Senate Votes To Take Power Away From Trump
With a near-unanimous vote, the Senate just issued a rather strong rebuke to President Donald Trump, telling him that they simply do not trust him to handle sanctions against Russia. If the bill clears the House with a similar overwhelming majority, then Congress will assume control over America's foreign policy towards Russia and leave both the president and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with a very limited ability to change the situation. That's a pretty stunning rebuke to a sitting president. Especially by a Congress controlled by his own party.
This all happened quickly, considering the glacial pace most legislation moves through Congress, for rather obvious reasons (see: Trump, numerous investigations of). With almost-daily revelations about the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, even Republicans had to have been getting a little nervous about trusting Trump to have any say in sanctions against the country. In the midst of all the investigations, the Trump administration let it be known that they were considering letting the Russians back in to the two facilities President Obama kicked them out of at the end of his term in office. So the fear that Trump won't be tough enough on the Russians has already proven to be very real.
The original bill that was wending its way through Congress was a package of sanctions on Iran. This was then used as a vehicle to slap additional sanctions on Russia, with a clause that forbids the president from lessening or lifting any sanctions against Russia without the consent of Congress. It ties his hands very neatly, in this regard.
The Senate vote for the Russian sanctions amendment was 97-2. The vote for the entire bill was 98-2. That's pretty extraordinary these days, when Congress usually can't agree on what color the sky is. It's both an overwhelming vote and a vote that is overwhelmingly bipartisan. If the House passes the same bill with anything like that level of support, then it will not matter whether Trump vetoes it or not. He'll be forced into the tough choice of either signing away a large chunk of his foreign policy power, or seeing his first overturned veto in Congress. Politically, that's a lose-lose situation for Trump.
The political message, whether Trump signs the bill or vetoes it, could not be clearer: even Republicans now no longer trust Trump when it comes to Russia. That's a pretty big erosion in support for any president to face. But it is well-deserved. Trump's bromance with Vladimir Putin is undeniable, and Senate Republicans have now told him in no uncertain terms that Trump will have very little to say on whether sanctions ever get lifted on Russia or not.
For anyone old enough to remember the Cold War, red-baiting, and all the "pinko" talk in American politics, it is downright astounding what has happened to the Republican Party as a result of Trump's win. Donald Trump hasn't even admitted yet that the Russians interfered in a United States presidential election. He hasn't asked a single question about it, if testimony from his top aides is to be believed (even Jeff Sessions admitted Trump had never even asked about it). As one political commentator recently put it, it is like 9/11 happened and the president wouldn't even admit we'd been attacked.
Imagine for one moment what Republicans (pre-Trump Republicans, at any rate) would have said if one-tenth of what is known about Trump and his campaign were true for a sitting Democratic president. The rhetoric would now be downright apocalyptic over on the right, if President Hillary Clinton were seen as any kind of patsy for Russia. When it's Trump, however, it is treated as entirely normal and reasonable within the ranks of the GOP. One wonders what the ghost of Ronald Reagan would have to say about his own party, these days.
It certainly will be interesting to see whether Trump signs this bill or not. Will he attempt to somehow spin it as a big victory for him? It would be the most substantial foreign policy bill out of Congress yet during his term. But no matter how he attempts to sugarcoat it, this bill represents nothing short of a giant slap to Trump's face. With near-unanimity, the Senate has now told Trump that they do not trust him on anything to do with Russia. They have proactively taken the power away from Trump to reward Vladimir Putin in any way. It's downright astounding that a Congress his own party controls would do so -- and not even five whole months into his term of office. In parliamentary terms, it is an overwhelming vote of "no confidence" in the president. So it'll be interesting to see how Trump reacts when it lands on his desk.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
who are the two that voted against it?
This is yuge! A palace revolt! What does the Senate know now....and when did they know it? I wonder if "The Football" currently contains old copies of National Geographic instead of launch codes?
Hey CW
You are officially jumping the shark when you compare Russian "meddling" in our election to the attack on 9/11.
Let's review.
The Dems lost the House, the Senate, governorships, state houses... over 1000 elections... and NONE OF IT had anything to do with Russia.
Likewise, exit polls from the swing states also make it clear that Trump didn't win because of Russia.
This Russian "attack" on our country was at best an ineffective distraction from the real reasons Trump won, and at worst an unsubstantiated pile of assertions that may never be proven.
It's kind of hard to see how a comparison with 9/11 makes any sense whatsoever... other than how this narrative is being abused and how 9/11 was abused to advance policies that are contrary to the interests of American citizens (see the GWOT, the misallocation of trillions, the destruction of American values, torture, illegal wars, etc.).
Likewise, the sanctions on Iran are utter nonsense. Iran hasn't attacked us, is upholding the nuclear agreement, is fighting al Qaida and ISIS, and just reelected a moderate government intent on openness, trade and diplomacy.
Furthermore, the interests being served by these sanctions are the military industrial complex (whose budgets and profits require evil boogeymen to justify their insane policies), the corrupt status quo establishment of both parties (but particularly the Dems who have pursued this narrative to avoid the discussion of the real reasons they have suffered all those defeats in order to preserve the failed party leadership who are responsible for all those losses), and the extremist right wing government in Israel and the terror supporting, extremist monarchy in Saudi Arabia.
So, congratulations.
Trump is getting smacked down... along with the goals and values of progressive Democrats.
A real win-win.
A
3
part two
Of course, Trump wanted sanctions on Iran, and he got what 46 Democratic Senators supporting that agenda...
... so, half a win for Trump too.
A
Hey Liz
Since you seem interested in my opinions on Trudeau's policy of increasing military spending by 70%, even though you won't share your own opinions, maybe we should take a quick look at what some other Canadians are saying?
Conservative defense critic James Bezan fully endorsed the spending increase, but urged the Liberals to implement it even more rapidly.
Right-wing commentator and newspaper owner Conrad Black, a fervent supporter of the Harper government who was one of the first to endorse Donald Trump’s presidential election bid, expressed his delight with the plan.
John Ivison, a columnist for the neo-conservative National Post, described the Liberals’ plan as one that would be expected from a conservative government, while the paper’s editorial mocked the Liberals for having allegedly accepted a view of the world formerly espoused only by the Tories.
Imagine that.
I disagree with Trudeau and right wing nutjobs who love his policy.
Of course, Trudeau still hasn't spelled out where the money for the increased military spending is coming from, though the "Liberals" have previously announced a desire to find $6,000,000,000 in cuts to social spending... and I'm sure it is just a remarkable coincidence that it matches this year's proposed increase on the military.
A
Hey gang
Here's an interview with Nancy Pelosi's progressive primary challenger
http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19331:Democratic-Party-Leader-Nancy-Pelosi-Faces-Progressive-Primary-Challenge
A
Hey CW
Back on topic
http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19337:Bernie-Sanders-and-Rand-Paul-Buck-Party-Consensus-on-Russia-and-Iran-Sanctions
Max Blumenthal is the first I've seen who mentioned that our ally Germany is decrying the sanctions on people doing business with Russia... but adds some other valuable insight.
A
JL
1
who are the two that voted against it?
(1) Rand Paul
(2) Bernie Sanders
TS
2
This is yuge! A palace revolt! What does the Senate know now....and when did they know it? I wonder if "The Football" currently contains old copies of National Geographic instead of launch codes?
Now here is a conspiracy theory I can support: Deflategate -- There is no air there.
If this is indeed NOT the case, perhaps they are simply giving Trump a biscuit with no butter. :)
maybe the senate is trying to help donald out. by preventing him from unilaterally lifting russia sanctions, they can forestall at least one method of performing the coup de grâce on his own presidency.
JL
The political message, whether Trump signs the bill or vetoes it, could not be clearer: even Republicans now no longer trust Trump when it comes to Russia. That's a pretty big erosion in support for any president to face. But it is well-deserved. Trump's bromance with Vladimir Putin is undeniable, and Senate Republicans have now told him in no uncertain terms that Trump will have very little to say on whether sanctions ever get lifted on Russia or not.
That's not the message.. That's just spin of what ya'all WANT the message to be.. :D
For anyone old enough to remember the Cold War, red-baiting, and all the "pinko" talk in American politics, it is downright astounding what has happened to the Republican Party as a result of Trump's win. Donald Trump hasn't even admitted yet that the Russians interfered in a United States presidential election. He hasn't asked a single question about it, if testimony from his top aides is to be believed (even Jeff Sessions admitted Trump had never even asked about it). As one political commentator recently put it, it is like 9/11 happened and the president wouldn't even admit we'd been attacked.
No, President Trump simply realizes that it's not that big of a deal..
The Russians have ALWAYS meddled in our elections. Just like the US has ALWAYS meddled in elections of other countries...
The *ONLY* reason it's a big deal now is because NOT-45 and the Democrat Party lost and lost BIGLY....
Altohone,
The Dems lost the House, the Senate, governorships, state houses... over 1000 elections... and NONE OF IT had anything to do with Russia.
Likewise, exit polls from the swing states also make it clear that Trump didn't win because of Russia.
This Russian "attack" on our country was at best an ineffective distraction from the real reasons Trump won, and at worst an unsubstantiated pile of assertions that may never be proven.
Word....
And I am also constrained to point out that there is not a SINGLE bit of evidence, not a SCINTILLA of fact, not a SMIDGEN of logic that even SLIGHTLY indicates that a SINGLE NOT-45 vote was switched to a Trump vote..
NONE.... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA.....
THIS IS FACT....
The Anti-Trumpers, having a HUGE incentive to find even a GLIMMER of a fact that indicates a NOT-45 vote was switched to a Trump, have been compeltely, utterly and unequivocally UNABLE to find such a glimmer, such an iota, such a smidgen of a fact..
While it's true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence I think, in this case, it does not apply..
Given the HUGE incentive to do so, if there was something to be found it would have been found..
This is nothing more than a lame and futile attempt to de-legitimize a free, fair and legal election AND a lame attempt to obfuscate the idea that the American people simply just don't like the Democrats anymore and the American people don't trust the Democrat Party to lead...
It's really that simple....
But no matter how he attempts to sugarcoat it, this bill represents nothing short of a giant slap to Trump's face.
In YOUR opinion.. :D
Trump could easily claim that he doesn't mind the sanctions/Russia issue.. The President has already proven he is tough on Russia. Remember the cruise missile strike that could have easily killed Russians??
As Altohone points out, Trump got every Democrat but one to vote for increasing the Iran sanctions considerably..
In other words, Trump gave the Democrats a throw-away and got practically *EVERY* Democrat to give the President EXACTLY what he wanted..
A way to revoke Odumbo's Iran agreement...
The Democrats got played....
AGAIN.... :D
In other news..
Remember when it was said that Mueller was an "honorable" Republican and that there would be NO LEAKS coming from his investigation???
MORE MUELLER LEAKS JOLT DC
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-is-investigating-jared-kushners-business-dealings/2017/06/15/5d9a32c6-51f2-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html
Mueller is proving his incompetence and will be shit-canned... And Rosenstein is going to gladly step up and be the canner... :D
You heard it here first...
Mueller is proving his incompetence and will be shit-canned... And Rosenstein is going to gladly step up and be the canner... :D
that would be the other method of performing the coup de grâce on his own presidency.
JL
"Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories any stories attributed to anonymous 'officials' particularly when they do not identify the country — let alone the branch or agency of government — with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated."
-Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein
that would be the other method of performing the coup de grâce on his own presidency.
I believe that was the consensus of the Left once Trump fired Comey...
When yer a hammer, everything looks like a nail.. :D
But, as I have said in the past... If it DOES come to pass, then we'll have President Pence.. :D
And imagine what fun THAT will be!! :D
@m[13],
yes, that is factually accurate, there has been zero evidence of vote tampering. (zero is a specific number; that's what makes your statement factual.)
russian influence on our vote was achieved solely through "information warfare" (e.g. hacking voter rolls, targeting propaganda, promoting false reports, stealing and releasing political operatives' e-mails, planting false e-mails). this may have been attempted before, but never before achieved with such effectiveness.
and even before that, the election was much closer and more volatile than most people were willing to admit.
JL
I believe that was the consensus of the Left once Trump fired Comey...
i'm already on record that impeachment isn't currently on the table. comey's firing put it in the discourse, but it will take significantly more to make it actually happen.
JL
yes, that is factually accurate, there has been zero evidence of vote tampering. (zero is a specific number; that's what makes your statement factual.)
Thank you...
russian influence on our vote was achieved solely through "information warfare" (e.g. hacking voter rolls, targeting propaganda, promoting false reports, stealing and releasing political operatives' e-mails, planting false e-mails). this may have been attempted before, but never before achieved with such effectiveness.
There is no factual evidence of ANY effectiveness...
THAT's the point... If the Russians wanted Trump as POTUS, effectiveness would be measured in how many NOT-45 votes were switched to Trump votes..
There is no evidence of ANY votes being changed from NOT-45 to Trump..
As far as releasing emails, isn't that simply ensuring transparency???
If the Pols' email statements are damaging, that's on THEM for making the damaging statements.
Not on the persons who released the emails..
and even before that, the election was much closer and more volatile than most people were willing to admit.
To some, perhaps...
But to others who looked at ALL the facts???
Not so much...
i'm already on record that impeachment isn't currently on the table. comey's firing put it in the discourse, but it will take significantly more to make it actually happen.
For you, impeachment isn't currently on the table.
For MANY on the Left, impeachment is the goal.. Getting rid of Trump is the goal...
And, if successful, we have President Pence...
and even before that, the election was much closer and more volatile than most people were willing to admit.
Once Trump beat 19 other pols for the GOP nomination, I knew he was going to win the election..
Because NOT-45 was no different than those 19 other pols that Trump defeated..
Nothing but a Same Ol Same Ol Establishment politician.
And the American people were ADAMANT that they did not WANT an Same Ol Same Ol Establishment politician as POTUS...
Can You Obstruct a Fraud?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448674/trump-wanted-comey-refute-false-notion-he-was-suspect
There was no obstruction...
If there was, Comey was derelict in his duties when he didn't report it..
Simply hoping doesn't not constitute obstruction...
Can You Obstruct a Fraud?
http://tinyurl.com/ycdgyl2u
There was no obstruction...
If there was, Comey was derelict in his duties when he didn't report it..
Simply hoping doesn't not constitute obstruction...
And now for something TOTALLY unrelated...
For all you SUPERNATURAL fans out there..
The CW’s “Supernatural” is returning next season for its 13th season, which will feature a special animated “Scooby-Doo” episode.
https://www.thewrap.com/supernatural-scooby-doo-animated-cw/
I guess when you have been going for thirteen years, you can afford to have fun every now and again... :D
http://www.mindskin.com/p/838/zDzjAZk.jpg
:D
There is no factual evidence of ANY effectiveness...
yes, the evidence is circumstantial, not direct. polling fluctuations, intelligence assessments, the lengths to which the russians went to take the actions they did both here and in other countries, all indicate a high likelihood that they were effective, but that probability isn't measurable and therefore isn't factual.
Can You Obstruct a Fraud?
already read that. there are a few gaping logical holes in mccarthy's argument. see if you can find them without me having to go line by line.
JL
yes, the evidence is circumstantial,
Yes.. Circumstantial.. Not factual..
It's inferences that can be read either way, depending on the beliefs of the reader..
already read that. there are a few gaping logical holes in mccarthy's argument. see if you can find them without me having to go line by line.
Give me one example so I know what your'e thought process is...
Give me one example so I know what your'e thought process is...
OK, that was just mean.. :D
Michale
15
Remember when it was said that Mueller was an "honorable" Republican and that there would be NO LEAKS coming from his investigation???
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that leak is coming from the Trump Administration and NOT Mueller.
Mueller is proving his incompetence and will be shit-canned... And Rosenstein is going to gladly step up and be the canner... :D
Highly improbable unless Trump has a wish to hasten his demise.
You heard it here first...
Your peevish neediness is again duly noted, but I have a copy of the Party rhetoric that Trump is tweeting out to the minions a little at a time so I heard it there first. Spewing the party rhetoric like the other bleating sheeple hardly qualifies as an original source. :)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that leak is coming from the Trump Administration and NOT Mueller.
Cite???
Highly improbable unless Trump has a wish to hasten his demise.
That's your claim, unsupported by any facts..
Spewing the party rhetoric like the other bleating sheeple hardly qualifies as an original source. :)
How can it be "PARTY" rhetoric when the record here clearly shows that the GOP ('P' stands for PARTY, in case you missed it) is ALSO against Trump... :D
Yes.. Circumstantial.. Not factual..
they are not mutually exclusive. some is fact, some is opinion, there's just no direct measurement.
Give me one example so I know what your'e[sic] thought process is...
mccarthy begins his account, "on march 30, 2017," and not once does he mention any events that occurred prior to february, 2017. what do you imagine i might think is wrong with that?
JL
Michale
30
Cite???
And just where is your cite that proves Mueller is leaking? You don't have one that is not conspiracy theory BS because Mueller is not leaking.
The majority of the leaking of stories to the press is coming straight out of the White House. I really don't care if you believe me or not, remain a useful idiot and/or a bleating sheeple. It's funny to watch. :)
That's your claim, unsupported by any facts..
It's my opinion, supported by history.
How can it be "PARTY" rhetoric when the record here clearly shows that the GOP ('P' stands for PARTY, in case you missed it) is ALSO against Trump... :D
Because the RNC formulates it and pushes it to the party. The fact that some of the party is now breaking with some of the talking points proves my other opinion. Clue in. :)
they are not mutually exclusive. some is fact, some is opinion, there's just no direct measurement.
Exactly...
mccarthy begins his account, "on march 30, 2017," and not once does he mention any events that occurred prior to february, 2017.
That is not factually accurate...
The author mentioned the 30 Mar 2017 date and then clearly referenced an event that occurred "fully six weeks" PRIOR to that 30 Mar 2017 date..
That was when YA'ALL allege that President Trump committed obstruction by telling Comey that General Flynn was an honorable man, a patriot who did great things for his country and has suffered enough by being summarily fired. As such, the President expressed a "hope" that the FBI Director could find it in his heart to not pile more humiliation on this fine American...
So, events PRIOR to that 30 Mar 2017 date feature prominently in McCarthy's article...
The obstruction charge is a witch hunt, just like the collusion charge that prompted the obstruction charge...
If a charge is a fraud, then obstructing a fraud is not a crime.. It's a DUTY...
And just where is your cite that proves Mueller is leaking? You don't have one that is not conspiracy theory BS because Mueller is not leaking.
Mueller may not (or may) be doing the actual leaking, but it is his responsibility...
The majority of the leaking of stories to the press is coming straight out of the White House.
Yea... You said that already... What you HAVEN'T given us is any FACTS to support that claim...
It's my opinion, supported by history.
SO, we agree.. It's NOT a factual claim...
@m,
kindly read what i wrote more carefully. not once does he mention any events that occurred prior to february, 2017.
JL
mccarthy begins his account, "on march 30, 2017," and not once does he mention any events that occurred prior to february, 2017.
What occurred prior to Feb 2017 that would have relevance to McCarthy's article???
kindly read what i wrote more carefully. not once does he mention any events that occurred prior to february, 2017
I did.. Thought I got ya for a second there.. :D
What occurred prior to Feb 2017 that would have relevance to McCarthy's article???
are you kidding? just for starters:
march, 2016 - trump hired paul manafort as campaign chair. manafort had already worked on behalf of russian interests in ukraine, and continued as trump's campaign chair through august.
july, 2016 - trump spoke at a campaign rally, explicitly requesting that russia hack hillary clinton's e-mails.
the creation of this media narrative is over a year old, and is mostly inflicted by trump himself. it's intellectually dishonest for mccarthy to write as if the narrative were james comey's doing.
JL
All of that is just spin...
the creation of this media narrative is over a year old, and is mostly inflicted by trump himself. it's intellectually dishonest for mccarthy to write as if the narrative were james comey's doing.
Yes, the media narrative is a year old and there is not one SINGLE SOLITARY *FACT* to support collusion..
NOT... A.... SINGLE..... FACT....
And when you consider the INCENTIVE for Anti-Trumpers to FIND a single solitary fact!???
All you have is bad jokes and hires of people that had associations with Russia..
Big woop.... Do you know how many NOT-45 hires had associations with Russia??? *TONS* more than Trump...
FACTS seems to be the watch word today..
There are *NO* facts to support collusion.. Even Dumbocrats acknowledge this....
If the charge is a fraud, then obstructing the fraud is NOT a crime..
It's a duty....
Michale
34
Mueller may not (or may) be doing the actual leaking, but it is his responsibility...
It's Mueller's obligation to keep the people he is questioning from leaking? Nice try, though.
Yea... You said that already... What you HAVEN'T given us is any FACTS to support that claim...
I followed your lead when you accused Mueller over and over and over ad nauseam and spewed the RNC talking points without any facts to back it up. Would you like me to post the same crap you do after every one of your opinions? I can do that if you'd like. It will get old and tired in the same manner as when you do it.
SO, we agree.. It's NOT a factual claim...
There's nothing to agree to. I posted my opinion and you did your usual BS and claimed my opinion wasn't a fact. SSDD.
BREAKING NEWS
Donald J. Trump? @realDonaldTrump
I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt
8:07 AM - 16 Jun 2017
So now Donald Trump admits he is under investigation, and now he accuses Rod Rosenstein of investigating him. Actually, Mueller is investigating him who was appointed by Rosenstein. So now Trump is going after Rosenstein.
I guess there goes Michale's theory that Rosenstein will do Trump's bidding and fire Mueller. Only an idiot would go after a guy he expected to be able to control. What kind of moron would continue to tweet this dumb shit?
Trump is forgetting that he already admitted to Lester Holt and God and everybody that he was going to fire Comey anyway. Dumb ass Trump can't keep his mouth shut. :)
It's Mueller's obligation to keep the people he is questioning from leaking? Nice try, though.
And you still have not provided ANY facts to support your claim as to the source of the leaks..
Would you like me to post the same crap you do after every one of your opinions? I can do that if you'd like. It will get old and tired in the same manner as when you do it.
I would be HAPPY for you to do that..
ONCE you provide ANY FACTS to support your claim as to the source of the leaks..
Do you HAVE any such facts??
Yes?? or No???
There's nothing to agree to. I posted my opinion
Fine.. So you agree that yours is only your opinion and NOT a factual claim...
That's all I wanted to know..
JL,
the creation of this media narrative is over a year old,
I will agree with you on one point..
After more than a year, *ALL* the Dumbocrats have is a "media narrative"...
It's a damn good thing for NOT-45 that a "media narrative" was ALL that was required to convict HER, eh?? :D
Like I said, two sets of standards..
For Dumbocrats, the standard is MATHEMATICALLY PRECISE UNEQUIVOCAL FACTS BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER
For Republicans, the standard is A MEDIA NARRATIVE BUILT ON RUMOR, INNUENDO AND OUTRIGHT BULLSHIT
Michale
41
And you still have not provided ANY facts to support your claim as to the source of the leaks..
Trump just tweeted that he was under investigation. Up until then, it was only an unsubstantiated rumor in the paper. Any more questions?
Fine.. So you agree that yours is only your opinion and NOT a factual claim...
It's an obvious opinion when someone posts what they think someone will or will not do in the future. Your typical whiny BS about something not being a fact when it's obvious that it's an opinion is ridiculous, monotonous, and takes up space that could otherwise be used to discuss issues instead of whining about whether an obvious opinion is a fact. You're like a 5-year-old with the same whiny shit over and over. :)
Trump just tweeted that he was under investigation.
That's a RESULT of the leaks...
Not the source..
Do you have ANY facts to support that the LEAKS came from anyone other than Mueller and/or his team..
No, you do not..
It's an obvious opinion when someone posts what they think someone will or will not do in the future.
Yea, I feel for ya..
A LOT of what I post is "obviously" my opinion but it's still being mistaken as I am claiming facts... :D
So I empathize.. :D
NOT... A.... SINGLE..... FACT....
that's not the case. there are many facts that suggest a connection between the campaign and russia, including the statements donald made about russia on the campaign trail and in primary debates, for the five months while manafort was campaign chair. donald's statement explicitly asking russia to hack hillary's emails is absolutely factual. there's no judgment or interpretation involved, he said it.
JL
that's not the case. there are many facts that suggest a connection
Yea.. "suggests", inference, innuendo...
donald's statement explicitly asking russia to hack hillary's emails is absolutely factual.
No, it's not.. It's your OPINION that the statement explicitly asked russia to hack NOT-45's emails..
Americans who are NOT beholden to the Democrat Party took Trump's statement for what it was... A so-so funny joke...
there's no judgment or interpretation involved, he said it.
He did say it... That is factual...
It's your spin that he meant it..
Ever read Nelson DeMille's WORD OF HONOR???
"Shoot them all!!!"
-LT Ben Tyson
He did say it... That is factual...
It's your spin that he meant it..
it's now considered "spin" to operate under the assumption that donald isn't lying? of course, what was i thinking!
JL
JL,
it's now considered "spin" to operate under the assumption that donald isn't lying? of course, what was i thinking!
Now we're back to semantical games... :^/
I get it.. The case is so weak that the games must be played to cover up the weakness...
OK, I can play too...
Yes, Trump asked the Russians to hack NOT-45's emails because he knew how dishonest and corrupt NOT-45 was. So he asked for help in letting the people know EXACTLY who and what NOT-45 was. He had to ask the Russians for help, because the current American regime was as dishonest and corrupt as NOT-45...
So, Trump was noble and patriotic and SOLELY and COMPLETELY had the best interests of Americans and America at heart.....
And THAT has as much factual basis as your claims... :D
There are no relevant facts that support collusion...
After more than a year, after a HUGE incentive to FIND facts, nothing more than inference and innuendo has been found..
THIS IS FACT...
The collusion witch hunt was a fraud....
Obstructing a fraud is not a crime.. It's a duty...
Michale
44
Trump just tweeted that he was under investigation.
That's a RESULT of the leaks...
Not the source..
That's your claim, unsupported by any facts.
Do you have ANY facts to support that the LEAKS came from anyone other than Mueller and/or his team.
Yes, Trump just tweeted it and leaked it himself. You can't prove the prior leaks didn't come from someone out of the White House, can you? No, you can't. I can tell you that the factions in the White House leak on each other. There are numerous reporters that have said so.
A LOT of what I post is "obviously" my opinion but it's still being mistaken as I am claiming facts... :D
Not by me. I don't give you a hard time about your obvious opinions. Oh, sure, I might disagree with your opinions, but I don't whine and scream about them NOT being facts... because obviously they're opinions. Now I did give it to you above, but that is because you said you would be HAPPY for me to, and I aim to please. ;)
So I empathize.. :D
HITLER Oops, I mean PROGRESS ! :)
That's your claim, unsupported by any facts.
Completely supported by the FACT that the leaks were on Weds and Trump's resulting twit was today...
Yes, Trump just tweeted it and leaked it himself.
How could Trump leak today what was leaked by Mueller and/or his team on Weds??
Michale
51
Completely supported by the FACT that the leaks were on Weds and Trump's resulting twit was today...
You can't prove that it wasn't leaked by someone in the Trump Administration/White House at any time in the past, but I just did. The only person either of us knows for a FACT leaked it is TRUMP.
I win this round.
How could Trump leak today what was leaked by Mueller and/or his team on Weds??
That's your claim, unsupported by any facts. :)
After more than a year, after a HUGE incentive to FIND facts, nothing more than inference and innuendo has been found...
that may or may not be the case. we don't know what's been found and what hasn't, because law enforcement has been stingy about releasing the details of their investigations. in spite of some alleged leaks, there's still a lot that they know and we don't.
The collusion witch hunt was a fraud....
that opinion is definitely unsupported by facts, especially those few facts that mccarthy selects to focus on. mccarthy claims that comey perpetrated a fraud upon the nation, and that opinion is NOT supported by the full body of factual evidence. comey's big sin was refusing to put his investigation on hold to do PR for the president. donald's "cloud" was not comey's doing, and fixing it was not his job.
if donald wanted the investigation to end, and had the authority to order it to end, and if there were nothing to find, as mccarthy suggests, then why didn't he just give the order instead of a gentle suggestion followed by a disparaging public sacking?
it would be truly ironic if there turns out to be no evidence of trump or his campaign colluding with russia, since donald's firing of comey and his supporters' conspiracies about mueller have only increased the public perception that donald is guilty.
JL
Let me put it like this..
Corey Landowski worked with Russians...
That's the fact...
It's your INFERENCE that *THAT* fact means Landowski is a russian spy....
It's your INFERENCE that *THAT* fact means there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign..
Yet, it is ALSO a *FACT* that NOT-45 had TONS of Russia connections that were more prevalant and DEEPER than Trump had..
Yet, you don't INFER *ANYTHING* from THAT fact...
You see the point??
that may or may not be the case. we don't know what's been found and what hasn't,
We sure as hell know what's been found when it's against Trump...
in spite of some alleged leaks, there's still a lot that they know and we don't.
Fine.. Until such time as FACTS are released that PROVE Trump is guilty, can the Left stop with the accusations???
f donald wanted the investigation to end, and had the authority to order it to end, and if there were nothing to find, as mccarthy suggests, then why didn't he just give the order instead of a gentle suggestion followed by a disparaging public sacking?
You saw the hysterical outcry when it was a "gentle suggestion"... That explains the "why" quite nicely..
it would be truly ironic if there turns out to be no evidence of trump or his campaign colluding with russia, since donald's firing of comey and his supporters' conspiracies about mueller have only increased the public perception that donald is guilty.
No.. It's only increased the DUMBOCRAT perception that the President is guilty...
There are no FACTS to support guilt of collusion or obstruction beyond inference and innuendo....
I know there is no convincing ya'all of this, so I am at a loss to understand why I keep trying.. :D
The Democrats won the charity baseball game last night 11-2 and gave the trophy to Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) to give to Steve Scalise on behalf of the Democrats.
Beats the heck out of flowers. :)
JL
53
in spite of some alleged leaks, there's still a lot that they know and we don't.
Now THAT is a FACT. :)
Michale
54
Corey Landowski worked with Russians...
Corey Lewandowski is little fish. Forget that little weasel and concentrate on Boris Epshteyn.
No, I cannot provide proof at this time.
There are no FACTS to support guilt of collusion or obstruction beyond inference and innuendo....
there are many facts that support both charges, most notably various public statements from donald himself, and millions of dollars paid to manafort and flynn by russian and turkish interests. another pertinent fact that mccarthy ignores is that the sacking itself is being considered as part of the obstruction investigation, not just the requests that preceded it.
one doesn't have to be personally guilty of the underlying crime to be guilty of obstruction. one doesn't have to believe the crime even happened to be guilty of obstruction. donald may have genuinely believed there was nothing criminal to find, and for all i know he might even be right. however, there's no denying he brought the power of the presidency to bear on the conduct of a lawful investigation. is that "obstruction?" search me...
JL
Now THAT is a FACT. :)
@kick,
well... technically it's my opinion. calling it "a lot," is my own judgment, and not quantifiable or falsifiable. but yes, the part about them knowing things we don't IS a fact.
JL
We sure as hell know what's been found when it's against Trump...
...except when we don't.
JL
Kick,
in spite of some alleged leaks, there's still a lot that they know and we don't.
Now THAT is a FACT. :)
Yes, THAT is a fact...
And yet, in SPITE of the FACT that there is a lot we DON'T know, the accusations against Trump fly fast in furious..
The Democrats won the charity baseball game last night 11-2 and gave the trophy to Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) to give to Steve Scalise on behalf of the Democrats.
Wasn't that totally kewl!! :D
there are many facts that support both charges,
ONLY by inference or innuendo..
one doesn't have to be personally guilty of the underlying crime to be guilty of obstruction.
And if there is no crime, underlying or otherwise???
If it's simply a politically driven fraud??
The the President has the OBLIGATION to obstruct it...
The whole investigation into 45 is going to be an exercise in foot shooting:
1. If you are involved in a lot of dicey property deals with dodgy money, don't run for the position most guaranteed to put you under the brightest spotlight
2. If you have done nothing wrong, don't even talk about an investigation, especially with the person leading the investigation
Here is what I think:
1. 45 and his family have some involvement with money laundering activities, even though they didn't launder their own money. They provided the vehicles that allowed other parties to launder money and then looked the other way. They basically had gotten away with this until they overplayed their hand because grampa lost the plot and decided to believe he was really smart and everybody loved him (because for 70 years he has been surrounded my people who told him how smart and great he was).
2. Russia tried to interfere with our election using social media at the same time that the role of social media in elections was under the spotlight, plus
3. Russia tried to hack into our voting process, and may have succeeded, so we need to look into both 2 & 3, regardless of who they were trying to help and who won.
4. 45's entourage had meetings with the Russians that were probably innocent, but look bad in retrospect, so they tried to hide them hoping this whole thing would bow over
5. 45 is too stupid to understand what obstruction of justice is. He inhabits the swamp that is major real estate deals where the rules are very different from the rules in politics and hasn't figured out the rules are different
6. 45 is childish and impetuous, especially when he is told not to do something. He believes he is smarter than everybody else and there "is a new sheriff in town", and that he won the election by ignoring all the pointy-heads, and so bucks their advice after brooding and pouting about an issue.
Michale
62
And yet, in SPITE of the FACT that there is a lot we DON'T know, the accusations against Trump fly fast in furious..
I believe you are confusing conspiracy theories. Fast and Furious was the righties jumping to conclusions about Obama. Try to keep up. :) {kidding}
My point is:
(1) If NOT-45 was 45, and 45 was NOT-45, they'd still be investigating Trump/Russia, and they'd still be trying to impeach 45. Capisce?
(2) Pay attention, you might learn something.
Wasn't that totally kewl!! :D
I think it was.
Michale
63
And if there is no crime, underlying or otherwise???
Where were you when Flynn said he had a story to tell and would do so in exchange for immunity? Flynn has committed multiple crimes, grand juries have already been convened and indictments sealed. I said this weeks ago. Try to keep up. Eastern District of Virginia under the watchful eye of Dana Boente.
The the President has the OBLIGATION to obstruct it...
Flynn has committed crimes, is under indictment, subpoenas have been issued, etc., and you actually think the POTUS has an obligation to obstruct that? Hmmmmmm.
Flynn has committed crimes, is under indictment,
He is??
Please link the indictment...
(1) If NOT-45 was 45, and 45 was NOT-45, they'd still be investigating Trump/Russia, and they'd still be trying to impeach 45. Capisce?
I disagree..
I don't think that Trump would have ANYTHING to do with investigating NOT-45 if she had won the election...
Wasn't that totally kewl!! :D
I think it was.
And I agree...
Flynn has committed crimes, is under indictment,
So, we're back to GUILTY BY INNUENDO, RUMOR AND INFERENCE....
No one is guilty because no one has been tried...
And, I may forget a LOT of things but I am pretty sure that it's still INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law..
So, *EVERYONE* involved in this is INNOCENT...
Follow the money:
Russia ---> Cyprus/Wilbur Ross ---> Trump ---> RNC
Michale
68
I don't think that Trump would have ANYTHING to do with investigating NOT-45 if she had won the election...
Duh! If HRC won and Trump lost:
(1) The FBI would still be investigating Trump/Russia,
(2) They would still be trying to impeach the President.
So, we're back to GUILTY BY INNUENDO, RUMOR AND INFERENCE....
Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night! Flynn didn't offer immunity because he was NOT guilty. Duh! :)
@kick,
the sealed indictment story is as yet unverified, so i'm not ready to buy it. however, bill moyers has provided a helpful timeline of facts relating to russia and members of the trump campaign, going all the way back to 1979:
http://billmoyers.com/story/the-trump-resistance-plan-a-timeline-russia-and-president-trump/
Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night! Flynn didn't offer immunity because he was NOT guilty. Duh! :)
Then, of course, you would agree that all of NOT-45's staffers were guilty because they GOT immunity..
Of course you wouldn't.. Because that's different.. :D
Michale
69
No one is guilty because no one has been tried...
Oh, come on. You know a person can be guilty of a crime yet never be tried for it. It happens every day.
https://youtu.be/gq6T1V5rYjI?t=2m25s
And, I may forget a LOT of things but I am pretty sure that it's still INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law..
Unless you are Comey, Mueller, Obama, HRC, WJC, Rosenstein.... etc., right?
So, *EVERYONE* involved in this is INNOCENT...
ROTFLMAO
the sealed indictment story is as yet unverified
In other words, it's NOT a fact... It's simply another faceless ANONYMOUS SOURCE...
Funny how most Weigantians buy into the cowardly anonymous sources.. :D
Oh, come on. You know a person can be guilty of a crime yet never be tried for it. It happens every day.
You didn't say Michael Flynn CAN be guilty of a crime.
You said he IS guilty of a crime. And you ALSO claimed there is an indictment, which there is not...
So, *EVERYONE* involved in this is INNOCENT...
ROTFLMAO
Laugh all you want.. But just like ya'all touted that NOT-45 was innocent of all criminal charges, so it is with everyone that YOU are accusing of crimes.
They are INNOCENT because they haven't been proven guilty in a court of law......
THAT is fact...
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/338042-trump-allies-on-the-offensive-against-special-counsel-mueller
Mueller is going down!!! :D
They are INNOCENT because they haven't been proven guilty in a court of law......
THAT is fact...
the second part of that is fact, the first part is opinion. just because someone is PRESUMED innocent by LAW, doesn't mean they ARE innocent. just the FBI, SC and congressional investigations into russia are presumed valid until they conclude. we won't know either answer to that until the investigations conclude, indictments are (or aren't) handed down, and trials are (or aren't) held.
based on the 100+ facts on bill moyers' timeline (i stopped counting once i got past 100), i'd say the currently available evidence tilts heavily toward flynn, page, manafort and possibly others being guilty of espionage, and trump having obstructed an investigation of real crimes, rather than impeding a fraud or a witch-hunt.
JL
Kick [71] Duh! If HRC won and Trump lost:
(1) The FBI would still be investigating Trump/Russia,
(2) They would still be trying to impeach the President.
That's the toxic truth. Fact is, a lot of Republicans voted for Trump KNOWING that his ignorance and many other flaws would incite the Democrats to push back exactly the way they have, because they're itching for a fight. Hence, all of that nonsensical stuff about 'civil war' that M was linking to yesterday.
Particularly, some parts of the alt-right wallow in the delusion that Race War is right around the corner, and only needs the right 'spark' to go national. They've been telling each other this since the days of Charlie Manson. Sad.
You don't even have to go back that far to find Bannon spewing the same sort of nonsense. I wouldn't be the least surprised to learn that Bannon's the one who keeps giving Trump's cellphone back to him so that he can Tweet some more. Bannon wants chaos - he's openly said so.
As for Trump, that makes him part tool, part willing participant. How aware you think he is of his role depends on how self-aware one thinks he is generally. Ironically, Democrats may be Trump's greatest allies if a stupidity defense is ever needed.
who wants to bet that michale's next response is an ad hominem argument against bill moyers' credibility or impartiality?
JL
JL
72
http://billmoyers.com/story/the-trump-resistance-plan-a-timeline-russia-and-president-trump/
Oh, I like that timeline A LOT. Thank you. :)
Mueller is a Republican and, from all accounts, a LOYAL Republican...
Dims are gonna get hosed!!! :D
- Michale 5/17/17
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/17/kid-president/#comment-100174
Especially given the accelerating pace of Trump's ongoing Scandalpalooza.
Actually, having Mueller appointed is the BEST thing that could have happened to President Trump...
:D
- Michale 5/18/17
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/18/scandalpalooza/#comment-100265
I can picture Director Mueller's first meeting with President Trump..
"Don't worry, Mr President.. Yer in the clear. Now, with this blank check I have, let's see what we can dig up on the Democrats, shall we?!?"
:D
and
And the Democrats, and ya'all incidentally, will *HAVE* to accept EVERYTHING that Director Mueller comes up with because they (and ya'all) have gone on record as touting the integrity and honesty of Director Mueller...
It's going to be a fun time for Michale... :D
- Michale 5/18/17
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/18/scandalpalooza/#comment-100271
While watching TRMS with my brother last night, I made the remark that deep down, Adam Schiff knows that his role is to keep the investigation on 'warm' until the Democrats retake the House in 2018.
The WORST thing that could happen to the Dems is if Mueller completes his investigation, and exonerates Trump or leaves us with a giant 'maybe' before that happens, giving the GOP the excuse to shut down the public hearings in Congress and claim that the matter is settled.
So the BEST thing that could happen now would be for Trump to fire Mueller. That would both incite Democrats (and some Republicans) further, and delay the possibility that the investigation is completed before Democrats can take full advantage of it.
TRUMP APPROVAL HITS 50%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jun16
Ouch!!!! That's just GOTTA hurt!! :D
TRUMP APPROVAL HITS 50% Ouch!!!! That's just GOTTA hurt!
a) Rasmussen has a known republican bias
b) meh.
Neil,
You are as bad as Kick...
What part of "YOU ALL HAVE BEEN PLAYED" do you not understand???
I take a Republican and apply YA'ALL'S standards and beliefs ABOUT Republicans to this particular Republican..
And ya'all do a COMPLETE 180 and say "Oh no, THIS Republican is an honorable Republican!!! THIS Republican has integrity!!! THIS Republican is just and true!!!! THIS Republican will be good and fair and just!!!"
I have just proven beyond *ANY* doubt how utterly and unequivocally ya'all are enslaved by Party Dogma and ideology...
If Party agenda demands it, ya'all will drop to your knees and fellate even a Republican if that's what your Party tells ya'all to do.. :D
Congratulations..
Ya'all have just been utterly and completely PLAYED by your's truly!!!
"Don't cross brains with Spock. He will cut you to pieces every time!"
-Ensign Sulu
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/05/18/scandalpalooza/#comment-100377
:D
Out of deference to our new-found comity, I ommitted the mocking laughter.. :D
a) Rasmussen has a known republican bias.
OF COURSE it does...
Every poll that disagrees with ya'all hysteria *MUST* have a "known republican bias", right???
JL?? Ad Hominemn Fallacy???
So the BEST thing that could happen now would be for Trump to fire Mueller. That would both incite Democrats (and some Republicans) further,
Yep and cause the Democrats to overreach and quite likely be a few more assassination attempts on Republicans and maybe even the President, which will guarantee that Democrats can't get elected dog catcher in 2018....
50% approval rating for the President..
Quite likely because of the magnificent way he handled the scumbag Democrat terrorist attack on Republicans..
Starbucks customer says she was bullied for supporting Trump
http://www.fox46charlotte.com/news/local-news/261436816-story
The "tolerance" of the Left Wing...
And ya'all think THAT is going to win the Dumbocrats votes in 2018???
On what planet!???
This List Of Attacks Against Conservatives Is Mind Blowing
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/this-list-of-attacks-against-conservatives-is-mind-blowing/
THIS is going to win Dumbocrats votes in 2018???
JL?? Ad Hominemn Fallacy???
you're learning!
That's right! He can be taught!
http://www.craveonline.com/assets/uploads/2015/07/Aladdin-Genie-Robin-Williams-642x362.jpg
rasmussen does tend to skew conservative, but that's due to different methodology and sampling. they still have trump 11 points underwater in their approval index (strong approve - strong disapprove), but i'd say the poll reflects cautious optimism.
JL
This List Of Attacks Against Conservatives Is Mind Blowing
Only when NOT compared to attacks against democrats, blacks, muslims, latinos, the constitution, etc.
That's right! He can be taught!
http://www.craveonline.com/assets/uploads/2015/07/Aladdin-Genie-Robin-Williams-642x362.jpg
hehehehehehe Kudos...
Only when NOT compared to attacks against democrats, blacks, muslims, latinos, the constitution, etc.
Cites where it's political and people were shot in the last 20 years???
And are NOT BOOB attacks, but rather escalating systematic attacks.....
I know, I know... It's very specific criteria..
That's because I am making a very specific point that I won't allow you to obfuscate with semantical and technical bullshit....
The Left Wing, en masse, has grown more and more hateful and violent in the past year...
I just want to know how you expect THAT modus operandi to attract new voters and allow the Dumbocrats to win elections..
The Left Wing, en masse, has grown more and more hateful and violent in the past year...
Nice try, but most of the events on the 'list' you linked to were either high school kids (you should have seen some of the fights we got into in the 1960's), or at political events where there were competing protests.
I know that you desperately want to paint Democrats as the bad guys. The better to justify the trashing of another policy that helps people or makes the world better. The better to justify taking food from old people so that billionaires can get tax breaks. The better to justify cozying to skinheads, bigots, klan and other deplorables to get your guy elected.
It's all about what Tucker Carlson says it is: drinking the tears of liberals. The Republican mean streak is deep and dark and famous, and it's been that way since the days of Nixon.
Gallup:
Approve: 38%
Disapprove: 57%
Net: -19%
Real Clear Average:
Approve: 39.9%
Disapprove: 53.6%
Net: -13.7%
RE: MORE MUELLER LEAKS JOLT DC
Using [13] as a template:
And I am also constrained to point out that there is not a SINGLE bit of evidence, not a SCINTILLA of fact, not a SMIDGEN of logic that even SLIGHTLY indicates that a SINGLE NOT-45 vote was switched to a Trump vote.. leak has originated in the SC's Office..
NONE.... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA.....
THIS IS FACT....
My modification is bold italics. Could be SenIntel staff for some...could be visible lawyering up for others. Could be false claims from a Let's Get Jared wing under the West Wing.
As you so often - often rightly - point out, it could be anything if you can't prove one thing.
Of course, I meant to strike-through starting at 'NOT-45 ... in the above post.
RE: Attribution of Trump's Razor (previous thread):
The first mention, on this site, was likely me, a short while back. It originates with the TPM staff, and has been used several times by Josh Marshall. Its efficacy is being increasingly superseded by simply identifying the most obvious thing which will win him the moment.
RE: Ongoing shitstorm in general:
It's really easy these days to get ahead of one's skis. Under it all, practically, is the political facts that a Congress has no cause to withdraw support of their party's president so long as they trust that one of three things will be delivered:
coattails, patronage, or signed enactments:agenda.
The intensity of the barrage of "bombshells" targeting the administration is really without prededent. Its intent, of course, is to shake and degrade, if not destroy, the Trump base.
There has been a measure of voters unwavering in support of the president. Polling indicates that measure remaining very solid. So the coat tails remain, and, in the political calculus of many, Trump has no where to go but up.
Today is the 73rd anniversary of the first Allied landings on Saipan. Taking Saipan enabled the launch of the home islands offensive in WWII.
Following the most concentrated air and naval bombardment of a defined target in history, the armies began to land in strength following the Marines the day before.
The Allies annihilated 30- of 31- thousand Japanese defenders and over 20 thousand civilians. The defenses withstood the bombardment; the battle was fought unit against unit and soldier against soldier. The Allies had over 3 thousand killed among nearly 14 thousand casualties.
From Saipan, the bombers could in strength reach the home islands, including Tokyo. In the waging of the battle, a message had been delivered to the Japanese leadership of what they could expect from anything but surrender.
We should never forget the sacrifices of our Greatest generation. Neither, I think, should anybody fail to remember what kind of costs may attend unbridled, entitled elites constructed around unchecked authoritarians.
When I re-read what I wrote above, I see the abundant mistakes in typo and tense.
In defense I say: take it as semiotic.
That's half of a term I first heard used today by some snooty guy. The other half is "isomorphism."
From a quick Google, I think that's what you get if you employ something as a metaphor for something else, but it's not really.
Enjoy a pleasant, bombshell-free weekend.
LB,
As you so often - often rightly - point out, it could be anything if you can't prove one thing.
Exactly.. Thank you... :D
But be careful..
Agreeing with me has been known to be hazardous to a one's Weigantian health.. :D
nypoet
19
"russian influence on our vote was achieved solely through "information warfare" (e.g. hacking voter rolls, targeting propaganda, promoting false reports, stealing and releasing political operatives' e-mails, planting false e-mails). this may have been attempted before, but never before achieved with such effectiveness."
26
"yes, the evidence is circumstantial"
Evidence of actual influence on the vote is nonexistent.
The evidence of Russian government involvement at all is AT BEST circumstantial in everything from the DNC and Podesta leaks to the phishing scams to gain access to "voter rolls" (which was access to one system not actually affecting the voter rolls... and phishing isn't technically hacking, but whatever), to fake emails and fake news from Macedonian profiteers.
It remains possible that people unaffiliated with Russia are responsible for much or even all of those things. And I would use the term likely instead of possible, because there are methods to reveal more than what has been revealed about the sources of the "hacking", and it either hasn't been pursued or it hasn't been revealed... and if there was more definitive evidence, a leak about it seems likely.
I decided to use the term possible, because there remains a remote possibility one or more agencies or courts has maintained a well kept secret.
On the other hand, the evidence for financial conflicts (which you refer to in other comments) by several Trump advisors/appointees and possibly Trump and his family is much stronger... as are charges for lying on disclosure forms and/or charges based on attempts to cover up those issues.
But those are issues surrounding corruption for influence, not interference in the election... not an "attack" as CW frames it in this column.
I think the distinction should be made, and that the continuing conflation of the two issues may end up being counterproductive... that the former should be quietly dropped and the latter pursued vigorously...
... and, I know that my opinion there is not widely shared.
A
Al,
The evidence of Russian government involvement at all is AT BEST circumstantial
So, in other words, you know far more than the US intelligence community.
I going to have to start paying more attention to your comments here ... ;)