US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8065

On July 12 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:


I went through earlier stages of this thread, in 500 page jumps - and it's so funny to see the narrative of people change.

"Russia didn't do shit, all fake"
"Russia might've done shit, still most fake and exaggerated"
"Russia did shit, but nobody of the trump administration knew"
"Russia did shit, maybe someone knew of it, but nobody knows"
"Russia did shit and some knew, but certainly not the trumps"
"Russia did shit and DonJR knew, but certainly not DonSR"
"Russia did shit but nothing came from it, so who cares"

What's next?

What'll be the excuse of apologists if somehow some shit stucks to DonJR and he gets convicted of something, which Trump without the slightest doubt would pardon immediately?

I mean, at some point, you just have to call the kettle black. Some form of doubt or scepticism is healthy, but we're long past that with some posters here. It's pure denial at this point.

On July 12 2017 16:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:

I was gonna say that our friends blaming the liberal media for over covering thisstory that obviously is no big deal are awfully silent in the last few pages.

Thing is, and I think it should be recognized, that newspapers are doing a remarkable job in that one, and acting, as they should, as a counter power that holds politicians accountable.

That it is still the case is good news for the vitality of american democracy.

Now in all seriousness, I don't want Trump to go. He makes republican look like absolute idiots and doesn't get anything done. That's quite neat.

On July 12 2017 16:48 GreenHorizons wrote:


That was the joke before the serious part about Trump making Republicans look bad right?

On July 12 2017 17:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Not at all. I know it's super fashionable to hate "the media" and especially if it's "establishment media"; for my part I am quite amazed at the quality of what I'm reading daily in the NYT. They are professional, relentless, give plenty of space for divergent opinions including hard line republican ones, and are doing a splendid job in the russian investigation reporting.

No media is ever perfect. But the WaPo and the NYT are pretty darn good.

On July 12 2017 17:00 Doraemon wrote:
does his base even care about any of this?

On July 12 2017 17:45 GreenHorizons wrote:


You're getting taken for a ride, but at least you seem to think it was worth the cost of admission (admittedly pretty low for a spectator).

On July 12 2017 18:50 Gorsameth wrote:
I'm not sure I buy the idea that Kushner is leaking this. He is just as guilty as Jr from these emails. he knew about it, went to the meeting, didn't report it authorities and lied about it.

I one of the participants leaked then Manafort is more likely, he's already under pressure and has less to lose at this point.
Kushner still has everything to lose.

On July 12 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:


I went through earlier stages of this thread, in 500 page jumps - and it's so funny to see the narrative of people change.

"Russia didn't do shit, all fake"
"Russia might've done shit, still most fake and exaggerated"
"Russia did shit, but nobody of the trump administration knew"
"Russia did shit, maybe someone knew of it, but nobody knows"
"Russia did shit and some knew, but certainly not the trumps"
"Russia did shit and DonJR knew, but certainly not DonSR"
"Russia did shit but nothing came from it, so who cares"

What's next?

What'll be the excuse of apologists if somehow some shit stucks to DonJR and he gets convicted of something, which Trump without the slightest doubt would pardon immediately?

I mean, at some point, you just have to call the kettle black. Some form of doubt or scepticism is healthy, but we're long past that with some posters here. It's pure denial at this point.

On July 12 2017 10:36 ChristianS wrote:
I think it's too early to know what this story means for something like impeachment. But the significance is already potentially huge. The immediate significance is historical: our understanding of what happened in the 2016 election is still evolving. The faults of the Democrats in 2016 are many and have been amply chronicled here and elsewhere. A historically disliked candidate, a lack of a coherent positive message, repeated fumbling of political fiascos that shouldn't have happened in the first place, etc. etc. Of course the liberals are quick to point out there were other factors beyond the Dems' control, such as Wikileaks, Comey, the popular vote, etc. But if someone asked how Donald Trump became president, the short answer would likely be something like "An extremely mismanaged opposition, plus some very good luck for Trump." At least, that would have been the answer a week ago.

Think just how much it changes that story if even with all that going for him, he still had to cheat to win. And to be clear, if that's what happened that was cheating. Again, I'm not talking in terms of what he might or might not get convicted for. It's not really about the specific text of criminal statutes or whether the burden of proof has been met. Prior to this story dropping there seemed to be a prevailing understanding among Americans that it would be wrong for an American candidate for president to accept the illegally obtained aid of a foreign power in order to win the election. And prior to this story dropping, it seemed like that hadn't happened – Russia had intervened, sure, but there wasn't evidence that Trump's campaign had worked with the Russians to obtain the information, strategize about when/how to release it for maximum impact, etc. This time last week if someone answered "how did Trump get elected" with "A mismanaged campaign from the Dems, plus Trump worked with a rival power to swing the election," you would figure you were in a crazy left conspiracy corner of the internet. Now that seems like the most likely interpretation of the facts (albeit not yet totally proven).

The implications of this are potentially wide-reaching, too. If the collusion becomes very clear and explicit in the coming weeks, it could exonerate Hillary somewhat in 2020 (sorry GH sorry America), considering her main crime in most people's minds is losing to Donald Trump. If he cheated to win, she comes out looking a lot less bad. In terms of its impact on Trump, even if we take impeachment off the table it deeply undermines the legitimacy of his administration. Every time someone said "he won fair and square, let's give him a chance" or "like it or not, he's our President and we should stand by him" or "the Dems are just mad they lost an election they should have won" that argument was based on a certain sense of legitimacy from a free and fair election. Trump can avoid impeachment and pardon every underling implicated, but losing the perceived virtue associated with winning an election would still be a huge blow.

If the story stops with just this set of emails from Donald Trump Jr, I think it'll make Trump take a hit in popularity for a bit, Democrats will have more ammo to push the Russia narrative which will hurt him in a more prolonged way, but otherwise it will mostly be a historical footnote – it'll change the way historians answer the question "how did Trump get elected" but it won't have a massive impact on Trump's term. That said, it seems likely there will be more after this, if only because members of the Trump team would have had to leak this and an obvious motivation would be to get out ahead of something bigger. Another way to think of it: we've seen here that the Russians were eager to make contact with the Trump campaign, and we've also seen evidence that the Trump campaign was happy enough to do so as well. There's also been no evidence that the Trump campaign later had a change of heart and didn't want to work with the Russians (and if that evidence existed, they would likely have offered it to exonerate themselves). So even if we believe Don Jr. that this particular meeting didn't lead to actual collusion, why on earth would we think this was the last attempt?

I guess if there was one question I would have for xDaunt, it would be this: forget the legal question of whether a crime was committed, or whether there's enough evidence for a conviction. If the Trump campaign worked with Russia to disperse illegally obtained information in order to swing the election, do you think that's wrong? Do you think that's something American political candidates should do?

House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy lashed out at the Trump administration Tuesday over the “drip, drip” in the ongoing Russia controversy, sarcastically suggesting that officials get checked for amnesia about any contacts with Russia.

The South Carolina Republican first appeared on Fox News Tuesday night expressing concerns about email traffic showing that Donald Trump Jr. was not only aware that the Russian government was gathering intelligence on Hillary Clinton to help his father’s election, but that he also knowingly met with a Kremlin-backed lawyer claiming to want to share incriminating documents with the Trump campaign.

“If you had a contact with Russia, tell the special counsel about it! Don’t wait until the New York Times figures it out!” an exasperated Gowdy said in a brief interview outside the Capitol Tuesday.

Gowdy said the “somebody needs to sit everybody down” to find out what happened.

"Someone needs to get everyone in a room and say, from the time you saw 'Dr. Zhivago' until the moment you drank vodka with a guy named Boris, you list every single contact with Russia," Gowdy said, referring to the 1965 movie.

Gowdy, however, maintained his long-held argument that it’s Justice Department special counsel Bob Mueller’s job — not his — to probe the matter. The chairman has said he and his Oversight panel will not interfere or overlap with Mueller in any way.

“Congress is not the place to litigate legal issues,” he said Tuesday.

Gowdy, frustration evident, suggested the Russia matter has become a distraction for Hill Republicans.

“I don’t want to talk about it at all,” he admitted.

“There is a political component to it, which is: Here you are in mid-July asking me about Russia, and it’s not your fault that you’re doing it, but that’s how another week is starting here, so that’s a political concern,” he said. “You’re not here to ask me about infrastructure or tax reform or anything about that.”

Gowdy said he couldn’t tell if the email traffic was proof that something illegal had occurred, such as collusion. He said all the facts needed to be gathered and “you’ve got to interview the witnesses” first.

“There is no way to make that conclusion … on the face of that email,” he said.

Gowdy is helping lead the House Intelligence Committee’s probe of Russia’s interference in the election and whether there was any collusion between Moscow and Trump aides. But he said he’d never seen the email.

On July 12 2017 20:23 farvacola wrote:

He doesn't have any sort of "reliable source of information and analysis," he's simply stuck riding a horse named "Russia is and always has been a distraction" into the sunset, sped along by a singular dislike for Democrats.

On July 12 2017 20:23 farvacola wrote:

He doesn't have any sort of "reliable source of information and analysis," he's simply stuck riding a horse named "Russia is and always has been a distraction" into the sunset, sped along by a singular dislike for Democrats.

On July 12 2017 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:


You can use the truth as a distraction you know