When will the rest of the shoes drop (on Trump)?

Spread the love

The whirlwind of activity by juries and prosecutors over the last few days might make you think that a whole bunch of stuff is about to happen. Also, the severity of what has happened may make you think that Trump has suffered a major blow, that deeply nefarious actions have been finally exposed and we are now on our way to a resolution.

Neither of these things is true, and I’ll be happy to explain why.

Caveat: I may be totally wrong about all of this, but when I add things up I get this particular story.

First, note that it simply isn’t true that Trump has finally been implicated in a deeply troubling and nefarious plot. Misappropriation of money in a campaign is a big deal, but it isn’t nearly as big a deal as other things he is accused of doing. It may be the case that Trump directly conspired with a foreign power to take the presidency away from the American people, in order to serve that foreign power’s interests. That is a LOT worse than illegally spending hush money to cover up an affair. It may be that Trump and his family have attempted, perhaps somewhat successfully, to profit in the multi-billion dollar range, from overseas deals in several countries. That’s not quite as bad as letting a foreign power take over the country, but it is deeply craven nonetheless. Less illegal but worse than almost anything, Trump is serving masters in industry, for reasons not entirely clear, and setting the US and the world back a decade, sometimes up to three decades, in our advancement in important areas of the environment, international relations, and so on.

He had extramarital sex with some women and tried to hide it. So did some of our greatest presidents, I suspect. I’m not impressed. We ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

On the other point, the sudden escalation. Some of this is coincidence, likely, but there may be a good reason that several moves have suddenly been made in this massive multi-player chess game. August is almost over, and the carriage turns into a pumpkin at midnight on September 5th.

There is a general election on November 6th. The US Justice Department has a tradition of avoiding taking actions of their own that could influence elections for 60 days before an election. The fact that FBI Director Comey broke that rule in 2016, and that this caused major problems, is reason to expect the US Justice Department to be stricter than ever about this.

I strongly suspect there will be little initiation of anything from both federal and state level agencies until after the election. Judges do what judges do, so the Manafort trial will proceed, and prosecutors in Virginia are on a tight time table to decide if they will re-try Manafort on the ten counts that mistrialed. So stuff is going to happen. But, that large collection of shoes yet to drop is going to be held in abeyance for a couple of months. Prosecutors may hope we’ve seen enough action to know they are out there doing their jobs, and they can more comfortably hold off for now.

And, of course, the press will continue to act, and who the heck knows what kind of “October Surprise” Giuliani and the likes of Devin Nunes will try to cook up. Fortunately, the competency of the stalwart Trumpists in the Republican Congress is fairly limited, so that may be more of a popcorn seller than an actual meaningful event.

I could be wrong, but in my view, we are going to have a fairly quite September and October along this particular front. Then, of course ….

Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:

In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.

Spread the love

78 thoughts on “When will the rest of the shoes drop (on Trump)?

  1. No mention of the team of prosecutors that Jeff Sessions has investigating the Hillary /Obama spying team.
    Strange that Adam Schiff and other Democrats demanded that Peter Strzok’s testimony be released to the public, but none of them have made any demands about Lisa Page’s testimony.

    1. None of which include a single indication that any evidence whatsoever exists supporting the rightwing… claim that the ‘Hillary /Obama spying team’ ever existed.

    2. Yea, Sessions is being quiet, only revealing when forced to by Congress.
      So far only the Wolfe case is known. And note they sat on that for six months after arresting him before announcing it.

    3. Greg, next time ya see a reporter could you maybe let him/her know that there is rumoured to be rather large stockpiles of WMDs in USA with full support from the democrats.
      It’s a bloody good story for a journo cuz
      every man and his dog knows WMDs are bad and maybe it’s time a journo started asking some questions.
      Yank journos are the most useless fucking idiots at asking pertinent questions.

    4. Yea, Sessions is being quiet, only revealing when forced to by Congress.

      You’re a laugh a minute, sometimes.

      Funny how Teh Donald and Sessions have fallen out, isn’t it? Didn’t they used to be besties? And weirder still, if Sessions is sitting on a bunch of evidence about the ‘Hillary /Obama spying team’.

    5. Or you could have them read the statements made by Jeff Sessions

      There was no spy team — if you don’t know the definition of spy look it up. If you do know, and understand that there was no spy but continue to say so, you’re simply lying.

      The Republicans have been whining about the FBI’s investigation into Trump’s campaign, and Sessions has said they are looking into whether FBI and department officials acted properly in obtaining the warrant concerning Carter Page. They (Republicans) are still claiming that the judge wasn’t informed that the request relied heavily on the Steele dossier , and that is the entire reason the Mueller investigation was started.

      Which is complete crap — except in the minds of the conspiracy folks (see mikeN’s history) — since the FBI was eyeing and interested in Page far before the dossier appeared (Paupadopolis (sp?) chatted a little too much with an Australian diplomat).

      Safe tip: If mikeN comes out with something that would be earth shattering if it were true, it isn’t true.

    6. >Funny how Teh Donald and Sessions have fallen out, isn’t it? Didn’t they used to be besties? And weirder still, if Sessions is sitting on a bunch of evidence about the ‘Hillary /Obama spying team’.

      Yea it funny. Like Trump has no idea he could fire Sessions. Instead he just goes onto Twitter and whines about how horrible his AG is. Will no one rid me of this terrible Attorney General?

  2. Disagree. See the distinction between committing a crime and conspiring to commit a crime:
    Adam Davidson has had some very good articles on Trump’s worsened predicament, (as have others):

    My impression is that the point has been reached where a change in quantity becomes a change in quality. Persons who know an awful lot and constitute serious threats to Trump are providing evidence and others who now feel themselves at risk are likely to do the same. Trump may be able to stop Mueller, but he can’t stop all the investigations or end his legal problems.

    I agree that what’s happening won’t have consequences until after the elections (which aren’t far off), but what’s happening – a steadily deteriorating legal situation – could have consequences for the election.

    1. Can someone explain the significance of Trump’s knowing about Trump Tower meeting beforehand?

      Sure. If Trump knew in advance that there was to be a meeting where the Russians were offering his top campaign bods dirt on HRC, and he didn’t phone the FBI, then that would be collusion. With the Russians. To influence the election.

    2. Talk about being dim. As BBD said, it’s collusion with a foreign power (not even a friendly one) to interfere in the election process. Don’t know anything about US laws, but it obviously must be illegal otherwise they wouldn’t be investigating it. So the central question is: did the corrupt, orange baboon know about it. Of f…ing course he did. His dimwitted son rang a blocked phone number before and after the meeting. Who* (exercise for BillyGoat _ should it be who or whom?) could he have called? Hmmm…that’s a hard one. MikeN and other zombies would say that it could be anyone, maybe his hairdresser even. More astute people would ask: who benefits from that info and who does Trump Jr answer to. And wouldn’t you know it, but his dad also has a blocked number! Gee, almost forgot the “I hope the Russian find Hillary’s emails” pitch to the zombies. The Russians almost immediately complied with that request, as if on cue. But regardless of the evidence, “No collusion!”, “No collusion!”, the brainwashed zombies scream.

      *one is technically correct but sounds too pompous. The other one is acceptable through common usage. Well, I think it’s acceptable. Maybe someone more competent in English can confirm.

    3. Let me clarify. I meant vs Jr and Manafort and Kushner being at the meeting.
      It would expose Trump in a lie where he says he didn’t know about it, buy beyond that what’s the difference?

    4. If MikeN is interested in facts rather than obfuscation – which I very much doubt – this article should help.

      Jp mentioned the calls that Jr. made to a blocked number. If it can be proven that the calls were to Sr., especially in light of his misleading statement about the meeting, it would show that he had prior knowledge of the meeting and was immediately informed about it afterwards, which might make him liable to conspiracy charges and would strengthen the obstruction of justice case against him. (Please see my previous comment, first link.)

      Grammar: After a preposition I think who sounds wrong.

    5. Oh, and the recent events could provide evidence for a series of other crimes, such as failure to perform due diligence, money laundering, tax fraud. Trump’s troubles aren’t limited to the Russian part of the investigation. That’s just one part – albeit the biggest – in a medley of corruption.

    6. It would expose Trump in a lie where he says he didn’t know about it, buy beyond that what’s the difference?

      I just told you. Read the words. Or pretend not to understand the facts; makes no odds. Nobody much cares about you any more, if they ever did.

    7. cosmicomic,

      “who could he have called”
      “whom could he have called”

      “whom” is correct as it’s the object of the sentence; “he called him”, not “he called he”. But I think that 90% of the time, apart from very formal writing, “who” would be used in that sentence, or similar sentences. “whom” sounds very pompous.

      Similarly, “who is the parcel for?” vs “whom is the parcel for?”. The first one sounds more natural, even if it’s not grammatically correct, and in my opinion that’s the one that would be used by the vast majority of people. So, what I was wondering is: if an ungrammatical phrase is used often enough by the majority of people for long enough, by dint of it’s widespread usage does it become acceptable.

    8. JP, I doubt Jr. called Trump. It looks likely, but if if he did

      1) He said he didn’t. Trump said he didn’t.
      2) Mueller knows who the call was to.
      3) Jr would be indicted by now for making false statements.

      It is possible that Jr told Mueller he called Trump and is only lying publicly, but I believe he testified to Congress as well. Also, these details came out after the Mueller investigation started, so he had to know a lie on this would be caught.

      I suppose it’s possible they had an elaborate communications scheme set up, where Mueller sees the phone call went to X, but X is just a third party who then arranges communication down the line, and also will testify to Mueller that the call from Jr was about Y.

    9. My brains thinks “…for whom is the parcel?” rings most appropriately, if not sonorously…

    10. Jp
      After a preposition: To whom did you give it. You’re relying on whom?!
      None of your examples adhere to my specification. For me, to who did you give it sounds wrong, but who did you give it to doesn’t. Neither does who are you relying on. Whom in those cases would be correct, but sound archaic, which I don’t mind, but we all have our ideosyncrasies, and, aside from the idiots who proudly proclaim that they don’t give a shit, we all have our personal lists of mistakes we find acceptable and unacceptable.

      Unfortunately, the name cosmicomics is a letter too long for the current layout.
      Here’s what it’s about:

    11. Jp
      “So, what I was wondering is: if an ungrammatical phrase is used often enough by the majority of people for long enough, by dint of it’s widespread usage does it become acceptable.”
      Grammar can change. So can spellings and pronunciations. I think your description would describe how it happens.

  3. He had nothing to call the FBI with, as the Russians gave him no info. Hillary didn’t go the FBI until after her Russian sources provided dirt on Trump. And it wasn’t Hillary herself, but thru Chris Steele.

    1. He had nothing to call the FBI with, as the Russians gave him no info.

      Not informing the FBI about the approach itself by the Russians constitutes collusion. As you have been told dozens of times now. Stop trying to cover for these treasonous bastards with every fibre of your being.

      The Russians need not have given the Trump campaign any information directly. The offer was to do damage to HRC, which their ongoing and subsequent hackery undoubtedly did.

      So the silence of the Trump campaign – running right to Trump himself – about what they were offered by the Russians is collusion.

    2. Or when the Ukrainians gave her stuff? Looks like she went to the media to get Manafort fired.

    3. And notice that the Trump Tower meeting was left out of the dossier. Glenn Simpson claims he didn’t know about it, even though he met with the Russian lady the day before and the day after the meeting. He also knows one of the other attendees, Rinat A. who testified to Congress about the meeting.

      This means that Simpson’s client Putin took priority over his client Hillary. Putin lobbying against the Magnitsky Act was more important than taking down Trump. Inclusion of details about the Trump Tower meeting, which I believe was not available at the time the dossier was written, would have greatly enhanced its credibility.

  4. Whataboutism. Again.

    The issue is collusion with the Russians by the Trump campaign. Let’s stick to the question at hand – and under legal investigation – rather than play irritatingly transparent evasion games.

    Or you will piss me off again.

    1. I’m not going to hold Trump responsible for some rules invented on the fly.

      What the fuck are you on about? Nothing here was ‘invented on the fly’. As usual, when cornered during a defence of the indefensible, you just make shit up to avoid admitting that there is a huge, stinking pile of excrement dead centre of the room.

    2. Campaigns do all sorts of shady stuff. Steve Bannon’s statement wasn’t that they shouldn’t have gone to the meeting, but that it should have been done with low levels. Brian Fallon said he would have gone to Europe to get stuff on Trump, and was regretting the Steele Dossier couldn’t be confirmed during the campaign. This was material gathered by giving money to sources either connected to the Kremlin or directly in the Kremlin.

      The idea that he took a meeting that was setup by people connected to his opponent is somehow a criminal act or even an impeachable one is ridiculous, when these sort of rules have never been described before.

      John Kerry had Brits working on his campaign. They had the sense to assign them to really menial tasks, not because it was criminal or against a rule, but because it would look bad.

    3. I’m not going to hold Trump responsible for some rules invented on the fly.

      Then it’s a very good thing that is 180 degrees away from what is actually happening.

    4. Campaigns do all sorts of shady stuff.

      Oh no. We are talking about collusion with Russian state-sponsored hackery designed to distort the results of a presidential election in favour of Putin’s preferred candidate. It’s fucking treason, not ‘shady stuff’. Christ, you’ll say anything, won’t you? Unbelievable.

    5. This is the desperation. The Steele Dossier story is falling apart, so Dems have to provide something else to keep their base riled up. They shift to we will impeach over the Trump Tower meeting, or obstruction of justice(which seems to be disappearing too), or campaign finance violations. Maybe the emoluments clause will show up again.
      Will they ever admit that the Russia collusion story they told us in early 2017 was a hoax?

    6. There you go again, accusing Trump of conspiring to hacking DNC.

      There *you* go again pretending not to understand what I wrote so you can avoid engaging with me because you are a case study in bad faith.

      The Russians did the hacking. The Trump campaign’s act of collusion was choosing not to notify the FBI that it had been offered help by a hostile foreign power.

      Now there exists a slight possibility that you are too stupid to understand this, but I doubt that to be the case. So you are most likely being a disingenuous scumbag again. Reminds me of the time when you tried to pretend that a neonazi murderer wasn’t in fact a neonazi murderer.

    7. “Campaigns do all sorts of shady stuff.”
      This is an evidence-free generalization that aims to eliminate differences in kind and degree in order to salvage Trump by suggesting he’s just like all the others. He isn’t. Neither are the people he surrounds himself with. It reminds me of a statement a pathological liar I used to know made: “So I lie. Everyone lies.”

    8. “The Steele Dossier story is falling apart…”
      This is a lie fueled by a combination of wishful thinking and shit sources. Not every detail in the dossier is correct, nor was it expected to be. The major allegations have been substantiated:

      “Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said more of the so-called Steele dossier’s claims are proving to be true.

      “In an interview with Salon, Clapper said the dossier, part of which lays out alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, has been corroborated by subsequent U.S. investigations.

      “The Obama-era intelligence chief stressed that while the most “salacious” claims in the dossier have not been proven to be true, “more and more” of the dossier’s other allegations about President Trump and his allies’ ties to Russia have been backed up over time.”

      “…so Dems have to provide something else to keep their base riled up.”
      First, the conclusion is based on a false premise. Second, Democrats don’t have to provide anything. Trump and his associates are an everflowing source of corruption. Trump is a gift that keeps on giving. He makes me think of the dog food that “makes its own gravy.”

    9. Clapper has been telling lies about the dossier from the beginning.
      He went on to CNN to give an interview denying that he leaked details of Comey’s meeting with Trump to the media. Clapper was Jake Tapper’s source on the story. He admitted it to Congress after first lying about it, only when specifically asked about Tapper. This also reflects poorly on CNN putting him up to give this denial when they know he’s lying.
      Details of dossier that are verified are things that were in the news when the memos were written. The 19.5% sale of an energy company, for which Carter Page was allegedly offered the brokerage fees(lots of people get this wrong and say Page was offered the whole thing) in exchange for Trump’s dropping sanctions against Russia, was in the news. Russians trying to hack was publicly accused story by DNC for months by the time Steele wrote about it. Only he tried to throw in that Michael Cohen went to Prague to pay off the hackers. Major error. There was another Michael Cohen that went to Prague. Sign that they were deliberately trying to frame Cohen and thus Trump and that the dossier was made up.

    10. There you go again, accusing Trump of conspiring to hacking DNC.


      Russia, if you’re listening…

    11. Hillary had deleted her e-mails. So the only way that could be a call to Russia to hack Hillary’s e-mails is if you are saying Hillary lied.
      It was a joke, alluding to the idea that Russia had already gotten into her server, which Hillary and the rest of the Democrats deny. James Comey covered it up with ‘no evidence’.
      Now if Russia did get into her server, it serves the national interest to know this.

    12. I have a theory about the “alternative facts” echo chamber. Trump supporters meet secretly in hidden places. They form a circle, shave their heads, smear them with vaseline, and then shove them up each others ass. Then they change positions and the shit-swallowing Trump loyalty ritual is repeated. This can explain not only why they’re full of shit, but why they’re full of the same shit.

    13. And on and on Mikey goes, spewing out yet more bullshit and blanking the facts I and other raise – and their implications.

      As I said, a case study in bad faith.

    14. Cosmic, that whole factcheck hinges on believing James Clapper’s statement to the factchecker, when the item being checked is whether Clapper lied in public before telling the truth under oath.

    15. So the only way that could be a call to Russia to hack Hillary’s e-mails is if you are saying Hillary lied.

      Fallacious logic. I’m not saying that Clinton lied, and that could be a call to Russia whether or not she lied. Further, it could be a call to Russia without any recourse at all to the question of whether Clinton lied.

      You really do not debate well.

      It was a joke, alluding to the idea that Russia had already gotten into her server, which Hillary and the rest of the Democrats deny.

      Saying that it was a joke does not make it so. And even if it was, inciting crime is a crime, whether or not one was joking.

    16. It turns out that my “alternative facts” echo chamber theory isn’t far from the truth. A new book compares the veracity and self-correctional ability of center/left and right wing media:

      “The two sides are not, in fact, equal when it comes to evaluating “news” stories, or even in how they view reality. Liberals want facts; conservatives want their biases reinforced. Liberals embrace journalism; conservatives believe propaganda…

      “Referring to the orgy-island story, the authors note that “not one right-wing outlet came out to criticize and expose this blatant lie for what it was. In the grip of the propaganda feedback loop, the right-wing media ecosystem had no mechanism for self-correction, and instead exhibited dynamics of self-reinforcement, confirmation, and repetition so that readers, viewers and listeners encountered multiple versions of the same story, over months, to the point that both recall and credibility were enhanced.””

      And so it is with “Obama spied on Trump,” “Clapper lied,” and the other fact-free regurgitated “proofs” that MikeN and his allies present.

    17. Bernard J.
      “It was a joke.”

      This isn’t an isolated statement. It’s part of a pattern of irresponsibility and dishonesty. When “conservatives” find that they’ve said/written something that causes a significant backlash, they backtrack by calling it a joke. They don’t say it was wrong, they don’t apologize. In this respect they’re taking their cue from Trump, and it’s telling that what Trump supporters find most appealing about him aren’t his policies, but his personality, his attitude, his care-free lack of toilet training.

  5. So, now that the obfuscatory rhetoric has been dealt with, we can return to the facts.

    Which are:

    1/ Trump shifted from passive collaboration to active collusion the instant he chose not to inform the FBI of the Russian offer.

    2/ There was no need for the Russians to give the Trump campaign any information for collusion to occur – they interfered with the election by hackery.

    3/ This constitutes an attack on American democracy by a hostile foreign power.

    4/ Those who try to obfuscate this fact are abetting the original treason.

    1. Did Trump discuss or have knowledge of Russian hacking or leaking beforehand?
      You are turning one meeting to get info into blaming them for hacking.

    2. Did Trump discuss or have knowledge of Russian hacking or leaking beforehand?

      Irrelevant to the point, as I have already explained twice.

      You are turning one meeting to get info into blaming them for hacking.

      No, another evasive misrepresentation, as already explained, twice.

      Either read what I write and respond to what I write, or fuck off with your nonsense.

    3. The Steele Dossier story is falling apart

      Well, in your mind, yes, but in reality, not so much.

    4. James Comey covered it up with ‘no evidence’.

      And you know it is a coverup based on what information? None, I assume.

      Now if Russia did get into her server, it serves the national interest to know this.

      Why aren’t you rambling on about the nation needing to know about the aliens from Venus getting into her server? That has the same amount of evidence as the other stuff you hyperventilate over.

    5. As we’ve long known, mikeN doesn’t care about facts, and when checks on his comments show he’s wrong it’s due to some grand conspiracy in the fact checkers, not to the fact that he’s simply repeating lies.

      Initially I was under the impression that mikeN was just a little off and was truly interested in honest discussions and getting to facts. It quickly became clear that I could not have been more wrong.

    6. Dean, if Russia did not get into Hillary’s server, then Trump’s call to get her e-mails is pointless, as the e-mails have been deleted.
      Case 1) Russia got into Hillary’s server, Hillary deleted her e-mails.
      Case 2) Russia got into Hillary’s server, Hillary did not delete her e-mails.
      Case 3) Russia did not get into Hillary’s server, Hillary deleted her e-mails.
      Case 4) Russia did not get into Hillary’s server, Hillary did not delete her e-mails.

      You are eliminating Cases 1 and 2. Then Trump’s call for Russia to get Hillary’s e-mails is only relevant if Hillary lied. In Case 3, Trump’s statement is a joke.

    7. Dean, if Russia did not get into Hillary’s server, then Trump’s call to get her e-mails is pointless

      So against a background of proven Russian hackery and pervasive Russian links with the Trump campaign, Trump’s call to hack the political opposition in an election is okay.

      That’s what you are saying.

      Now you might turn around and say that all the Russian links shit came out later and Trump didn’t know. There are two problems with this. First, if his campaign team collaborated with the Russians, then it’s still game over even if DT makes out that he didn’t know. Second, I don’t believe that DT did not know what was going on, all the way through. You don’t, either.

  6. … or when the Ukrainians gave her stuff?

    Another like from mikeN. The original story he tries to refer to made no comment about her receiving information from “Ukrainians”, only some initial contact between Ukrainians (unclear whether they were acting for the government, but the details indicate they were not, unlike the Russians who met with Trump’s people who were directly connected to the government) and some at the DNC. The usual paid Trump propagandists: blaze, hannity, the man with the fake degrees and Nazi sympathies gorka, ingraham, dailycaller, stephani ruhle, expanded it to imply, as mikeN did, that it reaches the same level as what we know occurred with Trump’s people.

    No conspiracy unsupported by fact is too extreme for those clowns.

    1. That wasn’t mentioned in the real news sites, but it also wasn’t with Hillary’s people.

      Enough with your raising false and irrelevant points.

  7. From Pulitzer Prize Winning Politifact:
    “…there was nothing inherently illegal in the quest for information on Manafort and how that might link Donald Trump to Russia. Wittes noted that from a research perspective, since Manafort’s work took place in Ukraine, “you pretty much have to go to the Ukrainians to get that.”

    Other details also separate the two narratives.

    Ukraine is seen as an ally to the United States, while Russia is at best a competitor and often called an enemy.”

    Just sayin.

    1. It’s interesting to compare John McCain and Trump re Manafort’s sleaziness. Back in 2008 Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, had worked with Manafort for years at a lobbying firm that was sliming around with Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska. Manafort and Davis did what they could to get McCain and Deripaska together, even holding a 70th birthday party for McCain on a yacht. But then
      the sleaze that followed Manafort then became an issue:

      The Atlantic reported that McCain grew concerned after he learned Manafort was allegedly entangled with Russian oligarchs. An aide for the late senator told the news outlet that McCain ordered Manafort and Davis to cut ties with pro-Russia clients.

      Ties weren’t cut.

      In the months that followed, Manafort wanted to head efforts to organize the Republican National Convention. However, McCain turned him down amid evidence of his ties to individuals with Kremlin links, The Atlantic reported.

      There were many things I didn’t agree with, or like, about McCain and what he did, but there is no doubt that he has a sense of dignity and was concerned about the United States, and neither of those things can be said about Trump or his supporters.

  8. On May 10, 2017, US President Donald Trump met with Sergey Viktorovich Lavrov, foreign minister of Russia, and Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak, a Russian senior diplomat and politician, in the oval office. I don’t know if you know how these things work, but those two are essentially spy handlers, Lavrov, globally, and Kislyak, at the time, in the US. US President Donald Trump disclosed classified information to Russian government representatives during that meeting, creating political and security concerns in the United States and its allies, especially Israel. That was a point at which Trump should have been impeached, right there. But he wasn’t. The Republicans rolled over like good lap dogs. Arf. Arf. A photographer from Russian News Agency TASS was present, but no other press. So, basically, the world’s most notorious Russian propaganda agency was there, but no US press.

    Why did Donald Trump look red faced and choking in the Tass released photo? And why was the oval office “re-decorated” [i.e., stripped to the studs for bugs] shortly after this odious, hideous, treasonous meeting? Why does trump like the Russian Foreign Minister more than an American counterpart, like, say a certain former US Secretary of State who was hard on Russia? Why does Trump support a white nationalist agenda in a multi-racial nation? Why does trump favor the Russian propaganda organ over the US press? Why? Because all of this benefits Russia. None of this benefits the US.

    Any attempt to paint Trump as anything other than a treasonous piece of shit is just turd gilding. In a better world, he would have been impeached long ago.

    1. “In a better world, he would have been impeached long ago.”

      In an even better world, there’d be no need to impeach him in the first place, because Hillary would be president.

      Of course … in that world (sigh) the GOP House would’ve already have trumped up (so to speak) articles of impeachment against her …

    2. Giving classified information to Lavrov and Kislyak? Are you suggesting that Trump revoke Trump’s security clearance? What about Bruce Ohr?

      “In nearly three decades at the Justice Department, Mr. Ohr has made a career of supporting and facilitating important cases that targeted Russian organized crime. Now he is a target of President Trump, who has put his security clearance under review and attacked him publicly, and allies.”

      With good reason. Some of those Russian criminals could have provided money for Trump’s properties. Not to mention this:

      “Mr. Ohr met with Mr. Steele almost a dozen times beginning in late 2016 through May 2017, according to congressional officials. F.B.I. agents interviewed Mr. Ohr after the meetings and documented the information…

      “But the arrangement was not unusual, former law enforcement officials said. Senior F.B.I. officials were aware of the Steele meetings, and those involved followed internal guidelines, a former official said.

      “Mr. Ohr’s contacts with Mr. Steele were one small part of a broader effort to determine whether the allegations in the dossier were true…”

      Imagine – the meetings “followed internal guidelines!” Attempting to determine whether information that could damage Trump was true! Inexcusable!!

  9. Then Trump’s call for Russia to get Hillary’s e-mails is only relevant if Hillary lied.

    Bullshit. You are clearly omitting facts: Trump’s call for Russia to hack her email was made simply get conspiracy-minded lowlife supporters ramped up on her and take the attention off him. It certainly seems to have work on at least one fool.

    1. But, as with so many things Trump has said, this has backfired by producing evidence against him and creating the need for further diversions, and the “conservative” media are always ready to provide a helping hand. The latest example is the assertion that it was China, not Russia, that hacked Clinton’s emails, which is one dubious assertion on top of another, because there is no evidence that Clinton’s emails were hacked. MikeN’s scholastic breakdown is troll-bait and should not be taken seriously.

      Yesterday’s WaPo article on this provided yet another example of how the “conservative” echo chamber works.

      “Trump provided no details about the alleged hacking, but his tweets came shortly after the online publication of a story by the Daily Caller asserting that a Chinese-owned company operating in the Washington area hacked Clinton’s private server while she was secretary of state and obtained nearly all her emails. The publication cited “two sources briefed on the matter.”
      “Fox News, which is frequently watched by the president, aired a segment on the report Tuesday night, with a guest calling it a bombshell if true.”

      So, the story went from the Daily Caller to Trump and then to Fox News. According to CNBC, the original source was the Republican Trump lickspittle Louie Gohmert.

      The link below, which I cited yesterday, delineates the differences between “conservative” and liberal journalism.

    2. Cosmic, the original source appears to be IC IG, who told FBI about it. Shouldn’t be too hard for Congress to ask this IC IG if this is true. Reporters should be asking him about it(he probably wouldn’t comment). Instead, they are just saying ‘no evidence’.
      The claim is that metadata on Hillary’s e-mails showed a ‘courtesy copy’ being forwarded to another company.

  10. Interesting. Nunes, author of the lie-filled memo known by his name, apparently tried to rescue his reputation, and that of his debunked list of lies, and was told STFU and GTFO.


    On a more concerning note, Trump’s BS tweet about google being biased against him woke long-time lower kudlow. These right-wingers really like the free market and abhor government interference in business, right?


    1. “These right-wingers really like the free market and abhor government interference in business, right?”

      They love states’ rights too.

    2. No idea if this is true or yet another lie, but it is irrelevant to the false claim that the Google search algorithm is deliberately biased against Trump.

      So just more misdirecting bullshit.

  11. Once again NBC has edited a quote in a race story in Florida. It’s not clear that this is as deliberate as their editing of George Zimmerman’s 911 call.

    “…articulate spokesman for those far-left views, and he’s a charismatic candidate. I watched those Democrat debates, and none of that is my cup of tea, but he performed better than those other people there. So we’ve got to work hard to make sure that we continue Florida going in a good direction, let’s build off the success we’ve had on Governor Scott, the last thing we need to do is to monkey this up by trying to embrace…”

  12. Instead, they are just saying ‘no evidence’.

    Again, because there is none. You’ve made many claims that are pure bullshit (huge crowd at Trump’s inauguration, Trayvon Martin was a “thug” who “attacked” his killer, Google made an app for Obama and refused giving it to McCain, and more. It’s the same pattern your Republicans are doing, and the “email hacked by China” crap is more of the same: baseless nonsense meant to take attention off the facts. When you and the Republican leadership have cast your lots in with the neo nazis, white supremacists, and the other scum guiding the right wing’s “philosophy”, telling lie after lie after lie is required.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *