Yes. The GOP will not lift a finger to prosecute Trump for any crimes he may have committed, no matter how well-documented. They certainly will take no steps to oust him for sexual misconduct.
ONLY IF THE BASE becomes disenchanted with Trump will the GOP act.
So the answer to ‘what could Putin have on Trump that Trump would do anything–no matter what Putin asks of him–to keep secret?’ would be video/audio of Trump expressing contempt for his fans–Twitter followers, rally-attenders, and voters.
And it’s not implausible that Putin has such footage. When Trump last spent substantial time in Russia (2013) he might have been asked about the fans who supported his Birther conspiracy–and expressed disdain for them in vocal and explicit terms. Or there could be something more recent that Putin’s agents acquired when Trump visited some other outside-Russia location.
If the video and audio were quite clear, and if Trump expressed scorn and derision of his fans in unmistakable terms—it could hurt him. It would take away his Teflon armor. Then the GOP would turn on him.
The only other thing Putin could have on Trump that could conceivably hurt him–given his current immunity from GOP action–is something that would lead Trump himself to break down. And as I’ve posted before, I believe that something is clear, unmistakable footage of Trump hanging around the Miss Universe contestants in 2013, then leaving the room–and the women laugh at him. Long, hard, and derisively.
If such video existed and it were played incessantly, Trump would call it faked…but it would wear him down. He would not be able to go on.
If the claims in the report are true (which seems like a pretty big “if”, given that most reputable news outlets apparently consider them not fit to print), then I guess it’s good that it’s out in the open, but not because it will really weaken Trump’s administration in a tangible way. I believe his supporters either (A) won’t care, or (B) will overlook it for the sake of continuing to advance their own agenda --the same as when all the other, better-sourced horrible revelations have come out about him.
The reason I think it’s probably a good thing that it’s out in the open, is that it’s one less thing the Russians can threaten to release about him. The less blackmail material that Russia has on the U.S. President, the better.
For the sake of our national security, let’s hope the leak of a video tape soon follows.
If Mike Flynn hands Sean Hannity a piece of paper that says “there is evidence Barack Obama molested his daughters” and then Hannity reports it with no further work as “senior intelligence officers have claimed that …” he’s not being a journalist, he’s being a political hack – he knows what Flynn’s agenda is and can infer his motive for getting this claim out, but he chooses to be a puppet.
McCains hostility to Trump is well-documented, as is that of the Intelligence Community, who have political (like the rest of the government 95% of them are center-left politically), professional (drain the swamp = fire people) and institutional (a less-interventionist foreign policy) reasons for opposing Trump. Virtually every high-ranking retired spook that was on record opposed Trump in the election.
CNN putting this out there as if the the CIA etc all are somehow just neutral observers and not political actors is at the very least incompetence, if not actual malice (I suspect a mix of both).
And no, the fact that they didn’t reveal the specifics of the document doesn’t make it better: that just makes it more of a classic Washington smear job – put out just enough to let people assume the worst, without going on the record yourself and making an actual accusation. Alao, the fact that this kind of thing is not uncommon nowadays and that both sides do it doesn’t make it somehow okay - rather it explains why nobody trusts the media in general any more, and Trump will continue to gain popularity by ripping them.
Trump’s approval rating was in the low 30’s, even before these reports. Which is, I believe, an historic low for a Pissident-elect. Curious just how teflon he is. If his polls drop more, the Republicans might just impeach him and go with the safe Pence choice. Pence, at least, has probably never paid a woman to piss on him. Specification of gender deliberate in that last sentence.
One could certainly make a case that we should not play nice with Saudi Arabia (I’m not too familiar with our relationship with Qatar), but that’s a whole different thing than letting Putin’s Russia take over Eastern Europe again, which is what they want Trump to do.
…also, what Procrustus said.
…also, also: thanks to Maastricht. It does seem likely that Putin has something on Trump besides Trump’s obvious hunger for compliments.
The lengths that people would go through to deny this being true (if, in fact, it is true. I’m not convinced either way yet) remind me of the “R Kelly Trial” bit from Chappelle’s Show (the pertinent part starts at about 1:45. NSFW, obviously):
I live in Kentucky. To the Trump supporters in the eastern part of this state, this wouldn’t be unknown territory. This is the “south,” after all. Where a girl is a virgin if she can outrun her brother, and hides behind “Uncle Dad.”
The fact that you’re peddling this idea that because John McCain-- who is, mind you, a senile old man-- believed it that it then must have been a credible news source is laughable, especially given this board’s view of John McCain over the years.
Who cares whether or not John McCain believed it? Does that somehow make fake news unfake? Of course it doesn’t. It’s actually irrelevant. A million people can believe something-- that doesn’t make it any less fake news than if one person does.
I never said anything about “creating the story”. I said, and I’m quoting myself here, “Both CNN and Buzzfeed are objectively anti-Trump. Since the left cannot stop Trump from becoming President (and God knows they tried), they’ve devolved into trying to delegitimize him by posting every last bit of sensationalist “news” that they can get [their] hands on” (grammatical errors fixed).
I would like for everyone to take note that you, at no point, addressed the above quoted. And why would you, given that (1) CNN and Buzzfeed are both objectively anti-Trump (would you care to deny this?) and (2) the left has been trying to delegitimize Trump since the election (first it was the “not my president!” protests/riots, then it was whining about the popular vote, then it was demanding recounts and whining about Russia, now it’s #goldenshowers, etc.).
Hiding behind, “Well, they included a caveat!” is intellectually weak. Do you believe that either CNN or Buzzfeed would have reported on the story if it was about, say, Obama? Whether or not you want to openly admit it, we both know the answer to that question, and the answer is an emphatic no.
This never happened. I included the link for you the first time, only for it to be ignored, so I’ll do it again (Cite).
The bold is not what was posted by either CNN or Buzzfeed, and you know this.
This is nonsensical. Fake news is not fake news simply because the people who report on it knows it’s fake from the start. Obama deciding to ban the recital of the pledge of allegiance is fake news. The people who read, report, share, tweet and retweet it might believe it to be true, but that doesn’t make it any less fake than if no one believed it. Your definition of “fake news” is completely self-serving, and seems to exist only to rationalize away why the left can never be guilty of doing the very thing you have no qualms with blaming the right for.
What? This is, quite frankly, false. Which major media outlet treated the birther movement-- or even the claim that Obama was a Muslim-- with anything other than derision? They were dedicated solely to proving those allegations as false.
Furthermore, the idea that the “the media is so afraid of being called liberal that they give right wing clap trap way too much credibility instead of just junking it like they should” is, again, quite frankly ridiculous. Did you pay attention to nothing this election cycle, when the media quite openly engaged in the cheerleading and peddling of Democratic talking points?