[News] Trump, Russia, and the 2016 Election

All news related to Donald Trump's alleged ties to Russia and to the Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. New details should be cited to reputable sources.

They’re not going to arrest anyone using the sergeant at arms. Let’s just let that idea go.

Checks and balances that only exist on paper is one of the running themes of this administration, right there alongside how much of our system of government is just "norms" and gentlemanly agreements.

My civics teacher in high school used to wax poetic about the simplicity of the U.S. Constitution, especially as compared with the constitutions of other governments, but I'm starting to think that maybe some more of this sh*t should have been explicitly spelled out even if it upped the word count a bit.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

My civics teacher in high school used to wax poetic about the simplicity of the U.S. Constitution, especially as compared with the constitutions of other governments, but I'm starting to think that maybe some more of this sh*t should have been explicitly spelled out even if it upped the word count a bit.

Other countries learned from our mistakes. And there were many.

I know where I land on that scenario.

JC wrote:

They’re not going to arrest anyone using the sergeant at arms. Let’s just let that idea go.

They won't arrest Trump with the sergeant at arms--that's just a fantasy. They probably won't arrest anyone, just as a practical manner. But I think it is important to note that there is an agent of Congress who is literally empowered to arrest people who defy subpoenas. It hasn't been used since 1935...but we also haven't had an attorney general who is blatantly defying a subpoena like this.

I don't think it will happen, but Garrcia's question was about whether there is anyone with the jurisdiction.

Trump Jr. has allegedly been subpoenaed by the Senate Intelligence Committee on matters related to Russia.

The House Judiciary Committee has voted to find Barr in contempt of Congress.

Lock him up

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Trump Jr. has allegedly been subpoenaed by the Senate Intelligence Committee on matters related to Russia.

The House Judiciary Committee has voted to find Barr in contempt of Congress.

https://www.axios.com/senate-intelli...

"Don and Senate Intel agreed from the very beginning that he would appear once to testify before the committee and would remain for as long as it took to answer all of their questions. He did that. We're not sure why we're fighting with Republicans," a source close to Trump Jr. told Axios.

Cracks?

At this point, after Pelosi repeatedly rolling over and showing her belly to the Executive, my only hope is that someone in the White House, some trusted staffer with access to documents, grows a spine and goes full Deep Throat with, let's say Vice because I think it would be cool if new media revealed the real facts and extent of the Executive's corruption.

I think a lot of people are misreading Pelosi. She has been pushing for open hearings to help explain Trump's crimes. She would prefer them not to be impeachment from the start, because it would look better a fact finding and then impeaching, instead of impeaching, and then making a case.

One thing I said the day after tRump was elected was that the left needed to dial back their protests until he took office and begone doing the things we assumed he would. By protesting before he even was seated, it played into Trump's propaganda. Any calls for impeachment were discounted as coming from people just mad about the election.

The current drive for impeachment is not much different. Had Barr not successfully convinced a ton of journalists and citizens that Mueller did not find evidence to charge Trump with a crime, maybe impeachment starts the moment the Report hits.

But we need to consider two things in impeachment, and both involve voters. Unless voters get behind impeachment, it will never make it through the senate. I'm not saying that they should not impeach unless they get GOP support, but it would make the most sense if they can proceed in a way that makes removal most likely.

Second, if impeachment is viewed as purely politically, it can help tun the 2020 election into Trump's favor. The entire process from here on out has to withstand public scrutiny. It can't come off as a political tactic to win 2020. So, again, we need the voters to trust that Democrats are moving forward daily, and that means being deliberate and patient.

The fact is, the impeachment process is underway, even though it is not official yet. As I have said since the beginning, this summer is going to be really, really ugly. This is not going to be a smooth process. In addition to Trump's actions to derail impeachment and use it to rally his supporters. the Russians are, and will continue to use social media to complicate the discussion.

Jayhawker wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

Trump Jr. has allegedly been subpoenaed by the Senate Intelligence Committee on matters related to Russia.

The House Judiciary Committee has voted to find Barr in contempt of Congress.

https://www.axios.com/senate-intelli...

"Don and Senate Intel agreed from the very beginning that he would appear once to testify before the committee and would remain for as long as it took to answer all of their questions. He did that. We're not sure why we're fighting with Republicans," a source close to Trump Jr. told Axios.

Cracks?

That's the one committee that doesn't have Lindsey Graham screaming at the top of his lungs.

tRump

t-Rump... love it!

Jayhawker wrote:

But we need to consider two things in impeachment, and both involve voters. Unless voters get behind impeachment, it will never make it through the senate. I'm not saying that they should not impeach unless they get GOP support, but it would make the most sense if they can proceed in a way that makes removal most likely.

Regrettably, I agree about the strategic considerations, but I could almost endure Pence if it meant that this dangerous superannuated adolescent would make history as the very first president to be impeached and then convicted and removed from office. Otherwise I fear that history will look upon us as cowards. I know I will be greatly embarrassed when my grandchildren ask why the country failed to impeach such an openly criminal president.

Edit: You know what, I take it back -- the very best possible historical outcome would be if we were to simply forget all about him, like Presidents Van Buren or Fillmore. "Wait, who?"

Archangel wrote:

Edit: You know what, I take it back -- the very best possible historical outcome would be if we were to simply forget all about him, like Presidents Van Buren or Fillmore. "Wait, who?"

I think Van Buren was the President of New Vegas.

bekkilyn wrote:
Archangel wrote:

Edit: You know what, I take it back -- the very best possible historical outcome would be if we were to simply forget all about him, like Presidents Van Buren or Fillmore. "Wait, who?"

I think Van Buren was the President of New Vegas.

...and we see how that all turned out.

BlackSheep wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:
Archangel wrote:

Edit: You know what, I take it back -- the very best possible historical outcome would be if we were to simply forget all about him, like Presidents Van Buren or Fillmore. "Wait, who?"

I think Van Buren was the President of New Vegas.

...and we see how that all turned out.

Considering the fallout, I'm surprised his name isn't carved in an obsidian monument somewhere.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
BlackSheep wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:
Archangel wrote:

Edit: You know what, I take it back -- the very best possible historical outcome would be if we were to simply forget all about him, like Presidents Van Buren or Fillmore. "Wait, who?"

I think Van Buren was the President of New Vegas.

...and we see how that all turned out.

Considering the fallout, I'm surprised his name isn't carved in an obsidian monument somewhere.

Well, it’s New Vegas or it’s a reiteration of The Watchmen comics. I’m waiting to see which one comes first.

This is pretty much what I was getting at yesterday.

NBC News: Trump impeachment is coming together for Pelosi

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi portrayed herself Thursday as the protector of the Constitution, Congress and the country as House Democrats braced for war with President Donald Trump over his refusal to give them full access to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report, related documents and witnesses.

"This is very methodical, it's very Constitution-based, it's very law-based, it's very factually based," Pelosi said about House plans to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt for withholding documents. "It's not about pressure. It's about patriotism."

Trump and his Republican allies say Democrats are simply dressing up a partisan witch hunt in the haberdashery of constitutional principle. They express confidence that recent polls showing a lack of support for impeachment, particularly among independents, are evidence that the public agrees with them and thatDemocrats will only hurt themselves — and help the president — if they continue on their current course.

"She’s moving at a pace that all the spectrum of her caucus can tolerate right now," said former Maryland Rep. Donna Edwards. "She is very protective of the institution and the prerogatives of the institution, and you can see that, that she wants to insulate this from the politics and the electoral politics, and that is in keeping with her protection of the unity of the caucus."

In other words, when Trump's liberal critics put the impeachment cart before the process horse, moderate Democrats are quick to jump out. But when the question is framed as one of pursuing legitimate oversight of the executive branch, following investigations where they lead and maintaining the Constitution's balance of power, it is much easier for her to keep her troops in line.

In that way, Trump's actions have helped Pelosi start to resolve the conflicts in her caucus.

"There's a deep concern, particularly among institutionalists, about the balance of power," said a senior aide to one moderate Democrat who noted that the administration's refusal to comply with subpoenas has angered some lawmakers who had been reluctant to escalate the fight.

That is, the pace is speeding up even for most Democrats who have been reluctant to go down a path that could lead to impeachment.

Jayhawker wrote:

This is pretty much what I was getting at yesterday.

NBC News: Trump impeachment is coming together for Pelosi

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi portrayed herself Thursday as the protector of the Constitution, Congress and the country as House Democrats braced for war with President Donald Trump over his refusal to give them full access to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report, related documents and witnesses.

"This is very methodical, it's very Constitution-based, it's very law-based, it's very factually based," Pelosi said about House plans to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt for withholding documents. "It's not about pressure. It's about patriotism."

Trump and his Republican allies say Democrats are simply dressing up a partisan witch hunt in the haberdashery of constitutional principle. They express confidence that recent polls showing a lack of support for impeachment, particularly among independents, are evidence that the public agrees with them and thatDemocrats will only hurt themselves — and help the president — if they continue on their current course.

"She’s moving at a pace that all the spectrum of her caucus can tolerate right now," said former Maryland Rep. Donna Edwards. "She is very protective of the institution and the prerogatives of the institution, and you can see that, that she wants to insulate this from the politics and the electoral politics, and that is in keeping with her protection of the unity of the caucus."

In other words, when Trump's liberal critics put the impeachment cart before the process horse, moderate Democrats are quick to jump out. But when the question is framed as one of pursuing legitimate oversight of the executive branch, following investigations where they lead and maintaining the Constitution's balance of power, it is much easier for her to keep her troops in line.

In that way, Trump's actions have helped Pelosi start to resolve the conflicts in her caucus.

"There's a deep concern, particularly among institutionalists, about the balance of power," said a senior aide to one moderate Democrat who noted that the administration's refusal to comply with subpoenas has angered some lawmakers who had been reluctant to escalate the fight.

That is, the pace is speeding up even for most Democrats who have been reluctant to go down a path that could lead to impeachment.

The twitter generation, not necessarily an age group, is impatient for getting to an end goal??
I'm shocked.

"Trump and his Republican allies say Democrats are simply dressing up a partisan witch hunt in the haberdashery of constitutional principle. They express confidence that recent polls showing a lack of support for impeachment, particularly among independents, are evidence that the public agrees with them and thatDemocrats will only hurt themselves — and help the president — if they continue on their current course."

Don't you just love the face value at which media takes Trump and his Republican cronies? They are speaking as though the nonsense they are spewing has any substance and merit whatsoever. Partisan witch hunts and corruption are all that define the Republican party and Trump. From endless baffling Benghazi hearings to the utter insanity of the birther bullsh*t, Republicans have defined themselves as the party that has zero respect for principle or the constitution.

I sincerely doubt they used the word haberdashery...

BoogtehWoog wrote:

"Trump and his Republican allies say Democrats are simply dressing up a partisan witch hunt in the haberdashery of constitutional principle. They express confidence that recent polls showing a lack of support for impeachment, particularly among independents, are evidence that the public agrees with them and thatDemocrats will only hurt themselves — and help the president — if they continue on their current course."

Don't you just love the face value at which media takes Trump and his Republican cronies? They are speaking as though the nonsense they are spewing has any substance and merit whatsoever. Partisan witch hunts and corruption are all that define the Republican party and Trump. From endless baffling Benghazi hearings to the utter insanity of the birther bullsh*t, Republicans have defined themselves as the party that has zero respect for principle or the constitution.

Unfortunately, it has more of an effect than you think. It's less taking the Republicans at face value that recognizing how their propaganda is working. The press needs to covert GOP gameplay in order to inoculate readers and viewers from the manipulations.

But that is a fine line between exposing and lending credence. It's up to the Dems to show more accurately where that line is. The press is there to cover the fight.

This is about whether to do impeachment, it's about how. Seriously, it can be done in a way that lets Trump walk and results in the GOP taking back the House and re-electing Trump. And while everyone is gun-ho to get this party started, they will savage the Dems for screwing this up if it fails.

Impeachment has to happen, because that is protecting the constitution and our democracy. This has to be a line that we want even the GOP to accept if a Dem version of Trump appears. But it would be dumb to carry it out in a way that alienates voters from the Democratic Party, and that is a real danger.

I think Pelosi's statement that Trump was in the process of "self-impeaching" was smart. While the GOP thinks that forcing the Dems to accelerate impeachment will swing over sympathies to them, Dems have just as much confidence that the GOP's inability to control Trump as he goes full obstruction will swing the voters their way. Trump is his own worst enemy. He is blowing it every day.

For now, pushing for hearings is the right move. But that has forced trump to start obstructing more, and that is a bad look. We are closer now to launching full impeachment process that has a good chance of being successful than we would be had Pelosi started this process months ago. The stonewalling actually gives the Dems cover to be more aggressive, because Trump looks really, really bad every time he explains what he is doing.

I'm far less confident that this all gets done by the first Democratic debate, as I had predicted. But I'm probably more confident it get done by the end of summer. But nothing is a sure deal. Hell, we could be in a war by then, maybe two (Iran and Venezuela).

BoogtehWoog wrote:
NBC News wrote:

Trump and his Republican allies say Democrats are simply dressing up a partisan witch hunt in the haberdashery of constitutional principle. They express confidence that recent polls showing a lack of support for impeachment, particularly among independents, are evidence that the public agrees with them and that Democrats will only hurt themselves — and help the president — if they continue on their current course.

Because public opinion polls never, ever change over time and absolutely no more information will come to light that reveals illegal or, at the very least, highly ethically dubious actions taken by the president and his close circle. /s

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6EE7k5UYAAAHHS.png:large)

In fact a Reuters/Ipsos poll came out today that had 45% of US adults wanted Trump to be impeached versus 42% who didn't. And Trump shouldn't say anything about Independents because barely a third of them approve of his job as president, a number that hasn't broken 40% since his first day in office.

Well, that is what Barr and the rest of the team trying to spin this and avoid Mueller's testimony are hoping. It's why I think Pelosi's strategy is smart. Keep moving forward, exposing more and more evidence, but hold off on calling it impeachment until it's time.

I think Barr did an outstanding job of really creating a narrative that works in Trump's favor. Mueller releases a report that lays out a road map for impeachment, and the we spent 3 weeks debating why Mueller didn't find evidence.

But the ongoing propaganda will do them in. They look like they are hiding stuff, and are using terrible arguments to defend the stonewalling. Part of the problem is, it's becoming more and more obvious that Mueller is going to bury Trump, at least in the GOP's eyes. And there is really no way of keeping everything hidden for as long as they need too.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5m4QWrWAAATPex.jpg:large)

Louisville Courier-Journal: Is Braidy Industries of Kentucky getting in bed with Russian mobsters?

But the plant has had trouble getting off the ground, in part because Braidy was forced to move the planned construction site from South Shore to Ashland when it was learned the original location couldn't support the weight of the plant.

And money was a problem.

Enter Rusal, a Russian aluminum company that until just three months ago was barred from doing business in the United States in part because of its ties to Deripaska.

The Trump administration lifted the sanctions in January after Deripaska agreed to reduce his ownership stake in the Moscow-based company, the world’s second-largest aluminum manufacturer, from 70% to less than 45%.

And that came only after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell backed that decision despite large numbers of Republicans and Democrats who objected to allowing Rusal and its parent company En+ Group into the United States.

DeSantis: Russians accessed 2 Florida voting databases

The Associated Press wrote:

Russian hackers gained access to voter databases in two Florida counties ahead of the 2016 presidential election, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis said at a news conference Tuesday.

DeSantis said the hackers didn’t manipulate any data and the election results weren’t compromised. He and officials from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement were briefed by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security on Friday.

The governor said he signed an agreement with the FBI not to disclose the names of the counties, but elections officials in those counties are aware of the intrusions.

Trump won Florida by 113,000 votes.

The Associated Press wrote:

DeSantis said the hackers didn’t manipulate any data and the election results weren’t compromised.

As always, I want to know on what basis they've made this determination.

It's a database, so they can compare the contents of the current data against backups fairly easily. If you wanted to directly affect a future election by modifying a database I guess you'd delete or corrupt certain records to prevent voting by people you don't want to vote. Within the database itself I can't think of anything else you'd do.