more facts come out or if the proceedings are slow, medium or fast. This is not Richard Nixon's impeachment.

Both sides will be energized to turn out, which means advantage Dems (since their base is bigger). But Trump could still draw the rust belt EC inside straight again.

Disagree a bit this go-round. I believe the historically democrat tied labor force will pick Trump...especially the union labor force, which is also predominant in major cities. Heck...even Nancy was waiting for the leader of the AFL-CIO to give her the green light on new trade deal.

[MDlaxfan76]

In the end I think the 2020 election is going to be almost entirely a referendum on Trump and his behavior no matter who the democrat nominee is, policies be damned. The impeachment process hasn't changed the make-up of support or revulsion for Trumps actions to this point and isn't likely to whether it goes fast or slow.

This is the negative partisanship worldview (which I agree with). Google Rachel Bitecofer.

Voters vote more out of hate than love. Dems hate Trump and will vote against him in 2020. Reps hate liberal fools and will vote against them in 2020. In this world, there's virtually no real independents or swing voters -- there's just Dem voters and Rep voters who call themselves indies. The Dem nominee only matters a little bit. A good economy only matters a little bit.

In this world, impeachment probably is a wash. No one's mind has been changed. No one's mind will be changed if more facts come out or if the proceedings are slow, medium or fast. This is not Richard Nixon's impeachment.

Both sides will be energized to turn out, which means advantage Dems (since their base is bigger). But Trump could still draw the rust belt EC inside straight again.

Disagree a bit this go-round. I believe the historically democrat tied labor force will pick Trump...especially the union labor force, which is also predominant in major cities. Heck...even Nancy was waiting for the leader of the AFL-CIO to give her the green light on new trade deal.

Can we bookmark this prediction about 'union labor force' turning out for Trump, 'predominant in major cities'???

Sheesh, AFL-CIO wanted a deal like the Dems, one that has some teeth...Trump just wanted a deal of any kind.

[youthathletics]

In the end I think the 2020 election is going to be almost entirely a referendum on Trump and his behavior no matter who the democrat nominee is, policies be damned. The impeachment process hasn't changed the make-up of support or revulsion for Trumps actions to this point and isn't likely to whether it goes fast or slow.

This is the negative partisanship worldview (which I agree with). Google Rachel Bitecofer.

Voters vote more out of hate than love. Dems hate Trump and will vote against him in 2020. Reps hate liberal fools and will vote against them in 2020. In this world, there's virtually no real independents or swing voters -- there's just Dem voters and Rep voters who call themselves indies. The Dem nominee only matters a little bit. A good economy only matters a little bit.

In this world, impeachment probably is a wash. No one's mind has been changed. No one's mind will be changed if more facts come out or if the proceedings are slow, medium or fast. This is not Richard Nixon's impeachment.

Both sides will be energized to turn out, which means advantage Dems (since their base is bigger). But Trump could still draw the rust belt EC inside straight again.

Disagree a bit this go-round. I believe the historically democrat tied labor force will pick Trump...especially the union labor force, which is also predominant in major cities. Heck...even Nancy was waiting for the leader of the AFL-CIO to give her the green light on new trade deal.

Can we bookmark this prediction about 'union labor force' turning out for Trump, 'predominant in major cities'???

Sheesh, AFL-CIO wanted a deal like the Dems, one that has some teeth...Trump just wanted a deal of any kind.

Are you trying to say unions are not prominent in major cities, confused by your comment? DC, Philly, Chicago, NY

#QFP - Quoted for Posterity. We can do a search for that hashtag post election.

[jhu72]

In the end I think the 2020 election is going to be almost entirely a referendum on Trump and his behavior no matter who the democrat nominee is, policies be damned. The impeachment process hasn't changed the make-up of support or revulsion for Trumps actions to this point and isn't likely to whether it goes fast or slow.

This is the negative partisanship worldview (which I agree with). Google Rachel Bitecofer.

Voters vote more out of hate than love. Dems hate Trump and will vote against him in 2020. Reps hate liberal fools and will vote against them in 2020. In this world, there's virtually no real independents or swing voters -- there's just Dem voters and Rep voters who call themselves indies. The Dem nominee only matters a little bit. A good economy only matters a little bit.

In this world, impeachment probably is a wash. No one's mind has been changed. No one's mind will be changed if more facts come out or if the proceedings are slow, medium or fast. This is not Richard Nixon's impeachment.

Both sides will be energized to turn out, which means advantage Dems (since their base is bigger). But Trump could still draw the rust belt EC inside straight again.

Bingo. This election is about getting the anti-Trump vote out and the dollars that will take. Bloomberg and Steyer have that covered. Bloomberg has already pledged $10 M to those democratic house members in districts Trump won. Not one of the democrats running in the primaries would be a worse choice than Trump.

[jhu72]

In the end I think the 2020 election is going to be almost entirely a referendum on Trump and his behavior no matter who the democrat nominee is, policies be damned. The impeachment process hasn't changed the make-up of support or revulsion for Trumps actions to this point and isn't likely to whether it goes fast or slow.

This is the negative partisanship worldview (which I agree with). Google Rachel Bitecofer.

Voters vote more out of hate than love. Dems hate Trump and will vote against him in 2020. Reps hate liberal fools and will vote against them in 2020. In this world, there's virtually no real independents or swing voters -- there's just Dem voters and Rep voters who call themselves indies. The Dem nominee only matters a little bit. A good economy only matters a little bit.

In this world, impeachment probably is a wash. No one's mind has been changed. No one's mind will be changed if more facts come out or if the proceedings are slow, medium or fast. This is not Richard Nixon's impeachment.

Both sides will be energized to turn out, which means advantage Dems (since their base is bigger). But Trump could still draw the rust belt EC inside straight again.

Disagree a bit this go-round. I believe the historically democrat tied labor force will pick Trump...especially the union labor force, which is also predominant in major cities. Heck...even Nancy was waiting for the leader of the AFL-CIO to give her the green light on new trade deal.

That's because the AFL-CIO is part of the democratic coalition. The AFL-CIO will support the democrat. Whether the union members do or not is a different question.

[MDlaxfan76]

In the end I think the 2020 election is going to be almost entirely a referendum on Trump and his behavior no matter who the democrat nominee is, policies be damned. The impeachment process hasn't changed the make-up of support or revulsion for Trumps actions to this point and isn't likely to whether it goes fast or slow.

This is the negative partisanship worldview (which I agree with). Google Rachel Bitecofer.

Voters vote more out of hate than love. Dems hate Trump and will vote against him in 2020. Reps hate liberal fools and will vote against them in 2020. In this world, there's virtually no real independents or swing voters -- there's just Dem voters and Rep voters who call themselves indies. The Dem nominee only matters a little bit. A good economy only matters a little bit.

In this world, impeachment probably is a wash. No one's mind has been changed. No one's mind will be changed if more facts come out or if the proceedings are slow, medium or fast. This is not Richard Nixon's impeachment.

Both sides will be energized to turn out, which means advantage Dems (since their base is bigger). But Trump could still draw the rust belt EC inside straight again.

Disagree a bit this go-round. I believe the historically democrat tied labor force will pick Trump...especially the union labor force, which is also predominant in major cities. Heck...even Nancy was waiting for the leader of the AFL-CIO to give her the green light on new trade deal.

Can we bookmark this prediction about 'union labor force' turning out for Trump, 'predominant in major cities'???

Sheesh, AFL-CIO wanted a deal like the Dems, one that has some teeth...Trump just wanted a deal of any kind.

Are you trying to say unions are not prominent in major cities, confused by your comment? DC, Philly, Chicago, NY

#QFP - Quoted for Posterity. We can do a search for that hashtag post election.

Prominent and Predominant are not equivalent.

Unions are but a shadow of their former selves, so really not 'predominant' anywhere, and I'd be hard pressed to suggest that they are even 'prominent' in those cities anymore.

But if you mean the teachers unions or service unions, nope those folks will be 'predominantly' D...now union workers like the AFL-CIO will be more mixed, largely predictable by race + age. Trump is likely going to win white, older working class voters again, though his actual performance on their behalf doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. But he'll wave his hands again, and the real motivators to their choice...fear of the 'other' will prevail for Trump. That could be muted a bit by the right candidates on the Dem side and a serious sustained effort to attract the persuadable crossover voters from 2016 (Obama in '12, Trump in '16).

Few non-whites, union or otherwise, are going to go for Trump.

But, hey the AFL-CIO is less than 13 million 'strong', current and retired.
And less than 11% of the total workforce is union down from more 20% in 1983.