Pfft. Who cares if they are fretting. Republicans did oppo research on him during the primaries. They knew what they were getting because they had a shitload of bad deeds and con man crappola. Jaysus, he had a lawsuit against him during the campaign -how quick they all forget Trump University.
Republicans chose to ignore all of it and continue to do so.
Iâll stick with what Iâve been saying since September of 2016, namely, it (still) looks to me as if Russia has kompromat on the entire GOP.
âThereâll be a tremendous amount of press coverage on this situation, for obvious reasons, and thereâs not as much coverage on the tax plan or the implications of it or our economy,â Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said.
Thatâs your Sophieâs Choice, Marco. You can deal with the press coverage of your Criminal-in-Chief or you can run on the implications of your tax plan that just 37% of registered voters said they supported. And buy some more K-Y for the horse you rode in on.
Seems to me the DOJ guidelines say the opposite â namely that politics should play no role in whether and when prosecutors take steps to investigate or indict:
It could be thereâs been a lot of money flowing in through the NRA, and key figures knew about and welcomed it. McConnell in particular acted to prevent a proper reaction to the election interference, which was partisan to the point of national betrayal and highly, highly suspect. But widespread kompromat, involving, say, dozens or scores of individuals, seems unlikely to have been kept secret forever. Iâll never say never but that scenario, eh, I donât know. Itâs just hard to keep stuff secret, and it becomes exponentially harder the more people you involve.
I was listening to a progressive radio host talking about why Democrats are not bringing up impeachment and running on that. Many on our side still donât seem to grasp that politics is local and that you canât run anyone on anything - that whatâs good in Dallas is good in Oklahoma City. One size does not necessarily fit all.
Yes, trump is amazingly popular in some of the states we need to win and I understand why some Democrats are carefully choosing their words.
Most actual Democratic politicians seem to understand that impeachment isnât viable until the votes are there. Not only that, talking ineffectually about it for the emotional satisfaction and posturing points is sure to backfire. Why is Sarah Huckster saying thatâs all the Democrats are talking about? To stir up her side. The thing to do is get at least one chamber of Congress, with much luck two, and then start investigating for real. This is not a hard thing to understand, or shouldnât be.
?
Comeyâs gaffe affected Hillary in October 2016 and she was in an election in November 2016. Stone, Cohen, Kushner, Ivanka, Trump and others are not running. Bring a gun to a gun fight, not a wet noodle. Unwarranted caution here is why the Democrats lose unnecessarily in my opinion. Let the Republics scream and stomp. This concern you have is approaching concern trolling.
BTW I donât think impeachment should be a war cry this fall but corruption certainly should.
Democrats in the red states just cannot say âTrump should be impeachedâ and winâŚthey canât appear that partisan, they have to stick to the local issues and then hammer the Republicans on how badly they are doing things (like giving tax breaks to the wealthy and taking away coverage for pre-existing conditions). They can also hammer the Republicans for corruption, but they have to do it in a way that doesnât say âimpeachmentâ, as soon as they do that they will be called the same as Pelosi (though sheâs not calling for impeachment either).
Itâs a fine line to walk, and the only way they winâŚI honestly donât understand how people canât understand that and keep complaining, because the Republican that would win if they followed the advice of the complainers wonât do a damn thing for the nation.
If only these Republicans had some power to separate themselves from Trump. The problem is that they really donât want to separate themselves from him, or even his policies. They just donât want to be saddled with his behavior, and his legal baggage. Sorry, it is a package deal.
Kompromat is easy to keep quiet if no third party is investigating it because both parties involved want that. But here we do have investigations, and as your own comment points out, Russian campaign financing is already being exposed. SoâŚ
But that was never what I meant. I mean that party leaders â who distribute finances and control who has party support â appear to have been compromised. My first observation of something that was otherwise difficult to explain is the abrupt 180 that Ryan pulled immediately after Spanky went to visit him in person. I can only explain such a dramatic about-face by Ryan having received a phone call (or similar) the night before with a âfriendlyâ word of advice. My other basis for this conclusion was the similar volte-face the GOP made as a party in 2016 wrt to supporting Ukraine.
What more plausible explanation would you offer, other than dealmaking or kompromat?
What he said!
The actual guidelines donât have a window in them, and are rather broad. However, it is widely stated (see the piece I linked to from Lawfare) that 60 days is the widely applied number, and it is for bringing an indictment.
But note that Manafordâs second trial is set for September 17, and it will not be stopped by the DOJ guidelines. Republicans will have to deal with headlines about Manaford again, likely with another verdict in the first week of October.
Sort of an October surprise.
Your worried about drumpf? How much money did McConnell get from the Russians and how about the rest of you traitors? Every last one of you traitorous bastards needs to go before a firing squad.
Iâve already said I have no argument with that. Not sure of it, but itâs entirely possible. The Russkies have been probing everywhere for a long time. But I still think if there were kompromat on lots and lots of Congresscritters, it would leak out even if it werenât being seriously investigated. Certainly there are individuals whose behavior is flagrantly guilty.
RightâŚIâve been saying all alongâŚif âGrab 'em by the Pussyâ wasnât enough to keep people from voting for him- then what difference does anything else make.
I read the Lawfare blog article. While I generally do find them a valuable resource, I also note that in this case, the actual DOJ guidelines appear to say the opposite. I already commented to that effect.
âThereâll be a tremendous amount of press coverage on this situation, for obvious reasons, and thereâs not as much coverage on the tax plan or the implications of it or our economy,â Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said. âIt will be one of the topics that voters will focus on, I would imagine, among many others.â
If you have read anything about the new âtax planâ (not something I have seen on TPM) you will realize immediately that Rubio considers this current state of affairs a positive. If the public were to focus on the new âtax planâ they would realize regular workers are going to be screwed to pay even more money to Rubioâs billionaire donors.
You still seem to be thinking of this as a series of individual, personalized kompromat efforts on every single Congressional rep. Iâm saying thatâs not a requirement for the GOP as a group to be at risk. Or am I misunderstanding your point? If I am, will you clarify it for me.
Pretty much. Itâs a tactical maneuver they have to do because they know if they said âImpeach!â it would be turned into clickbait headlines within the hours and would become a circus. This is why Dems donât get into fights with the GOP because people are so desperate for âbalanceâ theyâll twist themselves into pretzels in order to equate the Dems behavior to that of the GOPâs