[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.

One sign that Mueller's statement had an effect is this new development.

IMAGE(https://i.postimg.cc/0y7XVn1M/D70po8-TXo-AA62tt.jpg)

Trump is now accepting Russian meddling, and that it specifically helped him. I know this feels like a typical "gotcha" type call out, but, it is more than that. This is a change in a key aspect of Trump's ability to keep his supporters on task. Russia helped elect Trump.

Mueller made it a key aspect of his statement yesterday, that the systematic assault on our elections meant that the investigation was of vital national importance in order to safe guard our elections going forward. Trump's obstruction was harming the entire country.

Once we get acceptance of the Russian meddling to help Trump, the rest begins to fall in place.

Does "the rest" also include safeguards against election meddling falling into place to prevent the next Trump or is McConnell going to be all "nah" about it again?

Rat Boy wrote:

Does "the rest" also include safeguards against election meddling falling into place to prevent the next Trump or is McConnell going to be all "nah" about it again?

We'll arrest Hillary so she can't collude with the Russians.

lol good luck, dummies

You know, I still think all the dem, "let's wait for trump to impeach himself" talk was bullsh*t but articles like this make me wonder if there's a basis.

Giuliani is f*cking nuts if he thinks Mueller would say ANYTHING that supports Trump without 90% spin.

oilypenguin wrote:

lol good luck, dummies

You know, I still think all the dem, "let's wait for trump to impeach himself" talk was bullsh*t but articles like this make me wonder if there's a basis.

Giuliani is f*cking nuts if he thinks Mueller would say ANYTHING that supports Trump without 90% spin.

There is this weird thing going on in MAGA circles, where they seem to be licking their chops at the chance for the GOP to question Mueller. I think it is partly due to the Mueller statement really knocking the wind out of most of most of Trump's defense. They have been hailing Mueller as exonerating Trump, so yesterday was a shock to many of them.

But there is also weird Q element. I saw one guy claiming two weeks ago that Mueller was never going to testify, never going to take questions. In his mind, Mueller is scared of being outed for running a corrupt investigation. Now, it is playing out kind of like he thought it would. It's for different reasons, as I think Mueller just wants to avoid any implication that he was partisan, at all.

I think if the GOP pushes him, he may get over it and let them know how he really feels. And the GOP is insane if they think the American public is going to side with them. They don't understand that at this point, impeachment comes down to the moderates, both of the left and the right. The key to changing public opinion is seeming less insane than the other side.

Mueller is like a beacon of fairness to the moderates. I think if the GOP is forced to trash him publicly, it will backfire in a huge way. What we need is for the moderates to feel pressure to take a side, and so far, the left has failed to inspire the moderates on the left, let alone the right. But if you trash Mueller, it will be like trashing McCain. The right will lose the conservative moderates.

I posted this in the Mueller Report thread, because I think it shows the power of the report, if you get people to read it or listen to what it actually says. But I think it fits here, as an example of why the GOP is insane if they think trashing Mueller will work.

Republican Justin Amash stands by position to start impeachment proceedings despite criticism

Cathy Garnaat, a Republican who supported Amash and the president said she was upset about Amash’s position but wanted to hear his reasoning. She said that she will definitely support Trump in 2020 but that Tuesday night was the first time she had heard that the Mueller report didn’t completely exonerate the president.

“I was surprised to hear there was anything negative in the Mueller report at all about President Trump. I hadn’t heard that before," she said. "I’ve mainly listened to conservative news and I hadn’t heard anything negative about that report and President Trump has been exonerated."

Cheryl Wanless, a Republican who has supported Amash, said she was confused by his position but after hearing him speak, doesn't “have a problem proceeding with" impeachment.

“Though in the back of my mind, I know it is not going to pass the Senate most likely," she said. "But if the process has to go this far, I think that’s fine — go ahead."

Some Trump supporters are not Deplorables, and we can reach them. The goal is to get the report's facts into as many moderate minds, both conservative and liberal, as possible. These are the folks that have been most swayed by Barr's misinformation campaign.

A small percentage of them haven’t allowed the brain worms to completely devour their minds.

They don't believe facts on climate change, immigration, abortion, or reality in general. Not sure why you think they will on this issue...

.

Stele wrote:

They don't believe facts on climate change, immigration, abortion, or reality in general. Not sure why you think they will on this issue...

The Amash story shows that for at least some of them, they haven't even had a chance to see the facts on climate change, immigration, abortion or reality in general.

I would phrase it as "have explicitly refused to take the chance to see the facts on..." it's not like the NOAA only posts their annual climate report in a tree house labelled "No Republicans Allowed". They've had as much of a chance as any lawmaker, which means more of a chance than most Americans.

Jonman wrote:
Stele wrote:

They don't believe facts on climate change, immigration, abortion, or reality in general. Not sure why you think they will on this issue...

The Amash story shows that for at least some of them, they haven't even had a chance to see the facts on climate change, immigration, abortion or reality in general.

Those people absolutely *did* have a chance.

But they chose to only consume conservative media and actively avoided "fake news." They're happy wallowing in their alternative reality.

And the Amash story showed that those true believers will double down on their ignorance--like anti-vaxxers--rather than change their position. The woman at his town hall who was shocked to hear that the Mueller report had anything bad in it and that it didn't exonerate Trump also said she will definitely support Trump in 2020.

Agreed. It’s a conscious choice to remain in a bubble and not be intellectually curious enough to determine something for yourself and form an opinion.

Most people stay within bubbles of their own making. Isn't that exactly what we've learned about social media and how its used? It's not just the right doing so, it's everyone.

Well, most everyone. I don't know any one GWJ's consumption habits outside of my own, but in general most people have cloistered themselves.

garion333 wrote:

Most people stay within bubbles of their own making. Isn't that exactly what we've learned about social media and how its used? It's not just the right doing so, it's everyone.

Well, most everyone. I don't know any one GWJ's consumption habits outside of my own, but in general most people have cloistered themselves.

Yeah, this.

The current-day media landscape is 100% comprised of bubbles.

"Well they could have spent 2 hours every day reading 9 different newspapers" is a valid, but entirely impractical solution. I mean, are any of you going to start watching Hannity and Jeanine Pirro nightly so that you get out of your own bubbles?

I watch Jeanine Pirro every weekend

Jonman wrote:

"Well they could have spent 2 hours every day reading 9 different newspapers" is a valid, but entirely impractical solution. I mean, are any of you going to start watching Hannity and Jeanine Pirro nightly so that you get out of your own bubbles?

No one's asking them to spend two hours every day reading nine different newspapers.

We're just asking them not to get their news from a guy with a high school education who isn't a professional journalist and who made his career being a conservative curmudgeon and spreading conspiracy theories.

OG_slinger wrote:

We're just asking them not to get their news from a guy with a high school education who isn't a professional journalist and who made his career being a conservative curmudgeon and spreading conspiracy theories.

We both know how likely that is to work.

And even if they did do as you ask, there's hundreds of other places they could turn that ostensibly present themselves as professional journalism but provide just as blinkered a worldview.

Undoing decades of being lied to and/or gaslit is a hell of a heavy lift.

Interesting that there's Republican-backed non-profits starting to beat the impeachment drum.

OG_slinger wrote:

Interesting that there's Republican-backed non-profits starting to beat the impeachment drum.

This makes me think back two years, to when the talk was about how Trump was a useful idiot for the GOP, and that they'd cast him out once he achieved their goals. If that was their plan they waited until well-past the use-by date. If Trump succeeds in destabilizing the economy further with more tariffs it seems like a difficult path to secure another four years for the GOP. Never mind how utterly embarrassing he his to anyone in the GOP who still claims conservative values or compassion.

Well, if anyone knows about treason, it is Roger Stone.

Truth is, making that impeachment case go to the senate will only highlight the awfulness that resides there even more, not as if we need it with McDevil running the show, but seeing these guys roll over for these crimes because he’s their ‘guy’ will be delicious. If I were a Democrat in that senate, I’d have all of the previous clips of them grandstanding over The analogous ‘crimes’ of Bill and Hillary Clinton playing over and over as my 3 minute rebuttal non stop.

Interesting article. At this point I can't decide if Pelosi is headed toward impeachment but in a very controlled, calculated way, or if now that she's back in the Speaker position she's mostly concerned with holding on to her own position and is unwilling to do anything to jeopardize it.

There are few heroes right now.

Boudreaux wrote:

Interesting article. At this point I can't decide if Pelosi is headed toward impeachment but in a very controlled, calculated way, or if now that she's back in the Speaker position she's mostly concerned with holding on to her own position and is unwilling to do anything to jeopardize it.

Pelosi is shrewd as f*ck. I'm not saying she's right, but I'm pretty sure she has a better handle on the machinations and realpolitik involved in the choice to impeach and the roadmap to get there than any of us do.

She's also getting on a bit (79 per Wikipedia) - how much more holding onto her position can she really be concerned about?

Don't be projecting GOP weaknesses on Pelosi. Sure she wants to keep her coalition together but she is playing the long game because she does not want to play the not even short game with Trump. It is more like any attempt at the short game with Trump will result in being dragged into the instant game where he has all the advantages.

I cannot blame her because how this all plays out will have lasting repercussions. She knows that any rush to solution will fall flat on its face and is only furthered by Trumps ability to direct the immediate narrative. She also knows that any quick solution can be undone just as quickly if/when Republicans take over the house. And McConnell's senate does not even need to get back the house to "Nope" or reverse any quick solution. She also knows that longer solutions build precedent which starts chipping away at the courts' ability to over turn and starts to eases the shock of the initial public opinion/negativity. Look at how much has been accomplished and how long the outside investigations have been allowed to continue mounting evidence. If we had jumped to impeachment a month ago, would Mueller have given his recent public statement? What about all this new evidence regarding this administration's convicted pedophile Nader? It looks like the campaign not only colluded with Russians but with Saudi Arabia as well.

Jonman wrote:
Boudreaux wrote:

Interesting article. At this point I can't decide if Pelosi is headed toward impeachment but in a very controlled, calculated way, or if now that she's back in the Speaker position she's mostly concerned with holding on to her own position and is unwilling to do anything to jeopardize it.

Pelosi is shrewd as f*ck. I'm not saying she's right, but I'm pretty sure she has a better handle on the machinations and realpolitik involved in the choice to impeach and the roadmap to get there than any of us do.

She's also getting on a bit (79 per Wikipedia) - how much more holding onto her position can she really be concerned about?

Strom Thurman was 101 when he left office, so i'm guessing 22 years at least.

Jonman wrote:

She's also getting on a bit (79 per Wikipedia) - how much more holding onto her position can she really be concerned about?

Generally, people who get to positions like Speaker of the House...twice aren't the usual. You don't get there without the kind of drive that makes them the equivalent of a world class athlete, only instead of athletics their gift is grit. Their 79 is our 59.

I think there is a significant risk that if impeachment is handled poorly, that it will be easy for the GOP to use it to not only win the the WH in 2020, but to take back the House. Right now, none of the House seats that were flipped from red to blue are signing on to impeachment, yet. That doesn't mean they won't, it means they can't be viewed as driving the bus to impeachment.

There is a scenario where Trump loses in 2020, but the Dems still fail to take the Senate and loses the House. What are the odds that the House votes to impeach whoever wins, and McConnell gladly gets a conviction and removal. If Trump wins and we lose the House, we become the Fascist States of America.

None of this means we don't impeach, it means it has to be done carefully. Barr has shown how easily a blatant impeachment referral can viewed as Mueller failing. Dems are still trying to get progressives and liberals on board after Barr's spin.

The goal is to turn the tide away from populism/fascism, not just rid ourselves of Trump. And this is not some RPG in which we can find the "good ending." We really can lose this entire country to fascists. We need those that are pushing for impeachment to continue to push for impeachment. But they need to do more than yell it, they need to find out how to move moderates to impeachment, and you don't do that by telling them that moderates suck. And right now, that seems to be where a lot of folks are stuck.