Trump Sr., Trump Jr., Jared and the Russians

So Donald Jr. released his emails. He has now added page 4:

One of the early emails shows it's the Russian Crown Prosecutor he's going to meet with who according to Goldstone, is working on behalf of the Russian government to help Trump win. Why would anyone believe the prosecutor's current denial was crafted by her rather than the Russian Government? Is there even a "Crown Prosecutor" in Russia? (Turns out there is no such thing and she's a lawyer, but not for the Government.)

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote: Good morning. Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting. The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump- helped along by Aras and Emin.

The Trump son responds: [More...]

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53, Donald Trump Jr. wrote: Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Em in first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?

Why later in the summer? More likely to damage Hillary? According to this report, June would also damaging to Hillary.

His Heirship also told Goldstone that Paul Manafort and Prince Jared would be attending with him.

Thoughts on the emails? Were there phone calls in between? I can't find one from Goldstone telling Don Jr. the names of the visitors as he said he would do.

On the CNN video of the 2013 Las Vegas meeting with Trump and his Russian pals: I see Melania's mother and maybe lawyer Steve Cohen in the video. Anyone else of note? Goldstone looks like he should be working for the National Enquirer. (No link due to autoplay video, google "Exclusive: Video shows Trump with associates tied to email controversy")

I think this Australian news article saying Trump faces impeachment over these emails and meetings is premature.

This is bad for Trump, Sr in many ways but I don't think it's a smoking gun. Unfortunately.

The Trump family thinks and acts like it is a dynasty instead of a nouveau riche family from Queens led by a carnival barker. They care about their brand and their wealth. But how much do they care for America?

< Tuesday Open Thread: Amazon Prime Day | DOJ Announces Nationwide Bust of Opiate Prescribers >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Goldstone (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 07:00:35 PM EST
    Is in fact a former tabloid reporter.  Not sure which one.

    I agree it's probably not quite a smoking gun.  The stupidity defense is just to persuasive.

    What I think is most damming is, ok, so you had this meeting with this person that allegedly went no place.  Fine.  Not really but moving on.  She says the Russian government has dirt on Hillary blah blah.   They did not get any of this dirt at the time.  Again, whatever.  Conceivable this person is a nut.  If you are reaching for a Trump defense.

    What it seems to me there is absolutely no imaginable defense for is later, when the news broke that the the Russians hacked the election, what possible reasonable excuse could you give for not AT LEAST THEN calling the FBI and telling them about this meeting.

    Now, I know the reason this didn't happen.  I would just like to hear one of the attendees asked this question under oath.

    Plus we don't know that (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 09:20:42 AM EST
    they got nothing from the lawyer. That is just what 3 known liars are saying. We do know that right after that, Trump started talking a lot about Hillary's emails emails.

    Jr and Manafort were told the Russian government was interested in helping his dad win the election. They went ahead with it and participated.

    Impossible to tell if they will be prosecuted.

    Trump won't be impeached, I am not even thinking that is a possibility. But I believe things can get so stressful for him that he will quit. Keep the heat on.


    oh absolutley (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 04:27:52 PM EST
    i was just saying 'lets say everything they said about that meeting was true' (pffft)

    there is still no excuse for not reporting it once the news broke.

    IF everything they said was true.


    It's a gun...smoking (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 09:09:29 PM EST
    A federal election crime or ten was committed.

    been hearing a lot about this (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 09:15:45 PM EST
    yes probably true.  but it probably wont be prosecuted,  and while it proves the campaign was dirty its still one degree of separation from Donald.

    there is a WSJ story today just discussed on Rachel about hoe US intell was picking up an alarming amount of Russian conversations about Trump and assiciates a year before he said he was running.

    that certainly makes you go hmmmm


    here (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 09:18:59 PM EST
    Don jr.'s email stream (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 12:00:47 AM EST
    is, essentially, the smoking gun for the Trump/Russia election interference scandal. It is not, yet, the smoking gun for Trump's political demise.  As in Watergate, a number in Nixon's administration were caught up (and sentenced) in the scandal before the final smoking gun appeared publicly on August 5, 1974, with Nixon's resignation a few days later (August 9, 1974).

    The Jr. emails are the smoking gun in the sense that they have cleared the smoke so that the fire has become evident--- taking the scandal on a new path.  The story-line of a hoax and the serial lying for the past year have become inoperative.

      We did it and so what-- has to become the new propaganda. The defense of Don jr. is that he is an "idiot" (NY Daily News) who will be promoted to  useful idiot, with hopes that it will stop there, with him under the bus (to be pardoned later).

     That will be a heavy load, especially since Jared and Manafort were also a part of the meeting. And, there was the email line about bringing the matter to Trump sr, via "Rhona," Trump's trusted assistant.  And, all the surrounding questions of the meeting will be investigated.

    It changes, too, President Trump's defense of obstruction of justice. Up until the jr. emails, Trump could claim he fired Comey because he was a nutjob, crazy and incompetent. These already flimsy shields are pierced by the more likely cover-up to protect family.

    While not at all certain, since a prediction depends on some degree of sanity, it seems that the prospects of firing Mueller is lessened since such action would also register as a clumsy cover-up. And, the consequences of a Mueller firing would make the Comey dismissal seem like patty cake.

    Certainly, there is much yet to learn but the jr. emails signal a place of no return. Of course, many Republicans will stick with Trump (Nixon's approval at resignation was about 28 percent).

    Some will not care: if it takes Russia's undermining of our democracy to keep Hillary out of the presidency and stick it to the liberals, that will be OK.  For other Republicans,  that nothingburger will become a nyetburger, and then, with the drip, drip..changing of lies, a consciousness of guilt will be evident and the Trump Administration will become permanently hobbled, and something serious will have to be done, even if it means Pence.

    Very well put (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 12:10:06 AM EST
    and better than I did, especially this:

    Don Jr's email stream is, essentially, the smoking gun for the Trump/Russia election interference scandal. It is not, yet, the smoking gun for Trump's political demise.

    Few are really upset about Russia... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 10:26:24 AM EST
    many are upset about Trump, and Russia is the means to his demise.  An utterly humiliating demise I welcome, but that's beside the point.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm much more concerned with the Koch & Devos & Goldman Sachs brand of election influencing than I am Russia or the EU or any foreign entity.  I have seen the axis of election evil and it's f*cking domestic.


    Let me clear up any confusion about me (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 11:27:32 AM EST
    I am not one of the many that isn't upset about the KGB hacking/influencing a United States presidential election!

    Likewise, to be clear... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 01:11:38 PM EST
    I don't like it either, but don't feel like we are in much of a position to be too upset about it considering our KGB has no moral high ground over their KGB, or whatever the new gangster capitalist acronym is for the former Soviet "intelligence" agency.

    Russia just wanted a stooge to ease sanctions...important, but not as important to me as what American investment banks and insurance companies and energy companies and assorted individual billionaires were trying to buy.


    A copout (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 01:15:23 PM EST
    Fine, it is your right to view all this how you like and be active or inactive about it. But it's just a way to copout. Oh, woe is us, doomed to enrich treachery forever and ever. It's just an excuse to do nothing, fight for nothing, believe in nothing, have no standards that can be violated, avert your gaze.

    I wish I could avert my gaze... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 10:15:40 AM EST
    but it's like a god damn train wreck on multiple tracks, can't avert the eyes for trying.  And each set of eyes has their own standard of most horrific train wreck to view.

    Of all the horrible things Trump has done, said, and represented...this is the worst? Really?

    And don't get me started on "standards" in American politics...in a nutshell, there are none. Part of the reason we have Trump in the first place is a long-standing lack of standards and integrity in Washington & statehouses...you could almost say he's our chicken that come home to roost.


    So your solution to encouraging higher standards (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 11:31:56 AM EST
    is to do what? Facilitate the notion that compromise; the very essence of politics (and what this country was founded on I would argue) means all pols operate the same?  All pols are shady?

    What you're doing is contributing to the cynicism that is at the heart of the that which you complain about.  Who's going into politics in an environment where fellow citizens write each other's perspective off so easily?

    There is no chicken coming home to roost.  The chicken never left in the first place. We are all self centered Americans mostly looking out for our own interests.  Politics is how we bridge those gaps.


    It is not true that standards in politics (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 10:48:26 AM EST
    Don't exist. It's just not true

    Well then... (none / 0) (#107)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 11:20:54 AM EST
    you coulda fooled me.  

    Maybe you ought to open your eyes ... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 12:16:38 PM EST
    ... and actually see the world around you for what it truly exists, rather than grope around blindly in broad daylight, confident in the notion that this world is as you've always fervently believed it to be. Because the world you've repeatedly described in these threads is populated by two-dimensional cartoon caricatures, rather than real people capable of complex thought and nuance.

    I am pretty sure, Donald, that you could (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 01:09:34 PM EST
    express your disagreement with KDog without resorting to the tone and style of insult so readily embraced by our political adversaries (and by the trolls who comment on this blog).

    ... I really don't appreciate kdog's insinuation that I somehow lack integrity and am corrupt by association. It's a disrespectful and ignorant observation that's not going to go unchallenged -- at least, not by me, anyway.

    I am NOT a dishonest person in a dishonorable profession, any more than you are as a criminal defense counsel. And rest assured, I reserve the right to take vigorous issue with anyone who implies otherwise, just as I'm sure you do when somebody cracks wise about attorneys.

    If kdog really doesn't want to get involved politically, that's entirely his decision and I can respect that. But he then needs to own that decision, and not further claim that the reason he won't go outside any more is because my political brethren and I schatt on his front doorstep.



    I don't agree, Donald, but that's up to you (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 07:04:20 PM EST
    And as for me, I don't think I've ever responded on this blog (and I doubt anywhere) to ignorant attacks on lawyers (or criminal defense lawyers, of which there are certainly plenty) with insults. Subtle and understated sarcasm, perhaps, but not overtly hostile, personal insults. KDog is good people, smart and sincere, honest, and fundamentally an ally and a brother. I agree with him (and with you) much more often than I disagree. I reiterate that in my view, he doesn't deserve your treatment of him.

    Donald, I don't see where (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 09:29:59 PM EST
    kdog was even engaging you in this subthread, so not sure where you are getting these insinuations from.

    We have seen and continue to see a breathtaking level of corruption and greed among the political set, and no sign of it stopping.  Doesn't mean that there aren't honorable members of the political world, but there does seem to be a dearth of examples of many of them doing the right things for the right reasons.  

    I can't speak for you, but I haven't seen many shining lights of principle lately, political-types who are willing to place country ahead of party, so rather than pillory kdog for his observations, you might want to direct your ire at your fellow political-types whose lack of basic ethics is what is referentially dragging your good name through the mud.

    And I don't see where kdog ever fails to own his opinions and choices - we may not always agree about them, but he doesn't ever run from what he thinks and believes.


    Here you go kdog: (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 09:15:32 PM EST
    kdog, you have to know that this is so (5.00 / 5) (#131)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 04:08:35 PM EST
    much bigger than Russia "just" looking for relief on sanctions.  There are legitimate, acceptable ways to do that, and they don't involve manipulating our elections process.

    And I'm afraid I have to disagree with you that we have no room to be upset about all of this because people in power abused our trust and engaged in some meddling themselves in other countries.  

    Whatever meddling our government has done, they didn't do it with my permission, and I can be upset about what they may have done AND be upset about what another country's power elite are doing behind the scenes to a democratic process that millions of us view as a sacred responsibility we accept for the right to live in, maintain and safeguard a free and democratic society.

    Rolling over is not an option.  Pretty sure Putin would be thrilled with an indifferent and oblivious American public that might feel constrained from speaking out because of some misplaced sense of not wanting be be branded as hypocritical.


    this Russian (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 06:01:35 PM EST
    in the "adoption" meeting sounds a little like a Russian Ray Donavon.

    i agree (none / 0) (#146)
    by linea on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 08:51:13 PM EST
    i agree with Anne but i also agree with several points kdog makes. it feels like the american media and american people (in general) are "really upset about Russia" as a means to an end.

    i feel, this russian-opposition wont be here three years from now when a democratic party candidate is president.  the democratic party will maybe enact a few more toothless financial sactions and their financial backers will continue working with the same russian banks and russian-maffia controlled czech banks. americans have a short memory when it comes to international affairs. IN MY OPINION


    I suppose one can (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 09:10:09 PM EST
    cynically say all politics is a crock and the GOP and the Democrats are equally corrupt.

    That is the roadmap for GOP wins....and more Trumps....Very destructive, this fashionable cynicism.


    of course im cynical (4.00 / 1) (#151)
    by linea on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 09:49:14 PM EST
    i dont believe the "GOP and the Democrats are equally corrupt." but i do feel the corporate powers that finance both parties have a financial interest in maintaining the stus quo with regards to the russian banks and the influence of the russian mafia over much of the financial sector.

    to be clear, i do support the current democratic party platform vis-à-vis russia.


    I agree with what you say here (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Peter G on Sat Jul 15, 2017 at 10:35:33 AM EST
    But no comment based on how you "feel" -- as opposed to what you "think" or "conclude," or even "believe" -- will ever get my full support. Every time you (and you are the only adult I know of who writes this way) promote how you "feel," which you do a lot, you undermine the seriousness, persuasiveness and credibility of what you have to say. As I (and Towanda, and others) have pointed out many times before.

    yes (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 06:07:46 AM EST
    very well put.

    and better than i did.

    as usual.


    there was a "question" (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 07:08:10 AM EST
    recently along the lines of
    "how could Trump or his campaign possibly help the Russians with their election hack.

    this is how-

    Trump-Russia investigators probe Jared Kushner-run digital operation

    Mike Carpenter, who in January left a senior Pentagon post where he worked on Russia matters, also has suspicions about collaboration between the campaign and Russia's cyber operatives.

    "There appears to have been significant cooperation between Russia's online propaganda machine and individuals in the United States who were knowledgeable about where to target the disinformation," he said, without naming any American suspects.

    and I still don't even know why (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 09:23:18 AM EST
    it matters if Trump folks were helping them with the actual hacking.

    Never mind,I see from the standpoint (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 09:25:17 AM EST
    of then it was actually the Trump folks participating in the hacking. I was just thinking of the 'benefits flowed' standpoint.

    Coincidence (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 05:06:58 PM EST
    I'm sure
    Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Justice was about to go to trial in a case against Prevezon, a Russian real estate company owned by Denis Katsyv, which was accused of laundering millions of dollars through New York City property. Two days before trial, in May, the case settled.
    I remember seeing it and being mildly intrigued and disturbed but the MSM ignored it. But wait there's more
    For starters, the Katsyv family lawyer just happened to be Natalia Veselnitskaya, the same Russian lawyer who famously met with Donald Trump Jr.
    and the kicker
    On top of that, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York when the case was first filed there in 2013 was none other than Preet Bharara. Yup, the same Preet Bharara who President Trump famously fired, roughly two months before the DOJ settled the Prevezon case.
    tRump style of course
    According to the letter signed by 17 House Democrats, the DOJ had been seeking $230 million in the case, and settled for less than $6 million.
    pennies on the dollar of course.  

    More ? (none / 0) (#104)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 11:10:38 AM EST
    There's always more with this crowd.
    The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. and others on the Trump team after a promise of compromising material on Hillary Clinton was accompanied by a Russian-American lobbyist -- a former Soviet counterintelligence officer who is suspected by some U.S. officials of having ongoing ties to Russian intelligence, NBC News has learned.

    And still (none / 0) (#110)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 11:51:01 AM EST
    The alleged former Soviet intelligence officer who attended the now-infamous meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and other top campaign officials last June was previously accused in federal and state courts of orchestrating an international hacking conspiracy.

    Trump said in Paris, (none / 0) (#112)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 12:08:52 PM EST
    "most people would have taken the meeting. Its called opposition research, or research into your opponent."  Great poetry, but, as his FBI Director nominee said, it would be wise for most people to take the meeting to the FBI.

    The dual US/Russian citizen is a lobbyist, likely a spy, and a hacker. He admits to having been a part of the Soviet military counterintelligence, but he claims he was not formally trained as a spy, which may mean that he does not know how to correctly fold a cloak or wield a dagger.

     Rinat may be the fifth member of Don jr's confab (jr., Jared, Manfort, Miss Veselnitskaya) as the previously identified "interpreter" or he is the sixth member (Miss V. claims there were at least two others).

    Nothing happened at this meeting whatsoever, including the ability to remember the meeting or report on it.


    They (none / 0) (#115)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 12:43:49 PM EST
    all seem to remember the delicious nothingburgers that were served up. Well done with ketchup only of course(hold the collusion sauce!).

    Do you want your (none / 0) (#125)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 03:20:44 PM EST
    nothingburger with or without lies?

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 05:16:29 PM EST
    Now that we are up to, what, 8 meeting attendees?

    The gun might be starting to smoke a little.


    Every (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 06:14:05 PM EST
    dish at tRump's greasy spoon comes with lies, no substitutions.

    Peter Smith suicide (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 06:34:44 PM EST
    the news has been coming so fast and furious this has not gotten much coverage but it seems like its one of those "things" that might be more important than it seems right now.

    Peter Smith is the guy who was described in the first news stories as having tried to get Clinton emails from Russian hackers and who was said to have connections to Mike Flynn.

    in those stories it was said he died soon after being interviewed about this.  and it was said at the time there was "nothing suspicious" about his death.  which itself struck me as sort of suspicious.

    now its being reported that he actually committed suicide and that his suicide note said "no foul play whatsoever" caused his death.  which again just seems a little more information than was really necessary.

    if he left that note i would say he clearly thought there might be a reason for someone to suspect foul play.

    just very interesting.

    Nothing suspicious (none / 0) (#149)
    by Lora on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 09:25:01 PM EST
    Either they lied about "nothing suspicious" or the whole helium get-up was hidden from them.

    Very suspicious.


    ... which in and of itself would not be a total surprise for someone who's 81 years old, it doesn't shock me in the least that he chose suicide.

    I must concede, however, that the choice of helium and the bag over his head does seem overly melodramatic in a "Murder, She Wrote" kind of way, which might otherwise and understandably arouse suspicion.

    But then, the Republican Party's modus operandi nowadays appears entirely predicated upon tawdry melodrama which oftentimes pushes the frontiers of outright farce, even as it plunges the country into the realm of a Greek-like tragedy worthy of Euripedes. So, why shouldn't a somewhat shadowy if cartoonish figure like Smith choose to exit stage right that way, too?



    He certainly could have (none / 0) (#165)
    by Lora on Sat Jul 15, 2017 at 05:24:11 PM EST
    If he used a helium contraption to exit this world, then why all the secrecy about it when he died?

    The first reports were simply that he died.  No information as to how. And the matter was just dropped from the media.

    Given that he had just delivered a bombshell and rocketed into national news, I would have expected at least some details of his death, even if to say that his family requests privacy at this time.

    But nothing.

    Now, they let us know it was suicide.  It may well have been.  But given the bombshell he had delivered and who he was talking about, I would think and expect there would be a careful investigation before determining that it was suicide and not homicide.

    Unless there is a quiet investigation pending and they don't want to draw attention to it.

    I don't know. It's just odd.


    plus (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 15, 2017 at 05:28:57 PM EST
    Russian Mafia

    just sayin


    Yes, and an (none / 0) (#152)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 09:58:21 PM EST
    unusual suicide. Asphyxiation by substitution of oxygen with helium, in a hotel room in Rochester, MN, where Mr. Smith's note proclaims no foul play, notes his health, and gives the reason for the timing as his life insurance policy ($5 million) expiring soon. Mr. Smith was a wealthy man who lives in the very tony Chicago suburb of Lake Forest, IL.

    The funeral director took the body from the hotel room for cremation (he noticed the tank in the room) in Rochester, apparently--rather than a return to Lake Forest.   Mayo Clinic in Rochester would not confirm that Mr. Smith was being treated there, citing privacy issues.    


    If the poor old guy (none / 0) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 15, 2017 at 10:06:19 AM EST
    Had any last words they were probably pretty funny.

    And, no doubt (none / 0) (#158)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 15, 2017 at 11:06:46 AM EST
    sounded like Donald Duck.

    Odd comment about the life insurance (none / 0) (#159)
    by Peter G on Sat Jul 15, 2017 at 12:48:34 PM EST
    Most life insurance policies have a clause making the death benefit non-payable if the insured commits suicide, although that can also depend on how soon after taking out the policy the suicide occurs and other factors.

    Suicide clauses (none / 0) (#160)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 15, 2017 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    are often only applicable for the first year of the policy.  I have obtained policies that provided coverage in the event of suicide--provided more than year has passed since acquisition of the policy.

    I assume the underwriters, who know a lot, have concluded that the likelihood of someone committing suicide just to collect on a policy goes way down one year after the policy has issued.


    Hmm, your citation (none / 0) (#161)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 15, 2017 at 01:08:14 PM EST
    says a suicide clause typically applies for the first two years.

    Not to mention (none / 0) (#155)
    by Lora on Sat Jul 15, 2017 at 09:44:35 AM EST
    The almost total media blackout when Smith died.  Just that he had died.

    Now, it was a suicide, end of story.

    Nothing to see here.


    Mueller is gonna get fired!!! (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 09:05:58 PM EST

    i dont think so (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 09:08:50 PM EST
    and if he does the gates of hell will open on Trump inc

    Like Trump cares (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 09:11:46 PM EST
    2 weeks. Mueller is fired in 2 weeks or less for going on a witch hunt! The biggest witch hunt in our poltical history :)

    i dont think Mueller will (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 09:16:37 PM EST
    be fired.

    I do :) (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 09:31:58 PM EST
    Donald and Jared can't speak to each other now. Anybody between them that knows anything can say something. The pressure is going to become too much for Trump. He's already smearing the investigation.

    I know someone with this disorder. He's fishing. He's fishing for people who will tell him he's right to do it, why it's okay for him to do it, he's fishing for enough people to agree with him it's a witch hunt. Once he creates his echo chamber, he will do it. Exactly how he fired Comey. He created an echo chamber, cut everyone off for the moment who told him anything different, and he did it.

    Sebastian Gorka will help create that echo chamber...IMO


    It's not that I think (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 09:41:38 PM EST
    It's impossible. I don't.  If fact I almost hope he does.  Because IMO he might as well douse himself with gas and light it up.

    Which is why I have to think he will be stopped if he tries. By lawyers or congressional republicans or God almighty.

    I just can't imagine it.  But I would love to see it.


    I wouldn't love to see it (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 09:55:33 PM EST
    I don't know what comes after.

    Like I said though, I know someone with what appears to ail Trump. I've watched them burn the world down, absolutely not care who they harmed. 100% self serving.

    I don't kid myself what Trump will do and I'm too familiar with the methods. It's why he isolates though as he does. He creates the atmosphere and opinions that he wants. It's getting worse and worse. It will implode, but I don't think before he fires Mueller. And it won't implode immediately after either.


    What comes after (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 10:00:44 PM EST
    Is Trump would not be president.  

    I don't care what argument you make an about Pence being smarter or more dangerous or whatever

    Trump can not be the leader of our country. Whatever is next would be better.


    Careful what you wish for... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 10:53:24 AM EST
    The damage is done as far as international embarrassment and shame is concerned...if Pence gets in there, the domestic and international policy damage kicks into overdrive.

    I don't know about that (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 11:39:04 AM EST
    Shame is an ongoing thing, not a once and done. At least Pence can talk to people like an adult, and with a minimal knowledge of the world. Low bar I know, but here we are.

    Case in point (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 07:39:58 PM EST
    He told Madame Macron today that she looked like she was in great shape, after looking her up and down. She practically tried to hide behind Melania after that. I wish Macron had said something? I really do. Maybe he will in private.

    He does something disgusting every day.


    That was honestly (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 07:46:31 PM EST
    Maybe the most disgusting thing he has done.  At least on the world stage.  Honest to god.  It is so cringe worthy it's hard to watch.

    Just embarrassing

    This guy has to go.  Period.


    The only positive thing (none / 0) (#80)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 05:33:12 PM EST
    I can say about Pence is that I seriously doubt he will press the nuclear button and start a nuclear war with North Korea.
    And that is it.

    Plus (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 05:54:22 PM EST
    He is not Donald Trump

    That's really his best feature


    And isn't it (none / 0) (#82)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 07:12:19 PM EST
    a d@mned shame that this is the best we can say about the Vice President of the United States of America?
    And that the reason we can say this is because our President has truly gone off the rails?  (Not that he was "on the rails" in the first place.)
    No wonder that the rest of the Western world is laughing at us.  At least, laughing when they are not totally alarmed.

    It's really a tossup (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 07:43:57 PM EST
    For who I think would be worse.  Pence or Ryan.  If Pence survives this he will have as much credibility as Trump.  He has lied and lied and lied.  

    I think Trump will emerge relatively unscathed (none / 0) (#15)
    by Lora on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 09:46:29 PM EST
    I don't think he will "need" to fire Mueller.

    There still isn't any direct evidence linking Trump to all this mess.


    At what point did we cease ... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 12:40:32 PM EST
    ... holding candidates and / or elected officials accountable for the conduct of their own campaigns, and / or responsible for the actions undertaken in their name by their own staff? While I understand fully what you're saying here, I nevertheless ask that question in all seriousness.

    Because speaking as someone who's worked in the political realm for 30 years, if we're now allowing that the narrow legal construct of plausible deniability should necessarily transcend or even preclude any moral and / or ethical obligations and imperatives otherwise guiding one's own political decision making, then this sort of situational rationalization represents a truly disturbing socio-political trend and development.

    Taken to its logical conclusion, that's exactly how the good people of Flint, MI got fckd over by the administration of Gov. Rick Snyder. And in this particular instance, at least a dozen people (that we know of) actually died as a direct consequence of the governor's irresponsible decision to first strip that city of its inherent right to municipal self-governance, and then subsequently allow state-appointed managers to switch the city's primary source of potable water from Lake Huron to a highly polluted local waterway.

    The very notion that Snyder should still somehow enjoy a professional future in anything, given what he willfully allowed to occur on his watch and then tried to cover up, should be an affront to decent people everywhere. While he escaped criminal indictment, he should rightfully be impeached and removed from office by the Michigan legislature. Instead, state lawmakers shrug their shoulders and go "Meh."

    To quote the late humanitarian Jane Addams, "The essence of immorality is the tendency to make an exception of myself." That is, our ends should never be used to justify our means. We really ought to take that concept far more seriously in our politics than we otherwise do.



    I ask this question as well (none / 0) (#87)
    by Lora on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 06:49:39 AM EST
    I think it happened at the same time that winning at all costs and pushing an agenda regardless of the effects on people who are not the same as you with regard to race, SES, religion, or gender became the rule of the day.

    Without regard to the rule of law, the Constitution, and principles many if not most of us have tried to live by all our lives.

    The group in power seems only to care about staying in power and keeping and making more money.

    I don't understand it.  I am thoroughly disturbed and puzzled at the number of powerful people who are cruel and/or indifferent to the rest of the country and the world.


    As an historian, I would argue ... (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 05:15:25 PM EST
    ... that American society has always had an inherently cruel and indifferent streak. Further, we possess an infinite capacity to rationalize our anti-social behaviors and selfish desires, as well as the same for others whenever we don't feel like getting involved.

    But what Americans also possess is a political capability to self-correct and be remorseful, because our Constitution and republican form of democracy were created in recognition of our society's inherent weaknesses, and serve as a means to express our opinions without fear of government sanction, and to seek redress as an aggrieved party when warranted and appropriate.

    But it's often been said that evil is allowed to flourish whenever good people otherwise stand aside and do nothing to impede its course. Further, the noted humanitarian Jane Addams once observed that the essence of immorality is our tendency to make exceptions of ourselves. And in that regard, our Constitution and the rule of law will always and only be as effective as our collective desire to both respect and enforce their provisions therein.

    As citizens, we have a right to both determine the manner in which we will consent to be governed, and to express our disapproval whenever we feel it necessary to dissent from the governing majority. Yet all too often of late, I think we've taken this right for granted.

    It's reached a point where many of us have opted out of the process altogether, and have instead left to others our collective decision making, without any real due consideration as to the quality and character of those whom we've entrusted with positions of great responsibility.

    We've always been at our best when we acknowledge each other's humanity and appeal to the better angels of our nature. Conversely, we tend to not fare so well whenever we willingly answer the siren call of those who would otherwise pander to our worst fears and instincts.

    If we're ever to climb out of this present mess, Americans will have to re-engage socio-politically, both with the democratic process and with one another as human beings rather than as demographics.



    That we know of (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 09:54:20 PM EST
    As someone said yesterday what Mueller knows ....

    I do not think Trump will be unscathed


    He won't go to jail (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 09:56:47 PM EST
    Everyone else will, but like Nixon he will escape the bars.

    i honestly dont care (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 11:13:48 AM EST
    as long as he is disgraced and removed from the most powerful office on earth.

    Yeah, jail would just be the icing (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 12:27:30 PM EST
    I want the cake.

    did you see any (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 09:24:02 PM EST
    of the hearing today.

    there was lots and lots of questions from both parties that were clearly along the lines of making sure this did not happen


    one thing that i think (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 09:31:31 PM EST
    is being sort of misrepresemted was a question 'can Trump fire Mueller'

    a pregnant pause and he said he was not sure.

    some a making a lot of this but from what i have seen and read its an honest answer.

    we have heard he can not directly fire him,  but the case has also been made Trump could actually change DOJ rules and fire him.  its seems like a legitimately open question.

    but it was clear very bad things would happen if he did.  bipartisan bad things.


    I did watch the hearing (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 09:33:54 PM EST
    Graham looked like he hasn't slept in 2 days and spent all 48 hrs soaked in bourbon. I've never seen the man that effed up. He's either under tremendous stress or a hella party.

    I predicted next 30 to 60 (none / 0) (#14)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 09:44:11 PM EST
    days at work today.

    Another reason it seems impossible (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 09:49:10 PM EST
    Is that it would be such an earthquake and it is only one of the investigations

    There is three congressional investigations and one in NY I can think of off the top of my head and it would only kick all of them into overdrive.

    Still,  logic and reality are not what they used to be.


    Can the House or Senate investigation (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 09:58:06 PM EST
    Send Jared to jail?

    What they can (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 10:03:26 PM EST
    And have threatened to do is renew the independent counsel law

    One that he can not fired.

    I absolutely think this would happen.  


    ha! It can't be ruled out (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 09:32:07 AM EST
    Maybe there are odds in Vegas. I give it 50-50 right now.

    I can see that be the signal he is ready to resign, like a suicide by cop situation. In fact Congress is setting up that script by acting like that would be their last straw. After al the other atrocities, picking that as the thing they will not tolerate - then they would send the 'wise men' in to have a sit-down with the POTUS and walk out with a resignation.


    I've alwyas thought the (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 09:35:33 AM EST
    resignation kabuki will be the most fascinating thing, since it was clear to me that he did not want the job and would find a way out somehow...will it be an "illness", a "this job is too small for me"....turns out is could be a "I can't do my job with this witch hunt in progress".

    totally (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 09:56:37 AM EST
    i think he never expected to win.  he hates the job.

    Agreed, (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 11:32:22 AM EST
    Trump loves the pomp, but not the rest.  His Bastille Day trip to Paris is right up his alley--military parades, bands playing, troop reviews at Les Invalides with some nostalgia for Napoleon.

     Elysee will bring fond memories of his golden apartment in Trump Tower and he can have fantasies of being the Sun (tan) King, although dinner tonight at Jules Verne restaurant in Eiffel Tower may not be up to his culinary standards.  The MIchelin-starred, Alain Ducasse restaurant may not serve steak smothered in ketsup--the chef would probably prefer to jump off the Tower than serve up that dish.


    Maybe he will jump off the tower (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 12:28:28 PM EST
    That would be a great way to go.

    Ooops, thought you meant Trump (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 12:29:20 PM EST
    jumping rather than eat without catsup. Don't want to lose a fine chef!

    Foreign Meddling in Campaigns (none / 0) (#32)
    by RickyJim on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 09:43:46 AM EST
    From the Wikipedia article on James Carville,
    After 1992 Carville stopped working on domestic campaigns, stating that he would bring unneeded publicity. He then worked on a number of foreign campaigns, including those of Tony Blair - then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - during the 2001 general election; Ehud Barak of Israel's Labor Party (at the suggestion of Clinton, who had grown frustrated with Benjamin Netanyahu's intransigence in the peace process) in the 1999 Knesset election; and the Liberal Party of Canada. In 2002, Carville helped Bolivian Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada win the presidency in Bolivia, while working as a Greenberg Carville Shrum (GCS) strategist. This was portrayed in the documentary Our Brand Is Crisis.

    Afghan presidential candidate Ashraf Ghani hired Carville as a campaign advisor in July 2009. Carville said that the 2009 Afghan presidential election is "probably the most important election held in the world in a long time," and he called his new job "probably the most interesting project I have ever worked in my life."[19] Carville, who works for Ghani pro bono, when asked about similarities between politics in Afghanistan and politics in Louisiana, responded: "Yeah, I felt a little bit at home, to be honest with you."[20]

    In 2010, Carville worked as senior advisor for the campaign of Colombian presidential candidate Juan Manuel Santos.[21]

    He is acting as advisor for Daniel Scioli (Governor of Buenos Aires) re-election campaign.

    The 1999 Knesset election, in particular, smacks of direct US government interference directed by the POTUS.  Of course, Carville's activities pale in contrast to what the CIA has been doing since WWII.  My point is that I can't see why Americans are so upset if foreigners do unto them as ....

    this is the classic (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 09:55:17 AM EST
    right wing defense, whats the big deal?

    we have tried to influence elections for years.

    i just heard this from my Trumper brother-in-law.

    good luck with that.

    Rachel has been on a tear pointing out the right and the administration is preparing a "defense" that tries to create another scandal that, what a surprise, involves the Clintons.

    kudos on your dogged loyalty thw the FOX & FRIENDS defense.



    Whataboutism aside.... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 10:22:33 AM EST
    it's true...we have never given a damn about any other countries right to self-determination and free/fair elections.  The CIA being the primary culprit, but presidents too.

    I would hope this moment could be the light bulb where we all agree as Americans to never  infiltrate or attempt to unduly influence another country's elections, and to never allow another country to infiltrate or unduly influence ours...whether it be a bad scene like Russia or a cool country like Canada.  Having and stating a preference is fine, but that should be the limit.  And let the cards fall where they may.

    But nobody appears to be interested in the substance of the issue anymore, or any issue...it's just scalp Trump and the GOP or scalp Clinton and the DNC all day everyday.  Tiresome partisan hypocrisy, with no end in sight.


    bullsh!t (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 10:27:47 AM EST
    Ok... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 10:48:02 AM EST
    If you care to elaborate, may I ask if you think it is a legitimate prcatice for a country to interfere in other countries electoral processes or not?  

    If it was legal for Carville to (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 11:34:05 AM EST
    Work in those different campaigns, I'm not here to write another nations election laws. In the United States though, we have our laws. Call me when Carville breaks those.

    Carville was a private citizen contractor... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 11:44:21 AM EST
    Agreed...I'm talking about US government election meddling, the full extent of which we will never know until years after the fact, if ever.

    Do you believe the US Government made no covert attempts to keep Evo Morales outta office in Bolivia?  


    We know our history there kdog (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 12:05:10 PM EST
    And the School of the Americas

    Do I believe we do such things now? Not during the Obama administration. The Trump administration seems capable of anything though.

    Let's remember too, I am concerned that the KGB helped elect Trump! I'm very upset about that fact.

    Right now, it appears that someone in the Trump government nabbed a copy of that leaked to the Intercept NSA document, and created forgeries that they shopped around to other news agencies hoping they would run with a story and be descredited.


    Hadn't seen the link to someone (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 12:31:58 PM EST
    in the gov shopping around that doc (after the Intercept). Where do you see that?

    Here Ruff (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 12:41:49 PM EST
    We haven't watched her much because she repeats herself a lot. We're over it now. Rachel gets to repeat herself if she wants.

    She was sent the forgery (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 12:49:05 PM EST
    Before the Intercept went to press with their copy of the document and the story.

    So, someone nabbed that document shot when the Intercept asked the NSA to authenticate it. Created at least one forgery, and immediately sent it out to at least Rachel though I speculate others were sent it too. Who? That's so phuckin scary. Who did that?

    It's either that or Glenn Greenwald did it :) He's a sketchy phucker....hahaha


    To be clear (none / 0) (#86)
    by Lora on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 11:35:14 PM EST
    As I was corrected on an earlier thread...

    Rachel Maddow actually said she received the forgery after the Intercept published their doc, but speculated that it was created beforehand. Glenn Greenwald disagrees, due to his time stamp analysis.


    Reading Greenwald's response (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 01:54:36 PM EST
    He says that the forgery was created from the uploaded version at the Intercept and that the Metadata time stamp is the same on the forgery as the Intercept upload 3 hrs before they published.

    So, looks like it could have been anybody. Thank God. I hate thinking the FBI or the NSA is corrupted :)


    I wish I had your faith... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 01:15:04 PM EST
    that the Obama administration ended such practices...we will see in 30 years or so.  But snoops gonna snoop, and black operatives are gonna black op.  The scary part is I believe these practices to be so engrained that it's bigger than the voice of the people at the ballot box.  Bigger than the president.  

    Jesus...any excuse to have no standards (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 01:17:18 PM EST
    It's not that there are no standards, MT. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 07:14:55 AM EST
    Rather, what I see on display here are the overly lofty standards of the socio-political scold, who won't otherwise commit to a position for fear of succumbing to even an appearance of moral relativism. Thus, one sets the bar so high that nobody can successfully meet and surmount it.

    The most effective weapon in the scold's rhetorical arsenal is the "a pox on both sides!" argument of false equivalence, in which the plaintiff is really just as duplicitous and guilty as the defendant. So why bother favoring one over the other, when one can instead criticize both for failing to clear one's aforementioned high bar of lofty socio-political standards?

    It's just so much neo-kabuki.


    I'm without a doubt sick of (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 08:09:19 AM EST
    Do nothing ivory purity towers that I'm often scolded from at the moment:)

    Some Bernie Bros now say they are going to be a new branch of the Republican party that is socially progressive. They have had it with the Democratic party. My God, their candidate wasn't even really a member of the Democratic party. And he still isn't. The ease they have in grabbing up a Republican cloak speaks volumes about their sheer white peopleness too :)

    As for becoming this powerhouse new socially progressive branch of the Republican party....they can't assess the absurdity of that?


    so you are saying (4.00 / 3) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 10:53:47 AM EST
    that the arguably effective, or even existent, attempts of the US to influence elections toward actual democracy, I assume you are not reaching back to the Shaw of Iran, means we should just shrug at the seemingly succesful attempt by Russia to elect Trump?

    really?  is that what you are sying?  becuse its pathetic.


    Not just shrug... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 11:08:04 AM EST
    but some reflection and thought would be nice.  The Russian influence was certainly a factor, but I don't think they delivered the White House to Trump.  Simple American ignorance, DNC incompetence, and the anti-democratic electoral college system were bigger factors in this sh*tshow, in my opinion.  

    Iran is just one example of our nefarious meddling, the entire history of Central & South America post-colonialism to present day is another.  I'd be surprised if there was a selection of a leader in the world our government wasn't trying to put it's thumb on the scale in some way/shape/form...even our staunchest allies.

    Furthering Democracy as our goal?  Now that's funny....furthering (some)American economic and/or geopolitical domination has always been our goal.  And I for one think it's immoral.



    you can whine about (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 11:11:55 AM EST
    Nixon and Reagan or Bush.  more recently we have had a different influence.

    i have no problem with refelection.  my problem is when it is used, as it is by RickyBob, as an excuse for what is happening RIGHT NOW.

    you are enabling that.  if it is your intention or not.  pick a side.


    The Republicans and Trumpets... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 11:31:10 AM EST
    have been reduced to whataboutism...last refuge of a guilty party.  Duly noted, Thanks Don Jr!

    I don't see it as making excuses...I see it as pointing out the obvious, which must be done as a necessary part of dealing with RIGHT NOW.  

    Unless you're not interested in dealing with the right now of foreign influence in democratic elections, and only interested in getting rid of Trump...in which case our dirty hands would be irrelevant.  


    And voter suppression, (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 11:45:43 AM EST
    don't forget the voter suppression. 200k in Wisconsin alone due to crosscheck Guess who's likely voters most effected? Hint: not the white male.

    The point I keep trying to make is that the false stories spread by the Russians were another type of negative ad. Ads campaigns spend millions to buy on the basis that they affect the election. So saying these stories do not effect the election is like saying ads don't effect the election. That very well may be true, and I can see why the political consultant class are tap dancing around it.


    KDog (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 05:55:37 PM EST
    You keep wishing for some kind of animal that has never existed, every major empire/kingdom/nation-state that has mucked around in the affairs of foreign lands since the dawn of history, probably most of the minor ones also.

    Like it or not the battles of global dominance have been going on forever and none of the players have ever been above ratfking, ranging from armed invasion, to assassinations, to bribing officals, fake news has been around a long time.

    No excuses, we were/are often on the wrong side of history, but we have also done an immense amount of good. Of course there are many countries who hate or distrust us with good reason, there are many more who respect and trust us also for good reason(at least they used to). Probably none of them have clean hands, and some of them are extremely dirty, even many of our closet allies.

    Sure it would be nice to quit this evil game but you can't escape the arc of history. Your whole point seems to be we have no right to be outraged when this sht happens to us is  nothing more visiting the sins of our fathers upon us.

    My father ain't named Kissinger or Dulles, I'm outraged for the Iranians of the 50's, the South Americans, and Se Asians in the 60's and 70's, and the Palestinians seemingly forever, I am outraged for Americans today, and IMO that outrage should not be in anyway muted just because past and present Governments have have always been at least staffed with fools and brigands of various stripes, even just well meaning but misguided leaders cause immense damage...it just comes with the territory.


    If (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 11:08:21 AM EST
    we are not allowed to be outraged when it happens to us, how are we supposed to be outraged when it happens to others(no matter who the culprit is)?

    If it takes having it hit this close to home to  the light switch on then so be it, treating it like a nothingburger will do nothing but enable and encourage endless repetition.


    That's my hope... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    that the light bulb goes on and we realize this sh&t the Russians and ourselves and others have been doing since WWII is not f*cking cool and it needs to stop.

    But I see no indication of that light bulb shining Brother...hyper-partisanship kills the lights faster than not paying your electic bill.


    Cue John Lennon's "Imagine." (2.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 07:19:36 AM EST
    The substance of the issue, (none / 0) (#123)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 02:52:30 PM EST
    as I see it, is that the authoritarian,depostic Putin envisions a return to the halcyon days of the Soviet Union and a reclamation of what he feels are his just desserts. And, to continue the kleptocracy and stay in power at all costs to Russia itself, as well as to other nations.

    His goals include an expansion of territory and  enlargement of his sphere of economic and political influence.

     Achievement of these goals involves the elimination of those institutions to assist in peace and security that are threats to his vision-- put in place after WWII, particularly, to dissolve NATO and otherwise seed discontent and discord among the Western nations. Undermining the European Union contributes to goals in the fiscal/trade areas and sabotages the Eurozone in monetary unity.

    Putin's goals have been thwarted by Russia's economic downturn, a foundational aspect of Putin's goal to stay in power.  A problem exacerbated by the US/allies economic sanctions. And, individualized sanctions of Russian oligarchs, the building blocks of Putin's power. And, almost worse for purposes of staying in power, are those sanctions for human rights abuses (a part of the ire directed to Mrs. Clinton).

    The Russian economy given its population,land mass, and natural resources can't seem to top the GNP of Italy. As McCain once said, Russia is just a big gas station. He could have added, and a major arms dealer.  But, otherwise, Russian exports are not so popular--the 2017 Magrutsa 8 is nobody's Mercedes and the market for Russian nesting dolls is no match for Ken and Barbie.

    Relief from sanctions, therefore, is critical to Putin's survival. There was a time, in the not too distant past, when Republicans were wary of all things Russia..godless communism for starters. Nowadays, right wingers/Evangelicals have been seduced by retro-social outlooks offered by the Russian Orthodox Church, a bulwark against the Muslim hoards, and visions of White nationalism. Putin looks pretty good to them, our model to follow.

    After the fall of the Soviet Union, "mistakes were made" sort of like "Murder on the Orient Express."  There was a missed opportunity to help bring Russia into the sphere of democratic nations, to have Russia look westward in keeping with ideas of Peter the Great.  Rather than move Russia toward membership in NATO, it was felt best to keep a foot on their neck, and ring Russia with bases, thereby enhancing innate paranoia. That time, was fleeting.

    Yes, the US has a dark history of interfering in other countries, among the most egregious, Allende in Chile. And, I hope that Kissinger will continue to have to flee hotels through the kitchen exit to avoid apprehension by some Spanish judge.

     But, it is an inexact reading of the past to conflate and equate the Russian/Trump collusion. As it is to equate intrusions into our elections by domestic special interests, license by Citizens United, and stretching of corruption by McDonnell in the Virginia case.

     Bribery, while as American as apple pie, is not the same as Putin, in consort with Trump, trying to put a favored candidate into the presidency with the understanding of Putin receiving gifts or the president receiving a horse head in his bed.


    I get it Brother... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 03:54:54 PM EST
    I guess my question is, what makes Putin buying a country so different than British Petroleum buying a country, or Dole, or a cartel of financial institutions?  Aside from the fact that it is our country this time, and Trump was fully prepared to sell it for the low low price of empty promises of juicy dirt on Hillary Clinton and perhaps some more of that dirty Russian money?

    Did we really need evidence that Trump would sell his mother for a nickel?  The people were asked and an electoral college non-majority majority answered they don't give a sh&t, all they cared about was sticking it to the elitist coasts and dirty libruls.  


    fwiw, Mattel is a customer of mine. (none / 0) (#129)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 03:34:43 PM EST
    And sadly today's Ken and Barbie sales are no match for Ken and Barbie of yore. No arguments with anything else you wrote, as I have no particular insights there...

    Comparing (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 10:34:07 AM EST
    cucumbers to kumquats here, to my knowledge Carville never worked for the  US Government and his work in foreign campaigns was certainly conducted as a private contractor (not that unusual).

    You and the rest of the  apologists have devolved into screaming the Clintons and the Democrats were worse(not even close), which at best boils down to two wrongs make a right.


    Not So Clear (none / 0) (#46)
    by RickyJim on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 11:07:57 AM EST
    Aras and Emin Agalarov are closer to Putin than Carville was to Clinton when Carville meddled in the Knesset election?  And the evidence for this Russian government meddling we have comes from a really believable source, Rob Goldstone????  

    RickyJim, what does any of that ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 12:55:34 PM EST
    ... have to do with any of this? From GOP consultant Max Boot:

    "Trump's defenders need to cut it out. Stop making excuses. Stop pretending that this is all Hillary Clinton's fault or that the sins of the Trump campaign pale by comparison with those of Clinton's. They need to remember the old Republican mantra of personal responsibility and recognize that no one forced Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner to meet with a Russian government representative." (Emphasis is mine.)



    Nice (none / 0) (#76)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 01:22:12 PM EST
    try, but the Intel agencies conclusions about Russian meddling had nothing to do with junior's pals.

     Besides, Junior, Manafort and Kushner seemed to have some level of belief in them.


    Then mention the CIA activities (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 10:46:25 AM EST
    which are on behalf of the government.

    Carville was acting as a private citizen.


    The Carville analogy... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 10:49:31 AM EST
    only plays if he happened to be appointed to a cabinet position and failed to disclose his past activities on behalf of foreign governments or candidates.  

    Yes. Which never is going to happen. (none / 0) (#42)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 10:51:40 AM EST
    Say what you will about the Ragin' Cajun'... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 10:54:40 AM EST
    he's not that stupid...Tweedle Trump & Deedle Trump are apparently.

    Exactly. You have to know where the (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 11:40:17 AM EST
    lines are in order to come right up to them without crossing.

    Carville didn't violate US federal election laws (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 11:31:01 AM EST

    So far Donald Jr did, and it looks like Kushner was invited to. No word yet if the Donald has been proven aware.


    I Wouldn't Convict Donald Jr (none / 0) (#61)
    by RickyJim on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 12:01:43 PM EST
    on the basis of available evidence.  It doubt that a reasonable prosecutor would bring a case that he had violated campaign finance laws by meeting with a Russian lawyer, on the urging of a loon, to see if she really had dirt on HRC that could be used in the 2016 presidential campaign - no evidence that money or useful information passed hands.  I would rate the possibility of finding that "reasonable prosecutor" the same as James Comey's assessment of finding one to bring a case against HRC for her handling of State Department emails.

    Available evidence....snort :) (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 12:06:44 PM EST
    That Mueller, he's gonna get fired

    YOU wouldn't??? Heh (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 15, 2017 at 09:06:42 PM EST
    That's nice.  But just a couple days ago you couldn't even imagine a credible theory of prosecution.  Now we're well past that point and you're already discussing whether you'd convict him.

    Give it a couple more days.  You'll be imagining what a fair sentence should be.

    BTW - Re: your opinion of what a "reasonable prosecutor" would do and your silly and repeated comparison to the Clinton email investigation, what's it based on?  Are you an attorney?  (Comey is)  Are you a prosecutor?  (Comey was).  Have you seen all the evidence?  (Comey did)  Did the investigative team unanimously conclude that charges shouldn't be brought?  (  They did in the Clinton nothingburger investigation).



    Of course (none / 0) (#91)
    by Lora on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 08:28:09 AM EST
    US has been "meddling" in foreign politics for a very long time.

    Whether you now think that this is not "all right" does not make Russia's meddling in our election all right.

    Do you think it was all right for Russia to interfere using illegal hacks, well-timed revelations unflattering to one party, and tons of inflammatory disinformation, not to mention possibly causing havoc with voter registration files on election day?

    I don't think so.  I don't think anyone here thinks this was "all right."


    Nancy Pelosi demands Jared's security clearance (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 08:43:20 AM EST
    Be pulled and that Congressional Republicans stop enabling the destruction of our Constitution by being complicit in/condoning of Trump corruption.

    Will Republicans begin to jump ship as Dems apply this pressure?

    One can dream (none / 0) (#94)
    by Lora on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 10:04:01 AM EST
    I hope so...

    Pat Buchanan Dissects US Russophobia (none / 0) (#93)
    by RickyJim on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 09:14:53 AM EST
    Russia has meddled in our election. And we have meddled in the affairs of half a dozen nations with "color-coded revolutions." The cry of "regime change!" may daily be heard in the U.S. Capitol.
     He is spot on.

    Watching conservatives (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 11:12:09 AM EST
    and Trump apologists embrace Putin is bizarre.

    Liberals, contrary to conservative libel, were never in love with Russia, the Soviet Union or Communism.

    Conservatives and Trump apologists, including the Evangelical variety, are forfeiting any credibility they had by their undying support of all things Trump.


    When did Buchanan ever care? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Lora on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 10:07:01 AM EST
    When did Pat Buchanan ever be concerned about US "meddling" in other countries before he became an apologist for the Trumpire?

    When did any of the other right-wing apologists ever do so?

    My guess... about a week ago.


    You Guessed Wrong (none / 0) (#111)
    by RickyJim on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 12:04:08 PM EST
    If you ever listened to the McLaughlin Group before it ended with the host's death a year ago, Pat would always be saying things like "Give Putin some slack." He returned to the program after running for President in 2000.  He has been a strong voice against American neoconism and interventionism and supported Trump because he thought Trump agreed.  If you look at his recent columns, I think he is not happy about how Trump has handled Syria and North Korea.

    Pat Buchannan (none / 0) (#118)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 02:18:41 PM EST
    also was openly skeptical of the U.S. involvement in fighting the Nazis and Germany in WWII.

    A right wing nut is not a good source of authority here


    An Ad Hominem is an Inferior Kind of Argument (none / 0) (#124)
    by RickyJim on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 02:56:35 PM EST
    Read the linked article and explain why his analysis is faulty on the basis of what it says.  And I don't like proofs by authority either.

    You were the one touting Buchannan (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 03:22:13 PM EST
    as an authority.  It was not ad hominem--it was a book he wrote......And, hell yeah, I will discount any opinion from that guy.

    Your original point is about a phobia about Russia. Please.  I do not see liberals saying we should go to war over Crimea, etc.  That has always been a consistent liberal position--to avoid excessive military aggressiveness and war.

    Trump is not about a new fangled détente.  He is about weakening NATO, dismantling the EU.  Not what anyone would advocate who was merely trying to have better relations with Russia.

    Your ongoing apologia for Trump is a non starter.  Conspiring with the Russian government to sink Hillary is not acceptable to most--even GOP--observers.  Your increased presence here supporting Trump tells me you are worried.


    This is rich (none / 0) (#128)
    by Lora on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 03:32:31 PM EST
    Pat Buchanan, on Putin, October 2015:

    Nations have a right to be themselves, Putin is saying.

    They have the right to reflect in their institutions their own histories, beliefs, values and traditions,


    Oh, and I guess Buchanan didn't mind the US meddling in Latin America:

    Thus the nation that won the Cold War, contained the cancer of Castroism in Cuba, liberated Grenada, blocked communist takeovers of Guatemala and the Dominican Republic, and poured scores of billions in aid into this region was left undefended by its own leaders at the Summit of the Americas.


    Argentina's Cristina Kirchner, who allegedly received black-bag money from Chavez, ripped into America for its role in the 1980s. Under Reagan, America aided Britain in the Falklands War, after the Argentine junta invaded the islands, and assisted the Contras in their war of national liberation to oust Ortega's Sandinistas.

    So no, I didn't guess wrong.  It's OK if you are on his side.


    My gut feeling about Buchanan (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 11:00:22 PM EST
    is that a big part of him wouldn't be at all averse to the establishment of some variety of conservative-christian (ideally pre-Vatican II catholic) fascist theocracy, either in the U.S or in any other country.

    If you ever wanna see Pat instantly undone and in hyper-defensive mode, just listen to him if anyone ever brings up Pius XII during WWII.

    Putin's support for traditionalist Russian orthodoxy and their support of him is what really warms the cockles of Pat's heart beyond all reasoning, imo.


    There is a Distinction (none / 0) (#133)
    by RickyJim on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 04:45:28 PM EST
    in Buchanan's mind between US Interventionism in the Western Hemisphere and the rest of the world as far as US self interest is concerned.  I think the debate as to where the US should draw the line is a good one to have.  

    Some posters here are comically unhinged when they don't see a huge difference between what the US has done to interfere with the democratic process in other countries and what Russia accomplished in the 2016 US election.  The election was made close, so that the Russian hacking might have pushed Trump into a win, because Clinton ran a poor campaign.


    You lost me at "in Buchanan's mind." (none / 0) (#137)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 05:29:08 PM EST
    As I said to kdog, I can be angry at what our government has done to others AND be angry at Russian efforts to meddle in our election: it simply does not follow - for me - that what US government officials did in the past takes away any right I have now or in the future to object to efforts to undermine our election process and by extension our democracy.

    I agree that Clinton ran a terrible campaign, but the more we learn, the less we're going to be able to say with much confidence that the Russian factor didn't affect the outcome.


    Given the outright hostility she endured ... (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 15, 2017 at 05:12:40 PM EST
    ... from many quarters, including a large part of the U.S. media and a not-insignificant number of progressives, I'm rather surprised that Hillary Clinton still won the nationwide popular vote by 3 million and 2.1%.

    Even in obvious hindsight, it really ought to be acknowledged that the Clinton campaign was compelled to navigate its course in the face of some incredibly powerful headwinds. Not the least of these, as you so noted, was the Putin regime's decision to intervene in the election on behalf of Donald Trump, the true extent of which we've yet to ascertain fully.

    But for far too long, it's been considered fashionable sport in American politics to bash Mrs. Clinton for everything from her husband's philandering ways to her dissing of Tammy Wynette, her wardrobe and hairstyles, her pro bono work as a defense counsel, Whitewater, her law firm's billing records, Vince Foster's suicide, Filegate, Travelgate, Chinagate, Monica Lewinsky, the Iraq War, Afghanistan, Benghazi and finally (sigh!) her personal choice of email servers.

    Much of the vehement opposition to her candidacy, even her very existence as a public figure, appears rooted in nothing more than outright misogyny -- particularly amongst many (if not most) of my fellow straight white males, whose personal insecurities in the presence of a strong female authority figure are all too often worn on their sleeves. Yet, Hillary endured and doggedly moved forward.

    Yes, she and her team admittedly made some mistakes and serious errors in judgment along the way. But she alone is not entirely responsible for the conscious decision of some Democratic progressives to regularly fling poo in her direction at any and every available opportunity, if only because they vaingloriously considered themselves the final arbiters of all things liberal.

    Nor is Mrs. Clinton or her husband to blame for the deliberate choice of 62.9 million Americans to take leave of their senses and vote for her dangerously unstable opponent, even though all public evidence indicated that Donald Trump was -- and still is -- a totally disreputable, unqualified and unhinged character.

    At the end of the day when all is said and done, people need to take personal responsibility for their own electoral choices and live with them.



    that horse is dead (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jul 15, 2017 at 05:15:47 PM EST
    you can stop beating it.

    Tell that to Bloomberg News, Cap'n. (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 18, 2017 at 10:01:06 AM EST
    Bloomberg News | July 18, 2017
    Finally, a Poll Trump Will Like: Clinton Even More Unpopular - "For a president with historically low poll numbers, Donald Trump can at least find solace in this: Hillary Clinton is doing worse. Trump's 2016 Democratic rival is viewed favorably by just 39 percent of Americans in the latest Bloomberg National Poll, two points lower than the president. It's the second-lowest score for Clinton since the poll started tracking her in September 2009. The former secretary of state has always been a polarizing figure, but this survey shows she's even lost popularity among those who voted for her in November."

    What a Nice Recipe for the Dems to Lose in 2018 (none / 0) (#167)
    by RickyJim on Sat Jul 15, 2017 at 08:16:38 PM EST
    and further in the future too.  The people who vote Republican "take leave of their senses" so we can't blame the incompetence of the Democrats.  Like HRC, it is better to pander to the likes of Black Lives Matter and make most of the advertising in critical states a personal attack on opponents rather than give a clear statement of an agenda to win back some of those 62.9 million, like how we can do something to smooth out income disparities and get to single payer health care like the rest of the first world.  

    Concern trolling (none / 0) (#168)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 15, 2017 at 08:55:17 PM EST
    Wonder if that's EVER worked, out if it's just so obviously transparent that people will just ignore it?

    I liked Buchanan better... (none / 0) (#145)
    by desertswine on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 08:45:44 PM EST
    when he was just a loud-mouth Irish racist whining abut the white-man's burden.  

    It seems the distinction is correct, but (none / 0) (#138)
    by Lora on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 05:33:57 PM EST
    then you cannot say he is anti-meddling (or anti-interventionist, if you prefer).  He is pro-meddling, as long as the meddling supports his agenda, which he claims is pro-USA.

    He seems to claim to be anti-meddling in principle, which is what I am objecting to.


    i usually like pat buchanan''s (none / 0) (#153)
    by linea on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 10:22:10 PM EST
    articles and like reading his "paleo-conservative" perspective.

    but in this article he is WAY WRONG on so many things. i dont know where he got his assesment of georgia and he simply glosses over the reality of russian military agression and russian state corruption and the insidiousness of the russian-mafia enabled by the russian state.


    How soon you forget (none / 0) (#96)
    by Lora on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 10:11:28 AM EST
    Jeff Sessions:

    "Let me state this clearly, colleagues: I have never met with or had any conversation with any Russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election in the United States," Mr Sessions said. "Further, I have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the Trump campaign."

    "The suggestion that I participated in any collusion, that I was aware of any collusion with the Russian government, to hurt this country, which I have served with honour for 35 years, or to undermine the integrity of our democratic process, is an appalling and detestable lie,"

    So... what makes Russian interference OK now???


    They're sweating now (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 10:51:55 AM EST
    How did any of them fathom that they could lie like this?

    Sessions was on the Trump campaign trail. I find it just about impossible he knew nothing about the campaign using Russian assists. He watched his candidate publicly woo Russian assistance from the podium.


    Joy Reid (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 10:49:25 AM EST
    IMO the current brightest light in cable journalism made a great point last night.

    So, the Trump brigades and their equivalency enablers have decided Russian meddling is fine as long as it serves their ends.

    So what if, in 2018, Iran decides to intervene in the Republicans favor.  Is that ok?


    Democrats favor? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 10:53:04 AM EST
    Heard her too (none / 0) (#106)
    by Lora on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 11:16:15 AM EST
    No, Republicans favor... IOW how far would you have to go before the GOP draws the line and says "this is unacceptable!".

    Nope, I cry election laws violated (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 10:53:54 AM EST
    in-kind contributions (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 11:09:01 AM EST
    Yes we have (none / 0) (#109)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 11:36:19 AM EST
    And the citizens and politicians in those countries have every right to resist that meddling.  That's a lame excuse.

    The US is supposed to have policy goals just like any other country.


    I would add Buchanan's policy goals (none / 0) (#114)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 12:30:56 PM EST
    most certainly don't align with the majority of Americans.  From a post he did a few years ago:

    In a nutshell:

    But Vladimir Putin knows exactly what he is doing, and his new claim has a venerable lineage. The ex-Communist Whittaker Chambers who exposed Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy, was, at the time of his death in 1964, writing a book on "The Third Rome."

    The first Rome was the Holy City and seat of Christianity that fell to Odoacer and his barbarians in 476 A.D. The second Rome was Constantinople, Byzantium, (today's Istanbul), which fell to the Turks in 1453. The successor city to Byzantium, the Third Rome, the last Rome to the old believers, was -- Moscow.

    Putin is entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly City of today and command post of the counter-reformation against the new paganism.Putin is plugging into some of the modern world's most powerful currents. Not only in his defiance of what much of the world sees as America's arrogant drive for global hegemony. Not only in his tribal defense of lost Russians left behind when the USSR disintegrated.

    He is also tapping into the worldwide revulsion of and resistance to the sewage of a hedonistic secular and social revolution coming out of the West.

    Oh yeah, Buchanan (and I'm sure many other conservatives) love them some Putin if they've bought into this.  There's your 30-40% Trump support.

    While we on the left dither and continue to re-litigate the primary or look for saviors, the right is fighting a war against us we have yet to recognize. Trump (and GW Bush before him) should be a wake up call to anyone who claims the centrist, Democrat, progressive or liberal mantle. We are in a long game slow boil and need to recognize it and get it together for 2018.


    A lot of missing the point (none / 0) (#117)
    by CST on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 01:57:18 PM EST
    It's not a question of whether the Russians are evil for meddling in our election - the Russians are working in the best interests of Russia.  Which is to be expected.

    The problem is the Americans that are assisting or attempting to cover-up Russian influence in American elections, when their job is literally to defend the interests of Americans.

    That's the job description... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 02:36:40 PM EST
    but in practice the job they've been performing is to defend the interests of their parties and their corporate/special interest donors...though one party is much more craven and shameless about it than the other.

    If half the time spent on "opposition research" was spent on defending and serving the common good of Americans, we'd be in business baby.


    Agree, except (none / 0) (#134)
    by Lora on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 04:47:39 PM EST
    I would substitute "best interests of Putin" for "best interests of Russia."

    Flipping Kushner? (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 02:32:49 PM EST
    This new face that has been reported at the Trump, Jr. meeting has an alleged history of cyber mischief.

    I am believing, or as Bill Maher says, I can't prove it but I just know it is true, that Gen. Cheeto cut an explicit quid pro quo deal with the Russians.....

    I wonder if they can get Jared to flip on his cheetoness....They are, after all, trying to throw Jared under the bus....no reason for him to stay loyal.  No omerta needed, Jared.  Come on, man, save yourself.  

    I (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 07:21:30 PM EST
    think Manafort has already flipped, if only a little bit via Capitol hill. I keep thinking of the timeline, at the end of May Manafort turns over 300 pages of documents to the  Senate Intl Comm., mid June Kushner "discovers" his copies of the emails and adds the meeting to his re-re-amended clearance form, early July the NYT times gets wind of it, reported it using WH and other sources.

    Reading between the lines I'm thinking Manafort spilled the beans through his document dump, Kushner caught wind and covered his ass, someone(almost inevitably) on the committee pointed the NYT in the right direction, or as I suspect gave them the whole enchilada, and their sources in the WH, saw no reason to deny it as they knew the existence of the smoking gun.


    Well I can think of one reason... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 02:39:38 PM EST
    to stay loyal...his better half might not like him ratting on the Godfather.  

    pfft (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 02:48:13 PM EST
    I refer you to the (real) Godfather's riff on Trump.

    A classic:

    DeNiro on Trump


    As to Jared's better half (none / 0) (#127)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 14, 2017 at 03:23:40 PM EST
    Cut her loose, man.  Other fish in the sea.....