Narrator: Bob is still with us.
The president, and others in his organization, lied about not having any business dealings with a hostile power during the campaign. The hostile power knew that he and they had lied. He put himself in a compromised position with the dealings and the lies and he should never have been elected while in such a personally leveraged state.
Are you suggesting that the Moscow project financing was a necessary component of the DNC hack, and that without this real estate deal the DNC hack wouldn’t have gotten off the ground? And therefore Trump and Co. are complicit?
I’m obviously trying my best to divine a lot from Bob here, but if this is correct, I’m hard pressed to believe that these two unrelated things could possibly be linked in a criminal way.
Was it criminal? The project was unseemly and wildly inappropriate, but was it also criminal?
Oh, I think we were all a bit giddy; it was quite an eventful Thursday. Thanks!
I just thought of something: during the timeline of the Moscow project, all that was known about the DNC hack was that WikiLeaks was involved, not Russian operatives. That came later.
Bob’s case is, currently, more relevant to the Veselnitskaya meeting, but let’s ignore the hacked materials matter.
During the election, Trump was strangely “pro-Russia”. He pushed a story line of great cooperation between the two countries.
Now, if that was his own view of the world, all fine. That’s just his politics.
But let’s say that he was acting to influence American politics in a pro-Russia manner, including taking actions like giving pro-Russia speeches at political events, lobbying for changes to the Republican party platform, etc. in trade for a set of building contracts in Moscow. It is not his personal belief about the direction the country should go, he’s just signed on with Russia’s political message, in order to swing a deal.
In this case, Trump is acting as an unregistered foreign agent. And, if he does that while knowledgeable that this is all part of a greater Russian operation to swing the election away from Clinton and to Trump, then cooperating in that effort, in trade for building contracts should he lose and the Presidency should he win, makes his political lobbying work become participation in the Russian conspiracy.
- Knowledge
- Participation
I still think most of DC, and most of us, are withholding judgment until Mueller reports out. People’s views are going to crystallize rapidly after that.
Interesting angle on foreign agency, Sage Rat. Reasonable.
But as far as the knowledge and participation point, I added later that all they would have known at the time was Assange and WikiLeaks, not Russia.
Mueller would need to prove that they had knowledge of Russia’s intents in at least some part, yes.
Though there’s another way of looking at it, which would be that Trump is the one leading the conspiracy, where he expects Russia to commit illegal acts in his favor, if he offers to cozy up to them, and maybe makes moves to say, “Hey guys, there’s this cool website called WikiLeaks. hint hint nudge nudge By the way, would Putin like his own penthouse suite in this new building I’m thinking of? Oh, and look, the Republican party isn’t set against you anymore! Who got that done, I wonder?”
Yeah a quid pro quo would need to be proven in some way, and I think that would be hard to do.
I was just reminded though of Papadopoulos’ meeting with Mifsud that took place in late April, and during that time he was told of thousands of emails the Russians had, and late April would fall within the Moscow project timeline, so it might be impossible for Trump and Co. to claim they had no knowledge of Russia’s involvement. Unless they go with coffee boy, round 2.
Mueller: Was there any connection between the Moscow Tower project and the political campaign?
Cohen: Yes, Trump and I used it and other means to try to entice the Russian government to commit illegal acts in our favor.
Mueller: Are you willing to say that on the stand?
Cohen: Yes.
Mueller: Do you have any materials to support your statement?
Cohen: Yes, I have recordings from several of our meetings, where we discuss the topic.
Mueller: May I offer you a back rub?
So, potentially quite easy. But I’m assuming that it hasn’t been quite that easy given that Trump hasn’t been charged yet.
ETA: ^ This post cracked me up!
When I first heard that the the Dems had no plan to impeach Trump, I was confused, but as I thought about it, it made sense. And this news confirms my thinking: the Dems do not want to start a war over this; they want the GOP to come to their senses. Otherwise, they’ll just block everything they can for two years and THEN, when Trump is no longer POTUS, they’ll drop the fucking judicial hammer.
Now you’re making me want to reread the Bobiverse books.
Well and you can’t impeach without proof.
Worryingly, the Republican senators in the states that flipped during the last election are ones who are pretty favorable to Trump despite, presumably, coming from fairly moderate states. The man did a good job of targeting. Possibly one of the few smart things he has done in office.
Here is Cohen’s lawyers’ request for leniency:
I found this part interesting:
“the significance of his cooperation with the SCO falls outside of the ordinary framework in which courts routinely assess cooperation in criminal cases. […] He could have fought the government and continued to hold to the party line, positioning himself perhaps for a pardon or clemency, but, instead – for himself, his family, and his country – he took personal responsibility for his own wrongdoing and contributed, and is prepared to continue to contribute, to an investigation that he views as thoroughly legitimate and vital.”
So, they’d say something like, “You’ve got to save us from ourselves?” Not gonna happen; it would be political suicide.
I think the strategy is more to offer the GOP an escape from where they’re headed as a party, one that provides cover of patriotism and following the rule of law so that in the future they can claim at least some virtue and honor from the action. Kind of like what Michael Cohen is trying to do for himself, but the Dems are the ones obviously leaving the door open here. The GOP wouldn’t really have to admit their error(s); they’d just have to initiate and help things get back on track.
Why would the Dems’ strategy be to give the GOP any sort of assistance?
I pray the Dem leadership is not stupid enough say 'How high?" when/if the GOP eventually says, “OK, let’s jump.” This shitbird is the GOP’s to own until 2020.
many senators would prefer Pence over Trump. But what they really prefer is keeping their jobs. If they vote to remove Trump it’s pretty much a lock they would get a Trumper primary opponent next time they run which could be as early as 2020 for some of them.
Because drawing a line in the sand and starting a war for the country would be a spectacularly bad move. And that’s what would happen if the Dems tried to start impeachment proceedings: the GOP would circle the wagons and defend Trump.
Can’t have it happen. The GOP has to show that they want to preserve this democratic republic too. That’s politics.
Oh, I think that if the GOP says “OK, let’s jump” they’ll find themselves at best in the backseat of a tandem parachute, not in one that they control.