My point is we shouldn’t start impeachment proceedings no matter what, even if (or rather *especially *if) Republicans said “OK, let’s do this.” If the GOP said they’re ready to impeach, that means they see an advantage for themselves to rid themselves of Trump. I say, don’t give them that advantage. Let them hang. We’ve got 2020.
Wait a minute - since when was Russia a hostile power? I wasn’t aware America and Russia were at war. No one would count Russia a friend of the USA, mind.
Separately, is there any distinction in US law between Trump having contacts with Russian citizens as a representative of the Trump organisation and as a political candidate?
Riding the tiger’s a hell of a thrill. That dismount, though…
GRU = Military Intelligence Directorate
I think it’s fair to say that if you’re attacked by another country’s military, with the aim of installing their chosen candidate, they’re hostile.
And the Russian government themselves have stated their position that since the hacking was a military act, they’re not civilly liable.
It’s funny to me how a new Republican line on all of this amounts to: "Golly, conspiring with the Russians sure would be a bad thing, dadgummit, I would love to see some proof. By the way, I can believe without proof that Obama was a Muslim- as though that’s a bad thing- who wasn’t born in this country, and the Clintons have people that they don’t want alive murdered. “Murica!”
Could very well be the first time war was declared via a civil lawsuit filing. #Winning!
Yes. He was in the clear previous to being a candidate. Less so once he was.
A recent Rachel Maddow show summarizes some of the perfidy of Trump officials.
Do the Board’s Trumpists ever address these charges? Or are they still too obsessed with the 40 year-old Whitewater allegations to move on?
A recent Colbert show also offers good insight into the treasonous crimes of Trump, Stone, Cohen et al.
I think I’m pretty clearly not a Trumpist, but Maddow makes the point that the Moscow Tower deal was dropped on June 14, so the Maria Butina question on July 11 and Flynn’s call with Kislyak on December 29, both on the question of sanctions, would seem to be unrelated to Trump Tower Moscow. Vnesheconombank can be sanctioned with impunity and Trump Tower will not be affected, since it’s already off the table.
Obviously, the Russians could have told Trump that they had him over a barrel, legally, after June 14 and so he had to go forward with helping them. But he had no financial incentive to remove sanctions, post June 14.
And, I don’t think, Trump would view his legal danger of running a business deal with Russia, in mid-2016, as being particularly great. He has no reason to expect to win. He’ll probably lose. No one will give a crap that he continued doing business at the same time as running a campaign, as the loser.
On July 11, if he was against sanctions, I’d put it as more likely that there was more to it than Trump Tower Russia. Even if we assume that he might have been trying to keep the door open with Russia by giving a favorable line for them, so the development deal could be resumed after he lost, it seems like a pretty bad idea so soon after the DNC hacking story. And, for the question to come from Butina, seems to make one feel like the Russians knew what his answer would be and they wanted it out there.
I think that Trump was compromised in some greater way - money laundering, underaged prostitutes, something - and Russia was having him run as a pro-Russia advertising force. Moscow Tower was just a bit of carrot. But a stick also existed.
They probably have a Sean Hannity clip you’ve just got to see, explains it really well.
Trump is tweeting he wants Cohen locked up and the key thrown away.
I can’t say that I agree with the wisdom of the “winner take all” aspect of this gambit, but I do agree that “waiting things out” is a time-tested and mostly successful way of resolving untenable situations; it’s the #1 go-to solution amongst humans.
And in this case, it’s definitely one that is being enabled by practicality.
The president is pressuring prosecutors to punish Cohen, who cooperated, and at the same time he’s praising Stone for not cooperating. And he publicly dangled a pardon for Manafort.
I think there’s a legal term of art for someone trying to influence what witnesses say to prosecutors. It’s on the tip of my tongue.
I would edit the legal term into your reply, but I don’t want to tamper with anything in quote tags. That would be wrong, as God is my witness.
EDIT: wanted to make a joke, thought better of it.
Worst. Pokerface. Ever.
No news item, but just so people are on the watch, I think that we are expecting the following things this month:
December 7: Manafort’s breach of cooperation overview
December 10: Possible Trump subpoena - but something interesting either way
December 18: Flynn sentencing
December 4: Flynn Sentencing memorandum