I wouldn't bet on pardons, to be honest, unless Trump's own family members were charged. I find it just as likely that Trump would not stick out his neck for these people.
I mean, he wouldn't do it for any altruistic purpose, it would simply be to save his own skin to prevent someone from talking. Even a pardon of, say, Don Jr. (who seems the most implicated thus far) would be for that purpose. I honestly don't think he cares that much about his kids either.
I wouldn't bet on pardons, to be honest, unless Trump's own family members were charged. I find it just as likely that Trump would not stick out his neck for these people.
True that, loyalty is a one way street with Trump as we've seen over and over again. He'll cry all day demanding loylaty from you, but when you need him to stick his neck out for you, he won't.
As I mentioned a few hundred pages back, pardons remove Fifth Amendment protections--meaning that Manafort or Flynn or whoever it is can be compelled to testify, implicating people further up the chain. Their best bet is to stick to the tried-and-true Fifth Amendment/"I don't recall" dance that has saved corrupt politicians since time immemorial.
As I mentioned a few hundred pages back, pardons remove Fifth Amendment protections--meaning that Manafort or Flynn or whoever it is can be compelled to testify, implicating people further up the chain. Their best bet is to stick to the tried-and-true Fifth Amendment/"I don't recall" dance that has saved corrupt politicians since time immemorial.
That won't work for Trump if he was questioned because he has one of the world's greatest memories.
So one must wonder what was going on during his Trump University Lawsuit Deposition, Trump couldn’t Remember ‘World’s Greatest Memory’ Boast and then Trump told lawyers "I don't remember" 35 times during his testimony.
So we now know the document that launched Mueller's incredibly broad, 16 prosecutors and unlimited budget investigation, the phony Trump Dossier that nobody even pretended to believe, was a politically motivated propaganda piece funded first by Neocons, then the DNC/Clinton Campaign, and Comey's FBI, the same Comey who drafted Clinton's pardon speech before the investigation was concluded and admitted to breaking the law by leaking in order to launch this aforementioned investigation based on nothing. Wow.
You just can't trust a single American institution anymore.
Oh, and this opposition research has Kremlin operatives as stated sources. So now we're in the awkward situation yet again where what was called treason when a Trump was involved (oppo research from a foreign country) and open debates on the legality of it ensued was being done verbatim by his accusers.
So we now know the document that launched Mueller's incredibly broad, 16 prosecutors and unlimited budget investigation, the phony Trump Dossier that nobody even pretended to believe, was a politically motivated propaganda piece funded first by Neocons, then the DNC/Clinton Campaign, and Comey's FBI, the same Comey who drafted Clinton's pardon speech before the investigation was concluded and admitted to breaking the law by leaking in order to launch this aforementioned investigation based on nothing. Wow.
You just can't trust a single American institution anymore.
Oh, and this opposition research has Kremlin operatives as stated sources. So now we're in the awkward situation yet again where what was called treason when a Trump was involved (oppo research from a foreign country) and open debates on the legality of it ensued was being done verbatim by his accusers.
What a circus this crusade has become.
I'm glad you brought this up this because it is a popular misconception being pushed by Fox News and parroted in Conservative bubbles to muddy the waters. In real life, the Russian investigation is not based on the Steele Dossier. And by the way, many parts of the Steele dossier have been PROVEN TRUE - not the pee bed thing but other plenty of things.
The investigation was started when Trump obstructed justice and fired James Comey. That is not something you do if there is only a phony dossier out there, but something you do if you are guilty and trying to "relieve pressure" as Trump himself bragged to Russian officials that “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken of” by firing Comey.
Russian interference in last year’s election and allegations that the Trump campaign colluded in that interference predate the Steele dossier. And it is not the only source of Russian collusion. Wiretaps on Russian officials picked up Trump officials on the regular. Trump Jr. met with Russian mobsters and KGB agents in order to get stolen emails and then lied about it saying it was about adoption. Manaford, Flynn and Carter Page all collected huge sums of money lobbying for other countries such as the Ukraine while employed on Trump's campaign. Jared Kushner lied on his security forms several times although that is a felony no one wants to do anything about it so far. Facebook revealed that Russian agents pushed propaganda to get Trump, what did they get from him? Russian sanctions that were supposed to go into effect months ago and passed by overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, Trump has dragged his feet and they still aren't implemented. Jeff Sessions lied about his repeated contacts with Russians including agents of the Kremlin.
So yeah the Steele dossier seems pretty wacky but a lot of it has proven true. It's not the only source of the evidence against Trump and his circles relationships with Russia.
"I think with respect to the dossier itself, the key thing is doesn't matter who paid for it. It's what the dossier said and the extent to which it was -- it's corroborated or not. We had some concerns about it from the standpoint of its sourcing which we couldn't corroborate.
But at the same time, some of the substantive content, not all of it, but some of the substantive content of the dossier, we were able to corroborate in our Intelligence Community assessment which from other sources in which we had very high confidence to it."
- James Clapper, American Citizen, Former Director of National Intelligence
So we now know the document that launched Mueller's incredibly broad, 16 prosecutors and unlimited budget investigation, the phony Trump Dossier
The dossier was never the basis of the Mueller investigation. This investigation was never about watersports; it was investigating possible collusion with Russian agents. The dossier was just ordinary opposition research. I don't think Trump colluded with Russia and I doubt the Mueller investigation is going to charge him with anything, but it's simply not accurate to paint this silly dossier as the basis of the intelligence community's investigation.
Incidentally, Comey (who, again, is a lifelong Republican with no loyalties to the Democratic party) did not admit to committing any crime; he disclosed no classified information he was not authorized to. Contacting the media is not a crime.
As for the early draft of his speech concluding the Clinton investigation... that's what a draft is, by definition. If you're going to give a major speech like Comey did, you start writing it well in advance. And, again, if Comey, a former attorney general under the Bush administration, was sneakily trying to absolve Clinton of any blame, he would not have so vocally criticized her during his speech to begin with.
A Republican FBI director planned long in advance to use his position as a government official to launch a public attack on a Democratic politician despite the fact that a massive investigation had already failed to turn up anything illegal--
--this is not an example of Comey helping Clinton.
I don't know where you've been, but that dossier was believed by a lot of people and not just the "left."
It was McCain that handed the dossier over to FBI after he got his hands on it prior to Trump being elected President. Once the FBI had it, then a investigation started.
And even if the entire dossier is "fake," what ever the investigators find out, is not. They will have witnesses and facts to back up anything that is claimed.
And just because someone is charged, does not mean they are guilty. The courts will weigh the evidence presented against them and give them a fair trial.
And the circus started when Trump said he'd run for president. By electing this clown, the american people just got an encore to the shit show.
Trump Jr. met with Russian mobsters and KGB agents in order to get stolen emails and then lied about it saying it was about adoption.
This one isn't quite true. Based on Trump Jr.'s emails as he himself posted them, a woman claiming to be from the Russian government offered to give him compromising information on Clinton, he agreed to meet her, and she only talked to him about Russian adoptions, which were related to the sanctions on Russia. We can't say he's lying about the meeting unless we know what they were really talking about, and currently he's the only witness.
We know that Trump Jr. was willing to accept help from somebody he believed was a Russian government agent if it helped their side in the 2016 election. It speaks volumes about his character, but we have no evidence that he actually got any useful information out of the meeting, or that this woman was really affiliated with the Russian government or simply said she was in order to get Trump Jr.'s attention.
It was reported in the last few days that the Russian lawyer Don Jr. met with ran everything she was going to tell him directly by the Kremlin beforehand. As was speculated at the time the story came out, she was at the very least a feeler, attempting to see how far the Trump crime family was willing to go. So we can sit here and say that Trump Jr. is innocent and that we have no witnesses, but we now know that the other major player in that meeting told a complete falsehood. She said before she was independent of the Kremlin. She wasn't:
Meanwhile, Rebekah Mercer, a GOP mega-donor who, along with her father, Sheldon Adelson, and the Koch Brothers have the entire Republican Party by the balls because of the unlimited funds they throw their way, was knee-deep in the Wikileaks stolen emails:
I don't know what circles you may travel in that accepted it as fact, but even most of the Anti Trump media (cnn, msnbc) referred to it as unverified, because it is. Paying hookers to pee in beds? laughable by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't know what circles you may travel in that accepted it as fact, but even most of the Anti Trump media (cnn, msnbc) referred to it as unverified, because it is. Paying hookers to pee in beds? laughable by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't know what circles you may travel in that accepted it as fact, but even most of the Anti Trump media (cnn, msnbc) referred to it as unverified, because it is. Paying hookers to pee in beds? laughable by any stretch of the imagination.
Because the FBI was looking into the Trump campaign before the dossier ever became public knowledge. And no one ever said the dossier was a fact. It was raw intelligence compiled by a former MI-6 operative. Some of it HAS been verified, some of it hasn't. But again, if you are so convinced the thing is not worth the paper it's printed on, I'm not sure what your concern about it (or Trump's) is. The FBI and CIA are the ones who decide whether raw intelligence is fact and becomes actionable.
Of course, I have no idea if the golden shower situation is true or not, but given what we have learned about Donald Trump in the last 2 years, the idea that he isn't the type of person who certainly WOULD do something like that (or would be capable) is the laughable part. Especially since the stated reason was that he found out it was the suite the Obama's stayed in on their visit to the country. But beyond that, the dossier is not simply a document about pissing hookers. It's mostly about financial dealings.
Trump Jr. met with Russian mobsters and KGB agents in order to get stolen emails and then lied about it saying it was about adoption.
This one isn't quite true. Based on Trump Jr.'s emails as he himself posted them, a woman claiming to be from the Russian government offered to give him compromising information on Clinton, he agreed to meet her, and she only talked to him about Russian adoptions, which were related to the sanctions on Russia. We can't say he's lying about the meeting unless we know what they were really talking about, and currently he's the only witness.
We know that Trump Jr. was willing to accept help from somebody he believed was a Russian government agent if it helped their side in the 2016 election. It speaks volumes about his character, but we have no evidence that he actually got any useful information out of the meeting, or that this woman was really affiliated with the Russian government or simply said she was in order to get Trump Jr.'s attention.
Trump Jr. gave the statement that Trump Sr. apparently helped with writing that said the meeting was only about adoptions. Then it came out due to Jr.s emails that it was about Hillary and Trump Jr was really excited about that. That is the written record from the time. Then after the email, Trump Jr changed his story again where it is now yeah the meeting was for stolen info from the Kremlin about Hillary but they only talked about adoption, which is where I think you were thinking. But apparently there was a email or something to the Kremlin from the lawyer and no adoption again mentioned again. As far as I know there is nothing from the time of the meeting that it was about adoption. There's just Jrs changing story after the fact that he was busted.
I don't know what circles you may travel in that accepted it as fact, but even most of the Anti Trump media (cnn, msnbc) referred to it as unverified, because it is. Paying hookers to pee in beds? laughable by any stretch of the imagination.
As I said, just because it started there, doesn't mean it is only based on it.
I don't know what circles you may travel in that accepted it as fact, but even most of the Anti Trump media (cnn, msnbc) referred to it as unverified, because it is. Paying hookers to pee in beds? laughable by any stretch of the imagination.
As I said, just because it started there, doesn't mean it is only based on it.
We'll all find out on Monday.
My bet is what we find out on Monday is based on Paul Manafort and money laundering and/or illegal work with the Ukrainian government. While that may seem like it doesn't have anything to do with anything, it does. Manafort and Trump have been associates since the 1970s. And despite what you'll hear from the Administration if it turns out to be him, he RAN the campaign up through the convention (and only was removed from that post when some of these allegations about Ukraine came to light). That means he was instrumental in crafting the party platform, in which the entire position of said platform was changed in regards to Russia/Ukraine. I've said from the beginning this is Manafort (the campaign manager), Flynn (the national security adviser who was at Trump's hip for the entire campaign), and possibly Carter Page (who is so weird and awkward I actually believe he might be a legitimate Russian agent).
And lest we forget why we are here with Robert Mueller, this is all happening because Donald Trump asked James Comey to drop the investigation into Mike Flynn, and fired him when he didn't. No one on this forum or anywhere else has provided a single good reason why that doesn't involve a cover-up.
There's a rather vitriolic anti-communist article in the Times today. Despite the incendiary tone, I actually agree with most of it.
Despite having no love for communism, I sort of view this article as a long-winded way of Bret Stephens to get some digs in at Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders (which is about what I would expect of him), both of whom are probably a little farther left than even I am. Despite that, they aren't Bolsheviks. While South America may be flipping far-left in many cases, we are so far away from Communism in the United States we'd need the Hubble Telescope to even spot it.
Jesus, apparently FOX and the right-wing are even more convinced something big is coming on Monday than everyone else, because they are now just straight up calling for Hillary Clinton to be arrested. For what?? Who knows. People seriously underestimated the "lock her up" chants during the campaign. Trump hasn't forgotten them. You would think there would have to be some underlying crime to arrest and prosecute someone, but that seems immaterial to what conservative media in this country is pushing. She was already investigated for the emails. There is no uranium scandal. I can only assume they want to arrest her for the crime of being Hillary Clinton and drawing breath. But I don't think her not drawing breath would stop them either. If she was dead they would dig up her corpse and put it on trial like Pope Formosus. This shit should concern people. There is not insignificant portion of the electorate who wants to criminalize being the candidate of the opposition party.
I don't understand how people can stay so focused on a politician who's out of power. When Romney lost the election, I no longer felt the need to attack or scrutinize him. When Bush left office, I no longer felt the need to attack or scrutinize him. The people I felt were truly worthy of scrutiny were people who actually had political power, the people who have power over us. The people who can strengthen or weaken the country depending on their decisions. If we must focus our scrutiny on somebody, it should be the people in power.
Until Clinton finds herself back in office, I have bigger fish to fry.
I don't understand how people can stay so focused on a politician who's out of power. When Romney lost the election, I no longer felt the need to attack or scrutinize him. When Bush left office, I no longer felt the need to attack or scrutinize him. The people I felt were truly worthy of scrutiny were people who actually had political power, the people who have power over us. The people who can strengthen or weaken the country depending on their decisions. If we must focus our scrutiny on somebody, it should be the people in power.
Until Clinton finds herself back in office, I have bigger fish to fry.
I would argue it's because the Republican Party has had to abandon whatever governing principles they had to accept Trump, who has none. They can't point to any bills or laws that have benefited anyone, and they can't even claim to have fulfilled Trump's promises to the base about repealing Obamacare and building a border wall. The only thing they CAN deliver on is Hillary hatred. They can always deliver on that. All you have to do is point at her and say "she is the REAL corrupt one, she is the source of all your problems". And Hillary hatred is simply the most specific and distilled version of it. It's usually reserved for African-Americans, non-white immigrants, Muslims, and homosexuals. It just so happens those narratives don't play as well regarding this story.
The Pew Research Center did another Political Typology report*; I found this one of the more telling results**:
Dislike of Clinton is a more unifying factor among the various GOP constituencies than their support of the party leader.
* Pew does these occasionally (last was 2014), and are fascinating reading for political wonks. The upshot is that they try to group American voters into types, and then do some great analysis of how various coalitions work together--or more recently, how they don't--within the parties and the country more broadly. This latest is titled, entirely appropriately, Political Typology Reveals Deep Fissures on the Right and Left.
** Courtesy of WaPo, though I found their analysis not entirely insightful.
The Pew Research Center did another Political Typology report*; I found this one of the more telling results**:
Dislike of Clinton is a more unifying factor among the various GOP constituencies than their support of the party leader.
* Pew does these occasionally (last was 2014), and are fascinating reading for political wonks. The upshot is that they try to group American voters into types, and then do some great analysis of how various coalitions work together--or more recently, how they don't--within the parties and the country more broadly. This latest is titled, entirely appropriately, Political Typology Reveals Deep Fissures on the Right and Left.
** Courtesy of WaPo, though I found their analysis not entirely insightful.
I'm a market sceptic Republican according to the poll in that link. Not enough questions and only two selections to choose from so I can't attest to the accuracy but it doesn't sound too far off...
The Pew Research Center did another Political Typology report*; I found this one of the more telling results**:
Dislike of Clinton is a more unifying factor among the various GOP constituencies than their support of the party leader.
* Pew does these occasionally (last was 2014), and are fascinating reading for political wonks. The upshot is that they try to group American voters into types, and then do some great analysis of how various coalitions work together--or more recently, how they don't--within the parties and the country more broadly. This latest is titled, entirely appropriately, Political Typology Reveals Deep Fissures on the Right and Left.
** Courtesy of WaPo, though I found their analysis not entirely insightful.
Then you'd think they'd be happy she was gone. I don't know how you can square electing someone like Donald Trump to avoid her getting into office, and yet continually use her as a scapegoat for another 12 months. It's insane. Maybe liberals can't handle losing, but these people can't seem to handle WINNING, which is far more bizarre and troubling.
I mean shit, liberals were intially over the moon about Obama being in office, and never really less than peacefully content with the situation at the top. There sure as hell wasn't this obsessive compulsion to deflect every bad news story to John McCain and Mitt Romney. It seems to me that all these Republican voters can see is enemies at the gates, not even able to enjoy the fact that they won the last battle. It's absurd. This is like winning the Super Bowl and spending the entire off-season complaining about a bad pass interference call in the wild-card round.
So what are the odds Trump plans a counter-circus for Monday? I'd say 100%, he's watching this shite for one for two he has to make it about Donald J. Trump, Paul Manaford or whoever can NOT have the spotlight. He might not be able to wait until monday to kick things off.
By the way
I'll take this Patriot's word over Trump University scamming bone spur mcgee
They've got everything but still they have to have an enemy, why is that?
Maybe that's why the racists, neonazis and bigots are drawn to their fringes (alt-right).
I mean, that's the crux of the issue. They have the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary, despite getting less overall votes across the country in both the Presidential and Congressional elections. Our system of government has afforded them the luxury of minority rule. And it's STILL not enough??
The Pew Research Center did another Political Typology report*; I found this one of the more telling results**:
Dislike of Clinton is a more unifying factor among the various GOP constituencies than their support of the party leader.
* Pew does these occasionally (last was 2014), and are fascinating reading for political wonks. The upshot is that they try to group American voters into types, and then do some great analysis of how various coalitions work together--or more recently, how they don't--within the parties and the country more broadly. This latest is titled, entirely appropriately, Political Typology Reveals Deep Fissures on the Right and Left.
** Courtesy of WaPo, though I found their analysis not entirely insightful.
Then you'd think they'd be happy she was gone. I don't know how you can square electing someone like Donald Trump to avoid her getting into office, and yet continually use her as a scapegoat for another 12 months. It's insane. Maybe liberals can't handle losing, but these people can't seem to handle WINNING, which is far more bizarre and troubling.
I think if Hillary dropped dead the focus would just shift back to Bill. If both dropped dead then maybe Bernie or Al Gore would be back in the picture. Maybe Chelsea would run for City Council or something and put the bullseye on her. Even as a conservative it amazes me how much focus is on the 'enemy' instead of doing what they were elected for. I'm sure the folks on the left are just as frustrated with their guys though when they're in power. Nothing will change until there are more than two parties to choose from and that won't happen because that would require fundamentally changing our system. We have it too good in this country for the people to band together to fix our ludicrous power structure. In my humble opinion of course...
The Pew Research Center did another Political Typology report*; I found this one of the more telling results**:
Dislike of Clinton is a more unifying factor among the various GOP constituencies than their support of the party leader.
* Pew does these occasionally (last was 2014), and are fascinating reading for political wonks. The upshot is that they try to group American voters into types, and then do some great analysis of how various coalitions work together--or more recently, how they don't--within the parties and the country more broadly. This latest is titled, entirely appropriately, Political Typology Reveals Deep Fissures on the Right and Left.
** Courtesy of WaPo, though I found their analysis not entirely insightful.
Then you'd think they'd be happy she was gone. I don't know how you can square electing someone like Donald Trump to avoid her getting into office, and yet continually use her as a scapegoat for another 12 months. It's insane. Maybe liberals can't handle losing, but these people can't seem to handle WINNING, which is far more bizarre and troubling.
I think if Hillary dropped dead the focus would just shift back to Bill. If both dropped dead then maybe Bernie or Al Gore would be back in the picture. Maybe Chelsea would run for City Council or something and put the bullseye on her. Even as a conservative it amazes me how much focus is on the 'enemy' instead of doing what they were elected for. I'm sure the folks on the left are just as frustrated with their guys though when they're in power. Nothing will change until there are more than two parties to choose from and that won't happen because that would require fundamentally changing our system. We have it too good in this country for the people to band together to fix our ludicrous power structure. In my humble opinion of course...
I think it would swing back to Obama actually. Bill always had too much folksy good-old-boy charm to be much of an enemy. Even in the middle of the Lewinsky scandal he was massively popular.
The Pew Research Center did another Political Typology report*; I found this one of the more telling results**:
Dislike of Clinton is a more unifying factor among the various GOP constituencies than their support of the party leader.
* Pew does these occasionally (last was 2014), and are fascinating reading for political wonks. The upshot is that they try to group American voters into types, and then do some great analysis of how various coalitions work together--or more recently, how they don't--within the parties and the country more broadly. This latest is titled, entirely appropriately, Political Typology Reveals Deep Fissures on the Right and Left.
** Courtesy of WaPo, though I found their analysis not entirely insightful.
Then you'd think they'd be happy she was gone. I don't know how you can square electing someone like Donald Trump to avoid her getting into office, and yet continually use her as a scapegoat for another 12 months. It's insane. Maybe liberals can't handle losing, but these people can't seem to handle WINNING, which is far more bizarre and troubling.
I think if Hillary dropped dead the focus would just shift back to Bill. If both dropped dead then maybe Bernie or Al Gore would be back in the picture. Maybe Chelsea would run for City Council or something and put the bullseye on her. Even as a conservative it amazes me how much focus is on the 'enemy' instead of doing what they were elected for. I'm sure the folks on the left are just as frustrated with their guys though when they're in power. Nothing will change until there are more than two parties to choose from and that won't happen because that would require fundamentally changing our system. We have it too good in this country for the people to band together to fix our ludicrous power structure. In my humble opinion of course...
I think it would swing back to Obama actually. Bill always had too much folksy good-old-boy charm to be much of an enemy. Even in the middle of the Lewinsky scandal he was massively popular.
Not with the die-hard Trump supporters.
You may be right about Obama but he's actually been fairly quiet since the election. Bernie and especially Gore have been spouting off more lately and you'd be surprised how many conservatives still talk about Lewinski...
The Pew Research Center did another Political Typology report*; I found this one of the more telling results**:
Dislike of Clinton is a more unifying factor among the various GOP constituencies than their support of the party leader.
* Pew does these occasionally (last was 2014), and are fascinating reading for political wonks. The upshot is that they try to group American voters into types, and then do some great analysis of how various coalitions work together--or more recently, how they don't--within the parties and the country more broadly. This latest is titled, entirely appropriately, Political Typology Reveals Deep Fissures on the Right and Left.
** Courtesy of WaPo, though I found their analysis not entirely insightful.
Then you'd think they'd be happy she was gone. I don't know how you can square electing someone like Donald Trump to avoid her getting into office, and yet continually use her as a scapegoat for another 12 months. It's insane. Maybe liberals can't handle losing, but these people can't seem to handle WINNING, which is far more bizarre and troubling.
I think if Hillary dropped dead the focus would just shift back to Bill. If both dropped dead then maybe Bernie or Al Gore would be back in the picture. Maybe Chelsea would run for City Council or something and put the bullseye on her. Even as a conservative it amazes me how much focus is on the 'enemy' instead of doing what they were elected for. I'm sure the folks on the left are just as frustrated with their guys though when they're in power. Nothing will change until there are more than two parties to choose from and that won't happen because that would require fundamentally changing our system. We have it too good in this country for the people to band together to fix our ludicrous power structure. In my humble opinion of course...
My opinion as a left leaning guy is when my guys are in power things are relatively civil and sane. The GW Bush years were embarrassing imho because he was dumb mostly and often wrongheaded. Trump's worse - dumb, evil, and pigheaded. When my guys are in power my opinion is that things run pretty well. The trains run on time . Sure everything is tilted towards the corporations, just like with Republicans, but at least they'll do the right thing about 40% of the time (maybe less) and at least competent people are in charge of their departments.
Congress has been a cluster for years of Republican obstructionism and alternative reality so that's been a lost cause, I'm talking executive branch.
Comments
So one must wonder what was going on during his Trump University Lawsuit Deposition, Trump couldn’t Remember ‘World’s Greatest Memory’ Boast and then Trump told lawyers "I don't remember" 35 times during his testimony.
*Cries*
You just can't trust a single American institution anymore.
Oh, and this opposition research has Kremlin operatives as stated sources. So now we're in the awkward situation yet again where what was called treason when a Trump was involved (oppo research from a foreign country) and open debates on the legality of it ensued was being done verbatim by his accusers.
What a circus this crusade has become.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.0ad8298b4970
The investigation was started when Trump obstructed justice and fired James Comey. That is not something you do if there is only a phony dossier out there, but something you do if you are guilty and trying to "relieve pressure" as Trump himself bragged to Russian officials that “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken of” by firing Comey.
Russian interference in last year’s election and allegations that the Trump campaign colluded in that interference predate the Steele dossier. And it is not the only source of Russian collusion. Wiretaps on Russian officials picked up Trump officials on the regular. Trump Jr. met with Russian mobsters and KGB agents in order to get stolen emails and then lied about it saying it was about adoption. Manaford, Flynn and Carter Page all collected huge sums of money lobbying for other countries such as the Ukraine while employed on Trump's campaign. Jared Kushner lied on his security forms several times although that is a felony no one wants to do anything about it so far. Facebook revealed that Russian agents pushed propaganda to get Trump, what did they get from him? Russian sanctions that were supposed to go into effect months ago and passed by overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, Trump has dragged his feet and they still aren't implemented. Jeff Sessions lied about his repeated contacts with Russians including agents of the Kremlin.
So yeah the Steele dossier seems pretty wacky but a lot of it has proven true. It's not the only source of the evidence against Trump and his circles relationships with Russia.
But at the same time, some of the substantive content, not all of it, but some of the substantive content of the dossier, we were able to corroborate in our Intelligence Community assessment which from other sources in which we had very high confidence to it."
- James Clapper, American Citizen, Former Director of National Intelligence
Incidentally, Comey (who, again, is a lifelong Republican with no loyalties to the Democratic party) did not admit to committing any crime; he disclosed no classified information he was not authorized to. Contacting the media is not a crime.
As for the early draft of his speech concluding the Clinton investigation... that's what a draft is, by definition. If you're going to give a major speech like Comey did, you start writing it well in advance. And, again, if Comey, a former attorney general under the Bush administration, was sneakily trying to absolve Clinton of any blame, he would not have so vocally criticized her during his speech to begin with.
A Republican FBI director planned long in advance to use his position as a government official to launch a public attack on a Democratic politician despite the fact that a massive investigation had already failed to turn up anything illegal--
--this is not an example of Comey helping Clinton.
It was McCain that handed the dossier over to FBI after he got his hands on it prior to Trump being elected President. Once the FBI had it, then a investigation started.
And even if the entire dossier is "fake," what ever the investigators find out, is not. They will have witnesses and facts to back up anything that is claimed.
And just because someone is charged, does not mean they are guilty. The courts will weigh the evidence presented against them and give them a fair trial.
And the circus started when Trump said he'd run for president. By electing this clown, the american people just got an encore to the shit show.
We know that Trump Jr. was willing to accept help from somebody he believed was a Russian government agent if it helped their side in the 2016 election. It speaks volumes about his character, but we have no evidence that he actually got any useful information out of the meeting, or that this woman was really affiliated with the Russian government or simply said she was in order to get Trump Jr.'s attention.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/10/27/report-russian-lawyer-who-met-trump-jr-discussed-memo-kremlin/807188001/
Meanwhile, Rebekah Mercer, a GOP mega-donor who, along with her father, Sheldon Adelson, and the Koch Brothers have the entire Republican Party by the balls because of the unlimited funds they throw their way, was knee-deep in the Wikileaks stolen emails:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-mercer-asked-cambridge-analytica-to-help-organize-clinton-emails
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-dossier-fbi-investigation-2017-3
I don't know what circles you may travel in that accepted it as fact, but even most of the Anti Trump media (cnn, msnbc) referred to it as unverified, because it is. Paying hookers to pee in beds? laughable by any stretch of the imagination.
Of course, I have no idea if the golden shower situation is true or not, but given what we have learned about Donald Trump in the last 2 years, the idea that he isn't the type of person who certainly WOULD do something like that (or would be capable) is the laughable part. Especially since the stated reason was that he found out it was the suite the Obama's stayed in on their visit to the country. But beyond that, the dossier is not simply a document about pissing hookers. It's mostly about financial dealings.
We'll all find out on Monday.
And lest we forget why we are here with Robert Mueller, this is all happening because Donald Trump asked James Comey to drop the investigation into Mike Flynn, and fired him when he didn't. No one on this forum or anywhere else has provided a single good reason why that doesn't involve a cover-up.
Until Clinton finds herself back in office, I have bigger fish to fry.
Dislike of Clinton is a more unifying factor among the various GOP constituencies than their support of the party leader.
* Pew does these occasionally (last was 2014), and are fascinating reading for political wonks. The upshot is that they try to group American voters into types, and then do some great analysis of how various coalitions work together--or more recently, how they don't--within the parties and the country more broadly. This latest is titled, entirely appropriately, Political Typology Reveals Deep Fissures on the Right and Left.
** Courtesy of WaPo, though I found their analysis not entirely insightful.
I mean shit, liberals were intially over the moon about Obama being in office, and never really less than peacefully content with the situation at the top. There sure as hell wasn't this obsessive compulsion to deflect every bad news story to John McCain and Mitt Romney. It seems to me that all these Republican voters can see is enemies at the gates, not even able to enjoy the fact that they won the last battle. It's absurd. This is like winning the Super Bowl and spending the entire off-season complaining about a bad pass interference call in the wild-card round.
Maybe that's why the racists, neonazis and bigots (alt-right) are drawn to their fringes. So what are the odds Trump plans a counter-circus for Monday? I'd say 100%, he's watching this shite for one for two he has to make it about Donald J. Trump, Paul Manaford or whoever can NOT have the spotlight. He might not be able to wait until monday to kick things off.
By the way
I'll take this Patriot's word over Trump University scamming bone spur mcgee
You may be right about Obama but he's actually been fairly quiet since the election. Bernie and especially Gore have been spouting off more lately and you'd be surprised how many conservatives still talk about Lewinski...
Congress has been a cluster for years of Republican obstructionism and alternative reality so that's been a lost cause, I'm talking executive branch.