DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

[Fru]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

I guess I'm one who doesn't think this guy is a major player in this.  Sure, he pled guilty to lying.  The only thing I think he could possibly play in this is if he some how some way was privy to Russia meetings.  I think there are much bigger fish in this deal that are going to start singing.

 

 

 

Papadopoulos may not be a major player like Flynn, Sessions, Jr, or Manafort  but Toobin gives a take on how he could have been cooperating with the investigation for several months. He's a means to an end. 

 

 

[Fru]

 

 

[TGHusker]

14 hours ago, knapplc said:

I'm pretty certain the Trump organization is shady as hell, but if Mueller's investigation turns up dirt anywhere, he should pursue it and get it out in the open. 

 

It'd be the best of both worlds for Moderates if Trump goes down and Clinton goes down. 

I agree wt this.

[TGHusker]

4 hours ago, NM11046 said:

I think it's interesting to see all the folks with limited news exposure (kinder way of say folks who are dumb) who think this Podesta is Hillary's Podesta.

You are correct - different guy.  Brothers  but not Hill's campaign mgr/counsel.

[RedDenver]

4 hours ago, NM11046 said:

I think it's interesting to see all the folks with limited news exposure (kinder way of say folks who are dumb) who think this Podesta is Hillary's Podesta.

I agree, but it's an easy mistake to make and the Podestas are linked. The link is that they are brothers and own and operate a lobbying company together, and that company is involved with the Mueller investigation.

[TGHusker]

2 hours ago, Fru said:

 

Papadopoulos may not be a major player like Flynn, Sessions, Jr, or Manafort  but Toobin gives a take on how he could have been cooperating with the investigation for several months. He's a means to an end. 

 

 

He may be to this investigation what John Dean was to Watergate - eventually we'll know what kind of info he provided.  I would think his associates might be shaking in their boots now.

 

[TGHusker]

Why do all of these denials by the Trump admin seem so reminiscent of Watergate?

 

Headlines on one website:

[TGHusker]

So I'm looking at Pro-Trump links besides the one above from CNS to see headlines.

 

The Drudge Report, which came out early for Trump in the primaries, has the following as headlines today.

 

 

 

A day after the indictments Drudge has only one unfavorable article on the main page and 4 favorable:

This article blames Mueller for the mess:

http://theweek.com/articles/734070/mueller-running-amok

The ROBERT MURDOCK owned WSJ had this instructional article on how Trump can get out of this mess. I'm glad they are giving Trump a tutorial now

This is really pretty amazing stuff.  I've quoted it in part.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/begging-your-pardon-mr-president-1509302308

Mr. Mueller’s investigation has been widely interpreted as partisan from the start. Mr. Trump’s opponents instantaneously started talking of impeachment—never mind that a special counsel, unlike an independent counsel, has no authority to release a report to Congress or the public. Mr. Trump’s supporters count the number of Democratic donors on the special-counsel staff. The Mueller investigation is fostering tremendous bitterness among Trump voters, who see it as an effort by Washington mandarins to nullify their votes.

Mr. Trump can end this madness by immediately issuing a blanket presidential pardon to anyone involved in supposed collusion with Russia or Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign, to anyone involved with Russian acquisition of an American uranium company during the Obama administration, and to anyone for any offense that has been investigated by Mr. Mueller’s office. Political weaponization of criminal law should give way to a politically accountable democratic process. Nefarious Russian activities, including possible interference in U.S. elections, can and should be investigated by Congress.

Partisan bitterness will not evaporate if lawmakers take up the investigation. But at least those conducting the inquiry will be legitimate and politically accountable. And the question of whether Russia intervened in the 2016 election, and of whether it made efforts to influence U.S. policy makers in previous administrations, is first and foremost one of policy and national security, not criminal law.

The president himself would be covered by the blanket pardon we recommend, but the pardon power does not extend to impeachment. If Congress finds evidence that he was somehow involved in collusion with Russia, the House can determine whether to begin impeachment proceedings. Congress also is better equipped, as part of its oversight role, to determine whether and how the FBI, Justice Department and intelligence agencies might have been involved in the whole affair, including possible misuse of surveillance and mishandling of criminal investigations.

 

 

[TGHusker]

While 'The Week' had an article somewhat blaming Mueller in my post above, here is a good article on why the Republican leadership needs to grow a spine and cut ties to Trump now.

 

http://theweek.com/articles/734074/abandon-trump

With Special Counsel Robert Mueller's flurry of news — including the indictment of President Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and the guilty plea of George Papadopoulos, a former foreign policy adviser to Trump — the metaphorical noose is tightening around America's 45th president. We're not yet in impeachment territory. But the most plausible scenario is now that by putting the screws to Manafort and his also-indicted business partner Rick Gates, Mueller will find his way to potentially serious allegations against Trump. Indeed, the indictments are almost certainly specifically intended as a way for Mueller to get to Trump's inner circle by putting pressure on Manafort and Gates. You don't need to believe that Trump is a Manchurian candidate; you just have to recall that this is the law of special prosecutors. There's always something. We commit three felonies per day. Once a prosecutor with limitless resources is on you, it's not a matter of if, but when.

This is the reality. There's no denying it. And this means that Republican leaders must decide now what to do with the fact that President Trump will be the focus of a scandal that will rank at least above Bill Clinton's impeachment trial in terms of gravity, even if it doesn't reach the level of Watergate.

And at this point, sadly, Republican lawmakers' behavior is quite predictable. They've tied themselves to the mast of the ship of Trump. They believe they need to stay close to him because otherwise their base will rebel. And if their base rebels, there goes their congressional majority, and there goes their already slim chance of passing the sort of agenda they've been dying to pass since they lost their last congressional majority.

The foolishness of this strategy is aptly captured by Winston Churchill's famous response to the Munich Accords: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." I am not comparing Trump to Hitler, or the stakes here to the stakes of World War II. But this sentiment perfectly describes the vacuity of the GOP's calculus.

 

Never mind for a moment whether it's honorable for Republicans to defend Trump against the charges related to Russian meddling (and while some allegations are fantastical, many are highly troubling). It's also idiotically bad politics. If and when it becomes clear that Trump either committed felonies during his campaign, or knew about others who did and didn't do anything about it, whatever they are, the Republicans who defended him will be humiliated and the country's disgust will wash over them like a tsunami.

 

Trump does have a fanatical base of supporters, and it's almost certain that some number of them will always dismiss even the smokiest of smoking guns as #fakenews. But those supporters are hardly the majority of the country; they're probably not even the majority of the Republican Party. What's more, most of them are only accidental Trump supporters. Republicans fear their base because they see things like right-wing upstart Roy Moore's victory in the GOP Senate primary in Alabama despite his embarrassing lack of qualifications. But they forget that Trump endorsed Moore's establishmentarian opponent. Trump's base isn't personally loyal to him; it is only loyal to him insofar as he is a vehicle for their grievances. The base will only be appeased if and when its grievances are addressed in some way; Trump personally is neither here nor there.

The memory of Bill Clinton's impeachment trial might reassure Republicans: Clinton did commit a felony (perjury), he did face an impeachment trial, his did party stick by him, and in the end he rode it out and finished his presidency with record highs of popularity. Then again, the lingering effects of that whole drama probably cost Democrats the presidency in 2000.

The situation today is completely different. Clinton had a genius for triangulation, and happened to ride a massive stock market wave that lifted all economic boats and his approval ratings in the process. Trump's genius — and it is genius, of a kind — is not for triangulation, but for polarization, which has unquestionably proved useful at some things, but is the opposite of what's needed to make the public's mushy middle give you a pass on potentially impeachable misdeeds. As while Trump's economy is doing much better than a few years ago, neither do citizens feel the way they felt during the go-go late '90s, when they were on such an economic high that they were willing to give their president a pass on an extramarital affair. And that is the final point: There's a big difference between being guilty of an extramarital affair (try as Republicans might have, going blue in the face, to cast the issue as one of perjury, moral virtue, and sexual harassment, that message didn't stick with the American public) and being guilty of a potential breach of national security.

[schriznoeder]

What?! I thought everyone had multiple passports from the same country?

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

I think ALL of these should be released along with all social media accounts that are linked to Russia.

 

 

[NM11046]

36 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I think ALL of these should be released along with all social media accounts that are linked to Russia.

 

 

And a list of EVERY person on FB that "liked" or "shared" them.

[QMany]

I wish Facebook would notify me of every Russian-linked ad and which "Friends" shared them.

[BigRedBuster]

The social media ads Russia wanted Americans to see

[TGHusker]

Talk about fake news   "He is at least an honest man".