So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[Roadrunner53]

Does anyone think Lindsey Graham will be picked for Trumps running mate for the 20/20 election? Do you think Pence will step down or Trump throw him out?

Lindsey seems to be quite the pit bull since the Kavanaugh hearings and he seems very cozy with Donald these days.

[Kris]

And his source, an offshoot of Real Clear Politics, has a mixed record of factual reporting.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/.

You notice I did not say anything about RCP's political bias. I said they have a mixed record of factual reporting.

A few quotes from that mediabiasfactcheck article:

'In review, the website features selected political news stories and op-eds from various news publications in addition to commentary from its own contributors. Though their own political views lean conservative, the site’s founders say their goal is to give readers “ideological diversity” in its commentary section. In reviewing their political news and opinions there are slightly more that are published from right leaning sources, however both sides are represented. Real Clear Politics is perhaps best known for their RCP Polling Average, which combines all polling data to create a statistical average."

RCP is pretty good about posting opposing viewpoints in juxtaposed links.  E.g., from this morning,
Dems' Civil War Means Trump Will Win in 2020 James Robbins, USA Today
The Democrats' Civil War Is Over Before It Began Jack Shafer, Politico


"Most of the news content on Real Clear Politics is aggregated from other sources such as: Washington Post, New York Post, Salon, Fox News, The Federalist and National Review. Several of the sources used by Real Clear Politics are listed as Mixed factual due to failed fact checks."

Perhaps every single one of those sources has at one time or another failed a "fact check."  Not sure then what "Mixed factual" means in this context.


"In reviewing original Real Clear Politics articles, there is a right leaning bias in wording and story selection such as [one example given]."

The top two story selections as of this writing are
Pelosi's Wise Move; Israel's Multifaceted Wall; ...
Trump's Fantasy Budget

That doesn't seem a "right leaning bias."

Why are you arguing with me about something I did not say?

[nereo]

Remember remember the 5th of November...

[Davnasty]

I think you need to stick with what I've actually said.

This is something you said:

then the Clinton camp is guilty as well when they paid foreign operatives (including Russian) for dirt on Trump.

This is the response:

Clinton's campaign hired a former British Intelligence agent to do some research, and yes he did talk to some people who were Russian.

Then you changed your statement to:

My other point was that Clinton hired an ex-spy who is British who allegedly gleaned all of his information from Russians.

Without acknowledging that you've changed your position from "The Clinton camp [] paid [Russian] Operatives" to "Clinton hired an ex-spy who is British"

These are not the same thing, would you agree?

[GuitarStv]

Point number two is simply sarcasm on Trump's part. It's poor humor, but nonetheless it's sarcasm. It's just a cheap way for Trump to highlight that Clinton permanently deleted 33,000 e-mails after they were subpoenaed. How in the hell this isn't obstruction of justice is beyond me.

Do you have proof that what you're claiming happened, happened?  I only ask because I seem to remember an investigation by the FBI that cleared Clinton of these charges.

What specifically? And I have some things to say about our Dept. of Justice.

Specifically?  What you claimed.

You claimed that Clinton permanently deleted 33,000 emails after they were subpoenaed in order to obstruct justice.


My understanding is much what Dabnabsty posted.
- Emails were deleted after they were subpoenaed, but not because of anything that Clinton said . . . because the guy in charge of them had forgotten to do so earlier and panicked.
- An investigation was done that concluded there was no intent to obstruct justice.
- The number 33,000 is also incorrect, there were fewer emails.

That is quite different than your claim, so I'm asking you if you have any evidence to support the things you said.

Still waiting.

[wenchsenior]

Does anyone think Lindsey Graham will be picked for Trumps running mate for the 20/20 election? Do you think Pence will step down or Trump throw him out?

Lindsey seems to be quite the pit bull since the Kavanaugh hearings and he seems very cozy with Donald these days.

Maybe.  However, I strongly suspect Graham's closeted, so I'm not sure how that would play with the base.

[Roadrunner53]

Not sure what Pence adds to the party. He is like a floor lamp with a 15 watt lightbulb. Trump may want to ramp up his ugliness with someone like Graham. He showed his ugly side during the Kavanaugh hearings.

I really think Donald has put a carrot on a stick in front of Lindsey to be his pit bull and as a reward he will make him vice president in the next election.

If not vice president, something must be brewing.

[Kris]

I don't know what Trump's plans for Graham are (obviously), but it is possible he's gonna shitcan Pence. Pence, after all, was chosen so that the Evangelicals would have a smokescreen for voting for a lying, cheating crook by being able to pretend he actually gives a shit about Christian values.

Now that his base is completely and thoroughly brainwashed, he doesn't really need Pence anymore. Pence is a perfect toady who will just quietly accept any disgusting displays without comment. But Graham is one-upping him by wholeheartedly, vocally selling his soul.

Given that Trump can be easily manipulated by anyone who flatters him, it's not unreasonable to assume he'd reward the loudest braying acolyte.

[arebelspy]

At this point it's very clear what you are to everyone who cares to look. When the mods hit you with the "100 posts not in Off Topic for new posters" rule you immediately started spamming every conversation you could find with low-effort nonsense so that you could rush back here to Trump's defense.

To this...

Looking at his post history, he's been on the forum 4 months, 20 posts in his first week, all off topic politics. Nothing for 2.5 months, then in early March ~50 more posts, all off topic.

March 12, new OT policy (which he immediately assumed was targeted at him, based on his comment in the discussion thread on it), a few dozen comments on scattered threads, then a bunch more off topic politics comments.

The point of the policy was for people who want to be here in our community to be here and engage with the community. If they happen to discuss politics a little, fine.

If your point of being here is to discuss politics, go find another site more appropriate. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum you fall on, this is not a politics site. This is a site for Mustachians.

(At times it's hard to tell if he's trying to get banned so he can claim moderator bias, and forum version of suicide by cop.  *eyeroll*)

[Glenstache]

Now that his base is completely and thoroughly brainwashed, he doesn't really need Pence anymore. Pence is a perfect toady who will just quietly accept any disgusting displays without comment. But Graham is one-upping him by wholeheartedly, vocally selling his soul.

Besides, Pence won't go to the strip clubs with Trump unless he brings his wife along. Sad! (and /s, of course)

[Kris]

Now that his base is completely and thoroughly brainwashed, he doesn't really need Pence anymore. Pence is a perfect toady who will just quietly accept any disgusting displays without comment. But Graham is one-upping him by wholeheartedly, vocally selling his soul.

Besides, Pence won't go to the strip clubs with Trump unless he brings his wife along. Sad! (and /s, of course)

OMG. I just had an image of Graham going to a strip club with Trump, loudly yelling, stuffing bills in the women's G-strings, and over-performing his super-heterosexual manly man-ness.

[Roadrunner53]

Kris, you are too funny!

[MDM]

And his source, an offshoot of Real Clear Politics, has a mixed record of factual reporting.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/.

You notice I did not say anything about RCP's political bias. I said they have a mixed record of factual reporting.

"Most of the news content on Real Clear Politics is aggregated from other sources such as: Washington Post, New York Post, Salon, Fox News, The Federalist and National Review. Several of the sources used by Real Clear Politics are listed as Mixed factual due to failed fact checks."

Perhaps every single one of those sources has at one time or another failed a "fact check."  Not sure then what "Mixed factual" means in this context.

Why are you arguing with me about something I did not say?

Just noting that "a mixed record of factual reporting" refers to using the Washington Post et al as sources. 

[Kris]

And his source, an offshoot of Real Clear Politics, has a mixed record of factual reporting.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/.

You notice I did not say anything about RCP's political bias. I said they have a mixed record of factual reporting.

"Most of the news content on Real Clear Politics is aggregated from other sources such as: Washington Post, New York Post, Salon, Fox News, The Federalist and National Review. Several of the sources used by Real Clear Politics are listed as Mixed factual due to failed fact checks."

Perhaps every single one of those sources has at one time or another failed a "fact check."  Not sure then what "Mixed factual" means in this context.

Why are you arguing with me about something I did not say?

Just noting that "a mixed record of factual reporting" refers to using the Washington Post et al as sources.

No, that's not what you were noting. You were arguing against a straw-man that I had said they have a right-wing bias. Which, for the third (and hopefully final) time, I never said.

I notice that you clipped the conversation differently, so that your response to me was not actually shown -- making it look, to anyone who just reads this post, as though you were responding to the remark about having a mixed record.

Here is the actual exchange, and your actual response, which you removed because it shows the straw man you were actually responding to (see attachment).


And as far as the Post: You will note in the quote you cited that first, they gave a list of the sources used by RCP as examples. And then second, they mentioned that "several" of the sources used failed fact checks. They did not specify that the Post was one of the sources that failed fact checks. That is your wishful thinking.

[Davnasty]

And his source, an offshoot of Real Clear Politics, has a mixed record of factual reporting.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/.

You notice I did not say anything about RCP's political bias. I said they have a mixed record of factual reporting.

"Most of the news content on Real Clear Politics is aggregated from other sources such as: Washington Post, New York Post, Salon, Fox News, The Federalist and National Review. Several of the sources used by Real Clear Politics are listed as Mixed factual due to failed fact checks."

Perhaps every single one of those sources has at one time or another failed a "fact check."  Not sure then what "Mixed factual" means in this context.

Why are you arguing with me about something I did not say?

Just noting that "a mixed record of factual reporting" refers to using the Washington Post et al as sources.

They gave a list of sources and then said that some of RCP's sources have failed fact checks. It's two separate statements, not all of the sources in that list have failed a fact check.

Under the RealClearInvestigations analysis they were a bit more specific

A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check, however some of the sources they utilize have failed fact checks such as the conspiracy website, Zerohedge.

And

RealClearInvestigations sourced Fox News who in turn sourced the same information from another factually mixed source the Daily Caller, owned by conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson.

[MDM]

No, that's not what you were noting. You were arguing against a straw-man that I had said they have a right-wing bias. Which, for the third (and hopefully final) time, I never said.

You may wish to think you know what I was noting, but if that is what you think, you are thinking incorrectly.

I notice that you clipped the conversation differently, so that your response to me was not actually shown -- making it look, to anyone who just reads this post, as though you were responding to the remark about having a mixed record.

It looks that way because that is correct.

Here is the actual exchange, and your actual response, which you removed because it shows the straw man you were actually responding to (see attachment).

I removed parts of the exchange because
a) I find deeply nested quotes annoying and rude to most readers, and
b) it lets people focus on the specific reply to your specific statement.

And as far as the Post: You will note in the quote you cited that first, they gave a list of the sources used by RCP as examples. And then second, they mentioned that "several" of the sources used failed fact checks. They did not specify that the Post was one of the sources that failed fact checks. That is your wishful thinking.

Correct, they didn't specify which sources but are you aware of any major news source that has never failed a "fact check"?

FWIW, there's a good chance "New York Post" should have been "New York Times" but hey, everyone makes mistakes.

[MDM]

They gave a list of sources and then said that some of RCP's sources have failed fact checks. It's two separate statements, not all of the sources in that list have failed a fact check.

Under the RealClearInvestigations analysis they were a bit more specific

A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check, however some of the sources they utilize have failed fact checks such as the conspiracy website, Zerohedge.

And

RealClearInvestigations sourced Fox News who in turn sourced the same information from another factually mixed source the Daily Caller, owned by conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson.

Sure, conservative-leaning sites fail fact checks.  So do liberal-leaning sites.  It's a true equivalence. ;)

[JLee]

No, that's not what you were noting. You were arguing against a straw-man that I had said they have a right-wing bias. Which, for the third (and hopefully final) time, I never said.

You may wish to think you know what I was noting, but if that is what you think, you are thinking incorrectly.

I notice that you clipped the conversation differently, so that your response to me was not actually shown -- making it look, to anyone who just reads this post, as though you were responding to the remark about having a mixed record.

It looks that way because that is correct.

Here is the actual exchange, and your actual response, which you removed because it shows the straw man you were actually responding to (see attachment).

I removed parts of the exchange because
a) I find deeply nested quotes annoying and rude to most readers, and
b) it lets people focus on the specific reply to your specific statement.

And as far as the Post: You will note in the quote you cited that first, they gave a list of the sources used by RCP as examples. And then second, they mentioned that "several" of the sources used failed fact checks. They did not specify that the Post was one of the sources that failed fact checks. That is your wishful thinking.

Correct, they didn't specify which sources but are you aware of any major news source that has never failed a "fact check"?

FWIW, there's a good chance "New York Post" should have been "New York Times" but hey, everyone makes mistakes.

If you have to destroy the original context in order to make your point, perhaps your initial argument was poorly stated.

[Kris]

No, that's not what you were noting. You were arguing against a straw-man that I had said they have a right-wing bias. Which, for the third (and hopefully final) time, I never said.

You may wish to think you know what I was noting, but if that is what you think, you are thinking incorrectly.

I notice that you clipped the conversation differently, so that your response to me was not actually shown -- making it look, to anyone who just reads this post, as though you were responding to the remark about having a mixed record.

It looks that way because that is correct.

Here is the actual exchange, and your actual response, which you removed because it shows the straw man you were actually responding to (see attachment).

I removed parts of the exchange because
a) I find deeply nested quotes annoying and rude to most readers, and
b) it lets people focus on the specific reply to your specific statement.

And as far as the Post: You will note in the quote you cited that first, they gave a list of the sources used by RCP as examples. And then second, they mentioned that "several" of the sources used failed fact checks. They did not specify that the Post was one of the sources that failed fact checks. That is your wishful thinking.

Correct, they didn't specify which sources but are you aware of any major news source that has never failed a "fact check"?

FWIW, there's a good chance "New York Post" should have been "New York Times" but hey, everyone makes mistakes.

If you have to destroy the original context in order to make your point, perhaps your initial argument was poorly stated.

Pretty much.

And LOL at MDM having to actually include the New York Times in this list EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T IN THERE.

Which is the most GORGEOUS illustration of his penchant for wishful thinking... Honestly, you can't even make this stuff up. 

Seriously, MDM, half the time you're very close to just flat-out lying.

[MDM]

If you have to destroy the original context in order to make your point, perhaps your initial argument was poorly stated.

Perhaps, but I think not.  You are of course free to have your own opinion.

[MDM]

And LOL at MDM having to actually include the New York Times in this list EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T IN THERE.

Which is the most GORGEOUS illustration of his penchant for wishful thinking... Honestly, you can't even make this stuff up. 

Seriously, MDM, half the time you're very close to just flat-out lying.

Perhaps you missed that that was a reference to a mistake made by the site reviewing RCP.  At least, I think it more likely that the New York Times is more commonly sourced by RCP than the New York Post - but maybe not.  You could do a count and let us know. ;)

Sometimes people trip over which Times and which Post is which, between New York and Washington, do they not?

[RetiredAt63]

Getting back on topic.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/15/us-threatens-international-criminal-court

[LennStar]

Getting back on topic.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/15/us-threatens-international-criminal-court

Be fair, as long as I can remember it was the stance of the US that US personal is not to be held accountable by anyone except (maybe) the US. That is nothing new and not related to Trump.

And in the case of this court, (old info) big states like China, Russia, India also do not acknoledge it.

[RetiredAt63]

Getting back on topic.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/15/us-threatens-international-criminal-court

Be fair, as long as I can remember it was the stance of the US that US personal is not to be held accountable by anyone except (maybe) the US. That is nothing new and not related to Trump.

And in the case of this court, (old info) big states like China, Russia, India also do not acknowledge it.

That isn't the point.  The point is denying visas to ICC staff who need to be at the UN in New York.

[nereo]

 

Getting back on topic.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/15/us-threatens-international-criminal-court

Be fair, as long as I can remember it was the stance of the US that US personal is not to be held accountable by anyone except (maybe) the US. That is nothing new and not related to Trump.

And in the case of this court, (old info) big states like China, Russia, India also do not acknowledge it.

That isn't the point.  The point is denying visas to ICC staff who need to be at the UN in New York.

well the easiest way of defeating climate change is to make it official that it does not exist.  /s

[RetiredAt63]

Getting back on topic.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/15/us-threatens-international-criminal-court

Be fair, as long as I can remember it was the stance of the US that US personal is not to be held accountable by anyone except (maybe) the US. That is nothing new and not related to Trump.

And in the case of this court, (old info) big states like China, Russia, India also do not acknowledge it.

That isn't the point.  The point is denying visas to ICC staff who need to be at the UN in New York.

well the easiest way of defeating climate change is to make it official that it does not exist.  /s

So the easiest way to deny international crime accountability is to deny the staff the ability to work on charges?  If the tactic works on one problem it should work on all of them, right?

[LennStar]

So the easiest way to deny international crime accountability is to deny the staff the ability to work on charges?

Actually... yes.
With murderous soldiers for example it is traditional to not give any info (like drone footage) you have to the court and forbid your soldiers to go to the court to testify.
Didn't that happen for the Abu Graib torturers too? tries to remember

[GuitarStv]

So the easiest way to deny international crime accountability is to deny the staff the ability to work on charges?

Actually... yes.
With murderous soldiers for example it is traditional to not give any info (like drone footage) you have to the court and forbid your soldiers to go to the court to testify.
Didn't that happen for the Abu Graib torturers too? tries to remember

The systematic torture, sexual abuse, rape, and deaths at Abu Graib weren't the result of a few rogue soldiers.  It was systemic, and occurred under orders.  Ricardo Sanchez (Lieutenant General and head of the military in Iraq at the time) explicitly authorized illegal torture by memorandum.  Donald Rumsfeld also signed-off on and authorized this action.

The fact that there wasn't even an attempt at finding justice for these crimes is one of the reasons that the US has no moral authority in the world today.  It has to have been significant contributing factor in helping terrorists to recruit people.

[sol]

The systematic torture, sexual abuse, rape, and deaths at Abu Graib weren't the result of a few rogue soldiers.  It was systemic, and occurred under orders.  Ricardo Sanchez (Lieutenant General and head of the military in Iraq at the time) explicitly authorized illegal torture by memorandum.  Donald Rumsfeld also signed-off on and authorized this action.

The fact that there wasn't even an attempt at finding justice for these crimes is one of the reasons that the US has no moral authority in the world today.  It has to have been significant contributing factor in helping terrorists to recruit people.

But, but...  they hate our freedom.  Right?  They must hate our freedom, and not the fact that we invade their countries and bomb innocent women and children from remote control airplanes, or torture and rape their soldiers and then post photos of it on the internet.

[Johnez]

Does anyone think Lindsey Graham will be picked for Trumps running mate for the 20/20 election? Do you think Pence will step down or Trump throw him out?

Lindsey seems to be quite the pit bull since the Kavanaugh hearings and he seems very cozy with Donald these days.

Depends on the Graham you want. After elections, he might very well go back to being a vocal Trump critic. Trump's biggest issue is immigration, and Graham's already proven himself squirrely on that. Pence is the guaranteed yes man Evangelical trophy piece, getting rid of him might not sit well with some folks. Then again, Trump doesn't need him with the justices he's appointed and likely will appoint, the right is set for a generation or two....

Which reminds me, RBG can you hang tough another 4 years? Unless Dems get their act together, we'll likely see a further swing to the right, and young replacements of current right leaning justices like Thomas...

Democratic party needs to pull their head out if their ass and either win Senate or Presidency, or the SC is lost for 2 generations.

[Just Joe]

The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump committed any crimes much less an impeachable offense.

Except for his kids meeting with Russian agents to discuss dirt on Hillary and his campaign manager giving internal polling data to the Russians so that they can more effectively target their misinformation campaigns? And that's just what we know about currently.

Oh you mean Trump himself, that we can prove? How about asking Russia to hack the DNC to find "Hillary's missing emails" on TV?

Then you add in his obvious pattern of behavior or kowtowing to Putin at every opportunity and refusing to implement the sanctions that Congress places on Russian companies or people and the bizarre Helsinki joint speech where Trump essentially said "I asked him about interference and he says he didn't do it and I believe him over our all our own intelligence agencies" and on and on and on.

Come on.

Have you actually researched the behind-the-scene actions of multiple players in regard to the June 6th 2016 meeting? All we ever hear about is Don Jr, Manafort, Kushner, and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. It's a bit more complicated than what is portrayed. Here is a good reference to highlight what I am talking about:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/08/13/trump_tower_meeting_looks_increasingly_like_a_setup.html

One link leads to the other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McIntyre_(publisher)

And finally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(website)

[JLee]

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/03/16/trump-mueller-report-1224004

Trump is claiming he told the GOP House how to vote re: the Mueller report.

[Glenstache]

This longer read on the Trump-Deutsche Bank relationship is work a few minutes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/business/trump-deutsche-bank.html

TLDR: Trump repeatedly overvalued his assets and would not get loans from most banks.

[Zamboni]

Some of Cohen's warrants came out today. Much of it was redacted, but this much is clear: the investigation team has pretty much all correspondence by Cohen over a multi-year period. Phone calls, texts, emails, google docs, everything.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/michael-cohen-search-warrant-documents-dle/index.html

Here's one that was not redacted that I found interesting:
Cohen was paid nearly $600K in the first part of 2017 by a Russian name Viktor through a Swiss bank shell corporation. Why is a Russian name Viktor paying the President's personal lawyer over a half million dollars (at least)?

From a legal perspective, things are going to get very ugly for the Trump family. Of course, when you are criminals, that's a risk you are taking.

[ysette9]

If that is true, I hope something finally sticks.
I’m damn tired of this crowd getting away with so much more than any regular person or even politician would be allowed to get away with.

[bacchi]

If that is true, I hope something finally sticks.
I’m damn tired of this crowd getting away with so much more than any regular person or even politician would be allowed to get away with.

Trump made a yuge mistake. A lot of his assets are in New York, where the SDNY is actively investigating. It'll take a lot of machinations, and a few SC cases that ignore precedent, to get around those charges.

[Zamboni]

They theory is the Cohen was the go between for funneling foreign money to multiple politicians. He did have a finance post with the Republican National Committee. The feds have also raided Elliott Brodie, also involved in GOP campaign finance and now also cooperating with investigators. All of the campaign finance parts today (and there was a lot of that) was redacted.

It explains Trump's twitter freak out all weekend. He's going down eventually.

Also, I'm moderately annoyed that the lead news story is now Trump verbally spitting in McCain's grave. Seriously, other than McCain's family, who I am sure are upset by all this, who cares? Why do they keep letting Trump distract from the real news with his bullcr*p antics?

[LennStar]

They theory is the Cohen was the go between for funneling foreign money to multiple politicians. He did have a finance post with the Republican National Committee. The feds have also raided Elliott Brodie, also involved in GOP campaign finance and now also cooperating with investigators. All of the campaign finance parts today (and there was a lot of that) was redacted.

It explains Trump's twitter freak out all weekend. He's going down eventually.

Also, I'm moderately annoyed that the lead news story is now Trump verbally spitting in McCain's grave. Seriously, other than McCain's family, who I am sure are upset by all this, who cares? Why do they keep letting Trump distract from the real news with his bullcr*p antics?

Because we all have heard so much of his bullcr*p antics that they are no longer news. Insulting dead persons is always good for "engagement", see, we talk about it already and we aren't even interested in it!

[Roadrunner53]

Trump is constantly stirring the pot to get attention whether it be good or bad and McCain was the whipping boy of the hour.

He was whining about SNL and how they pick on him after watching a rerun of a Christmas SNL show that aired probably in December 2018.

He points out Beto's hand movements while speaking which I do find annoying, however, Trump has very annoying hand movements when he speaks too. Guess he never noticed.

Love Kelly Ann Conway's husband getting under Donald's skin!

[talltexan]

I actually think George Conway is trying to help Trump by publishing these negative things about him in a way that will solidify support for him among conservatives. "See! Trump is even receiving shade from the husband of one of his most loyal advisors...besieged from all sides!"

[talltexan]

Okay, I just posted this, then opened up twitter, and, I cannot sincerely believe this anymore.

"@realDonaldTrump: George Conway, often referred to as Mr. Kellyanne Conway by those who know him, is VERY jealous of his wife's succe..."

I didn't click on the link, but Mr. Conway himself replies, "The President of the United States", either to show grace or to make clear that he is as stunned as the rest of us that this is 2019.

[sol]

They theory is the Cohen was the go between for funneling foreign money to multiple politicians. He did have a finance post with the Republican National Committee. The feds have also raided Elliott Brodie, also involved in GOP campaign finance and now also cooperating with investigators. All of the campaign finance parts today (and there was a lot of that) was redacted.

I think there's basically zero chance that the republican party comes out of the Mueller investigation without being specifically targeted for aiding and abetting a foreign power's attempts to subvert democracy.  Trump's personal "fixer", who made a career for himself funneling dirty money through third party entities to cover up dirty deeds while skirting the law, was put in charge of the RNC finance arm.  Coincidence?  He's already plead guilty to committing a variety of finance-related crimes at the specific request of the man who is now the US President.  We already know that the Trump Foundation was guilty of a variety of finance-related crimes.  Also the inauguration committee. 

Does anyone really believe that the RNC finance committee chairman, who is a known white collar criminal for finance-related crimes, was given his RNC post because he was so good at fundraising?  I think McConnell and Graham et al. knew exactly what they were getting with that appointment.  I think Cohen has testified as much in front of Congress in closed-door sessions, and now Congress is wrestling with how to reveal to the country that the party currently in power is brazenly corrupt.  Some of them (e.g. Nunes) have responded by doubling down on the use of corrupt power to maintain corrupt power, but there have got to be good honest republicans in Congress who are horrified at what their party is done and who are now struggling with how to salvage a bad situation.

[Glenstache]

Odds of Michael Cohen going into witness protection upon release from prison? If he described money laundering and other things detrimental to oligarchs, he may not be so popular anymore. Perhaps his new name will be Saul Goodman.

[Johnez]

Anybody following the Huawei saga unfolding between the US and the rest of Europe?  It appears the US might and clout have suffered a blow as notable allies Germany and the UK, plus other European countries are adopting Huawei's hardware for the 5G rollout.  In addition, we've pitted ourselves in an unwinnable situation by threatening to not share intel with these countries if they adopt the company's hardware.  OK, so now we're not going to share (and have intel shared with us) between our biggest allies???  This is kind of worrying.  Either we have proof Huawei is China's stooge, or we don't.  Do we have evidence and our allies simply aren't considering it?  Are we full of shit and on a witch hunt against China and Chinese companies?  Either way, our allies and other countries are not playing ball with us. 

[GuitarStv]

It's so weird that electing an abrasive asshole to represent your country has made other people less likely to do things in your countries interest.

:P

[sequoia]

President Donald Trump blasted George Conway, the husband of top White House adviser Kellyanne Conway, as "a total loser" and the "husband from hell!" following the conservative attorney's tweets suggesting that the president is not mentally fit to serve.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-blasts-george-conway-husband-top-white-house-aide-kellyanne-n984771

Anybody following the Huawei saga unfolding between the US and the rest of Europe?  It appears the US might and clout have suffered a blow as notable allies Germany and the UK, plus other European countries are adopting Huawei's hardware for the 5G rollout.  In addition, we've pitted ourselves in an unwinnable situation by threatening to not share intel with these countries if they adopt the company's hardware.  OK, so now we're not going to share (and have intel shared with us) between our biggest allies???  This is kind of worrying.  Either we have proof Huawei is China's stooge, or we don't.  Do we have evidence and our allies simply aren't considering it?  Are we full of shit and on a witch hunt against China and Chinese companies?  Either way, our allies and other countries are not playing ball with us.

Wait... why are you surprised? Our allies now is Putin (Russia) and Kim Jong-un (North Korea). If you are not a dictator, you are not allies of the US President.

[OtherJen]

President Donald Trump blasted George Conway, the husband of top White House adviser Kellyanne Conway, as "a total loser" and the "husband from hell!" following the conservative attorney's tweets suggesting that the president is not mentally fit to serve.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-blasts-george-conway-husband-top-white-house-aide-kellyanne-n984771

I’m so glad that he has taken his wife’s “Be Best” initiative to heart.

[Johnez]

Not surprised, I'm just pointing out another way we've gone from a respected and prestigious country to being antagonistic, petty, and ignored. We, the American people have elected a doofus to the lead the most powerful nation on this Earth. This position carries immense responsibility, and though wrong and misguided in many cases, us along with European leaders have kept and grown general world peace and productive progress since WW2. Our strength is in our interdependence and shared motivations. This episode feels like a disturbing tipping point, and in the grand scheme of things is more dangerous than his dumbass Twitter storms. I feel we can handle the general stupidity here at home as it's at least somewhat contained by our political system. Now he is jeopardizing the system that ensures general world peace, this is becoming reckless and dangerous.

[bacchi]

Not surprised, I'm just pointing out another way we've gone from a respected and prestigious country to being antagonistic, petty, and ignored. We, the American people have elected a doofus to the lead the most powerful nation on this Earth. This position carries immense responsibility, and though wrong and misguided in many cases, us along with European leaders have kept and grown general world peace and productive progress since WW2. Our strength is in our interdependence and shared motivations. This episode feels like a disturbing tipping point, and in the grand scheme of things is more dangerous than his dumbass Twitter storms. I feel we can handle the general stupidity here at home as it's at least somewhat contained by our political system. Now he is jeopardizing the system that ensures general world peace, this is becoming reckless and dangerous.

It could well be a turning point. Who gets elected in 2020 decides whether we can fix it. (And whether Trump accepts a loss.)

[Glenstache]

Not surprised, I'm just pointing out another way we've gone from a respected and prestigious country to being antagonistic, petty, and ignored. We, the American people have elected a doofus to the lead the most powerful nation on this Earth. This position carries immense responsibility, and though wrong and misguided in many cases, us along with European leaders have kept and grown general world peace and productive progress since WW2. Our strength is in our interdependence and shared motivations. This episode feels like a disturbing tipping point, and in the grand scheme of things is more dangerous than his dumbass Twitter storms. I feel we can handle the general stupidity here at home as it's at least somewhat contained by our political system. Now he is jeopardizing the system that ensures general world peace, this is becoming reckless and dangerous.

Just wait until Trump starts live-tweeting the Democratic debates, etc.
It could well be a turning point. Who gets elected in 2020 decides whether we can fix it. (And whether Trump accepts a loss.)