So I get it, there is no explicit "he's guilty of collusion" statement in the reports that we've seen. Do you think there is any Russian compromise there with Trump? Why does the report specifically point out that the Trump team all lied about their contacts with the Russians, lied about the Trump Tower meeting (which was not for adoptions, but for the Trump real estate deal)? Do you really think this was all a big waste of time? Because there's a shit-load of illegal stuff that has been uncovered and is being acted on. And let me guess... the first knee-jerk response will be "but Hillary" "but Bill'... Is there something wrong with saying, "hey, it's been going on too long, let's start to clean house here and now with this president"? Maybe that's the big win here, for your country as a whole. Trump was a big enough piece of shit person that people finally had enough and demanded action be taken. It really amazes me how much bullshit you guys (as in both parties in the US) will put up with just because it's Republicans vs Democrats. It's like watching a bad divorce where both sides are just killing each other to spite the other.
Correction, the meeting was about "adoptions," but it's important to understand what adoptions means in this context. The United States passed the Magnitsky Act in 2012 (sponsored by John McCain and signed by Obama) which placed Sanctions on Russia in response to the death of Sergei Magnitsky. The Russians, in turn, blocked Americans from being able to adopt Russian children. To discuss adoptions is to discuss the removal of these counter-sanctions as well as the Magnitsky sanctions that they are a response to. In the meeting the Russians offered information on Hillary Clinton in exchange for a promise to remove these sanctions, but it appears the dirt they were offering was fabricated or never materialized.
I would love to see Trump get the boot. When I point out "but the democrats" I'm not offering it as a counterpoint to some other asshole's behavior, I'm just saying it's all of them because it really is all of them. We're just at a point where politicians can get away with ANYTHING because all they have to do is tell the idiots in their base "look at the bad guys over there." It's pretty fucking sad, but that's what it is. Seriously, look at Gabbard and Bernie. Two of the very few honest politicians we have. Watch how many morons nod their empty fucking heads when they say one is a homophobe and the other is sexist. Tribalism can make people pretty fucking stupid, that's for sure.
I don't know about that, but I'm not a lawyer either. So, according to Cornell Law's website, obstruction is defined: "an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice." Meaning, someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. Let's take Trump's handling of the news upon learning Sessions recused himself. Trump ordered Don McGahn to call Rod Rosenstein so that Rosenstein would fire Mueller and end the investigation. McGahn threatened to resign instead. To me, this looks like obstruction. Trump knew that the result of his actions would remove Mueller from his position and stop the investigation in its tracks. That McGahn failed to act on the order seems to be irrelevant, because the "endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede" clause would apply. Working to do something, regardless of if you are successful or not, is the same as actually being successful. It seems to me that Mueller believed this as well, especially the first quote.
I think there is a case for obstruction. It's not a slam dunk, but sure. Doubt they would win it. Do people really want the dems to go that route though? It will fail to accomplish anything substantive, and while it might make Trump look a little bad, mostly it will remind people how ridiculous the collusion saga was. I find it very interesting how people laughed at assertions Obama's administration spied on the Trump campaign and then the second it was confirmed that yes, they actually did, these same people didn't even blink before arguing it was totally ok if they did. The level of doublethink people engage in these days is amazing.
Wut? Where was that ever confirmed? The FISA warrant came about due to some intelligence gathering efforts that were already under way that the Trump administration became involved in. And don't forget that the GOP reviewed that FISA warrant and said, "yeah, continue". This wasn't Obama spying on Trump.
People against it call it spying. People for it call it 'investigating.' Admittedly, I was making a bit of stretch there. Barr testified that they did 'spy' on the Trump campaign. There is an argument it was justified, but at the same time it looks pretty shady in the middle of an election. It's going to be investigated. It might be nothing, but in this political era, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-watchdog-fbi-informant-in-russia-probe I shouldn't have said it was Obama himself, but people initially acted like it was all bullshit, and well, there was a lot more 'investigating' going on than initially appeared. Now, any level of investigating in the middle of a campaign will be fine because "fuck Trump". https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ying-donald-trump-campaign-column/3434458002/ Again, you could argue it was somewhat justified, but it hardly looks like a ludicrous assertion that there were political motives behind it at the moment. I doubt Barr is actually going to do the main duties of his fucking job over the next few months and spend all his time on this instead so we'll see. Edit: Not wholly confirmed, but this part of the second link is interesting -
I think one of the critical failures the Democrats are making is not acknowledging that the rage and discontent that got Trump elected is very legitimate. Impeaching Trump would likely not work, galvanize his base, further the partisan obstruction, and double down on the aforementioned critical failure. So its great news material, but counter productive to actually pursue. Investigating him now is to ensure ample fuel for the 2020 campaign, and neutralize any legislative efforts he may champion. The tax bill already cost him popularity, and with each denial, his credibility wanes. That said, I think this dude finds himself completely without an ally in Washington very quickly and becomes the lamest of lame ducks. The best end to this saga is he loses to a candidate that doesnt over-correct too far to the left, and the scrutiny he lives under for the rest of his life effectively ruins it. The "mogul" persona he built will absolutely crumble when he doesnt have the office of president to deflect investigation. I am concerned about the normalizing of tactics here, because for sure the Ken Starr effort derailed Clinton's agenda, and the Mueller investigation derailed Trumps. Whoever wins can expect similar legal obstruction, especially with courts packed full of Trump/McConnell appointees.
Speaking of over corrections I read a piece about bringing back the full independent council laws and doing away with the Clinton era reforms because, well Trump benefited from it and he should be impeached by now. I think limiting it like they did was the a pragmatic move not to create the situation your describing. Probably was helped steer the opposition party away from pushing for them with Bush and Obama. The Russian meddling situation was just above and beyond anything that could have been used to start one with the last two presidents as well.
I do think a minor correction is called for though. Something along the lines of "The report shall be delivered to the Gang of 8 at the same time it is delivered to the Attorney General." I believe the Congress is already entitled to the details of anytime the special counsel is denied a request by the AG if I recall correctly, but I could be wrong on that.
I think a correction is due, especially considering that Trump (and the Tea Party and to a lesser extent, Bush) are all considerably further right than could be considered normal (the influence of Fox "News", some of the Russian bots, and I think an outsize corporate influence on politics all can be attributed here). Generally speaking, the Democrats attempt (poorly) to govern along what could be considered normal for a developed country, and many of their policies are in line with the rest of the developed world. Some of the recent developments are absurd, especially around identity politics, but keep in mind, that's where they have been winning: the advancement of gay rights, for example, is a major landmark. I think the Democrats are incompetent because they must get donors, and with the price of an election in the billion dollar range, it really doesn't matter how many individuals you get, that's corporate sponsorship, baby. And a corporation (or lobby) is only going to fund a candidate as an investment, nothing more nothing less. With Republicans, it was clear: lower taxes, and more taxes shifted onto individuals, as opposed to corporations. That way, it's much easier to stir up disgust at government waste: it's your money, taken from your pocket, not a company's money added to the cost of doing business. Rinse, wash, repeat the cycle. I mean, compare the US to Australia and Canada: the average citizen is so fucked by comparison, it's disgusting. I think we should be diverging from Russia, not following in their image. That, for me, is one of the key generational differences: if you grew up with the internet, you at least had the exposure to how other countries don't have the problems we have with inequality, healthcare and exploitation. I think for most folks the bargain they struck with their jobs has offered so much less security, the typical nuclear family structure has eroded to the point of being a distant minority and those two demographic factors combine to erode the safety net for so many people that fundamentally the country can't continue like this. I know it's not the government's job to repair or replace either of those things, but working to add something to the safety net, and re-instilling a sense of "we're all in this together" would be admirable goals for the next government. I also think the moment a palatable and believable Democrat secures a nomination, and it's obvious that Trump is going to lose, the Trump economy is going to implode. The moment all of those businesses realize they might actually have to pay taxes again, or that a government ran by functioning adults is in power, they will curtail investment and be much more careful. Hell, even the IRS' audit rate getting into double digits would likely put a damper on investor confidence. Remember kids, the yield curve inverted, which means that returns are perverted, which means someone soon is going to shit the collective bed. I would put real money in a few housing markets tanking, causing a death spiral. I'm looking at you, the parts of NJ and IL too far from NYC & Chicago to commute, yet somehow having house prices as astronomical, and the houses that cost $150k in 2006, that are somehow now worth $500k in TX and GA, owned by boomers that are aging rapidly and badly that can't hope to maintain them in their geriatric years. You start to see a fire sale on some of those homes, in a few key markets, and the fan will be doo doo brown.
Biden is officially running. I think he could win, and I do like him. But what I like even more is how much hilarity his running is going to bring both in the form of trump’s twitter feed, and SNL skits
He gets a lot of criticism. But twitter democrats don’t exactly represent most of the democrats out there. It’ll be interesting to see the hysterical cries of sexism to explain his popularity.
I’m thinking of how the pro-gun section is right now getting their pitch forks ready for trump, and how Obama missed his calling as a gun salesman.... yeah, Biden would get some votes for sure.
Guns are stupidest hill to die on. It’s the easiest way to hemorrhage votes. Don’t like guns? Don’t get one. Swalwell is running on guns. He has no chance.
It will be interesting to see how soon his own party destroys his entire political career over some stupid reason. They are trying VERY hard.
Over-correcting everything is going to be the death of the DNC, and they will deserve every fucking inch of it. And when they lose, they’ll blame sexism and toxic masculinity just like Star Wars and Ghostbusters. ...when in actuality, the people pointing the fingers are the REAL fuck-ups.