I would not necessarily call any of this “evidence” of collusion, but it’s certainly grounds for suspicion.Oh.
That Trumpworld was clearly open to both political collusion and financial dealmaking with the Russian government doesn’t demonstrate that either actually occurred. But it’s unquestionably evidence in favor of the possibility.This one made me laugh. Yes, it's definitely maybe that there's unquestionable evidence of a possibility. It's right in front of your eyes, America!
Yglesias is so often wrong he invites articles like "Does Matthew Yglesias Ever Tire Of Being Embarrassingly Wrong About Everything?" So if he says that Russian collusion is a thing, you can rest assured it is not.
How are those 25th floor orphan adoptions coming?
ReplyDeleteThe quid pro quo is only missing a "quid" and a "quo."
ReplyDeleteRussia should be let back into the G-8 after being kicked out for things whatever, something Obama.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans say, "How long will this witch hunt continue? If I haven't personally seen the evidence yet, there must be none."
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JASsbo7fvc4&t=3m2s
Comedy is timing. Just one day after Yglesias' column and this blog post, Robert Mueller filed a protective order to limit evidence-sharing (you know -- the evidence he doesn't have) to prevent Kremlin intelligence from learning the identities of "uncharged co-conspirators."
ReplyDeleteThus confirming that the indictments to date are not an exhaustive list of Russians suspected of involvement in the 2016 election or the Trump campaign.
But Mueller's got nothing. He's running a dud of a nothingburger of a hoax of a witch hunt.
Speaking of comedy... Time Magazine published this fully annotated list of verbatim defenses:
ReplyDeleteRead the 191 Arguments President Trump Has Made Against the Mueller Investigation
And give it up to Time for its amusing alibi arrangement.
1. Democrats released their own emails as a distraction.
2. Nobody really knows who hacked the emails.
3. Julian Assange said he didn’t get the emails from Russia.
4. Democrats are to blame for writing ‘dumb’ emails…
5. …and for having poor internet security.
6. Anyway, the real scandal is what the hacked emails revealed about Democrats.
7. Voting machines weren’t affected.
8. Vladimir Putin says Russia didn’t meddle in the election.
9. The CIA was wrong about Iraq, so they are wrong about Russia.
11. If Russia did meddle, we would never know it.
12. OK, Russia meddled, but so did other countries.
13. Russian meddling didn’t affect the election.
14. It started long before Trump ran for office.
15. Democrats made up Trump ties to Russia as an excuse for the hacking.
16. Anyway, the real scandal is that Obama didn’t stop Russian meddling.
42. Donald Trump Jr. is a good man…
43. … who never met officially with any Russians…
44. …OK, except the Trump Tower meeting, which was very short…
45. …and primarily about Russian adoption.
46. OK, the Russians promised dirt on Clinton, but they didn’t give any.
47. In fact, the meeting was so boring that Jared Kushner left early…
48. … and Paul Manafort was on his phone the whole time.
49. Anyone would have taken the meeting.
50. There was nothing illegal about the meeting.
51. Trump Jr. didn’t know who would be in the meeting…
52. …the Russians misrepresented themselves…
53. …and they may have been working for Democrats.
54. This was before anyone cared about Russia.
55. There was no follow-up to the meeting…
56. …and Trump did not know about it at the time.
57. Trump was not involved in writing the statement about the meeting.
58. OK, he dictated the statement about the meeting, but it was accurate.
59. Anyway, the real scandal is the Democrats’ contacts with Ukraine.
83. Comey’s memos are fake…
84. …and also vindicate Trump.
148. Paul Manafort is a good man….
149. …who previously worked for a lot of high-profile Republicans…
150. …who came to the campaign late…
151. … and only worked for a short time…
152. …just to run the convention….
153. …and was not in charge on Election Day.
154. Everyone knew Manafort had worked for Ukraine…
155. …though Trump did not know all about Manafort’s past work.
156. Manafort said he didn’t do it.
157. The charges against Manafort are from before his time with the campaign.
158. The FBI should have told Trump about Manafort’s issues.
159. Anyway, the real scandal is John Podesta.
http://time.com/5290531/donald-trump-robert-mueller-russia-investigation-arguments/
Ha ha! Whatever happened to Devin Nunes & Friends' "release all the documents!" demands for transparency and cooperation?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/13/gop-pols-slam-rosenstein-say-staff-shaking-in-fear-over-threats.html
"If I haven't personally seen the evidence yet, there must be none."
ReplyDeleteAt least Watergate had a break-in and Monica had a dress. What do we have at this point? Pretty much nothin'
So, Robert Mueller filed a request in Virginia yesterday morning for 75 sets of blank subpoenas, to be available on the first day of Paul Manafort's trial. Just imagine the foolish look on Lyin' Bob's face when he can't back any of them up with evidence.
ReplyDeleteYou just tried to mock "If I haven't personally seen the evidence yet" with "What do we have at this point?" Uh... good one?
Oh, so those subpoenas have to do with Russia?
ReplyDeleteHint: they don't.
Can I get another hint?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/08/how-paul-manafort-is-connected-to-trump-russia-investigation.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/03/politics/mueller-manafort-rosenstein-memo/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-campaign-chair-denies-influencing-ukraine-section-of-gop-platform-735582787607
http://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-paul-manafort-konstantin-kilimnik-indictment-charges-2018-6
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/392020-mueller-releases-new-evidence-that-manafort-ran-unregistered
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/paul-manafort-ukraine-kiev-russia-konstantin-kilimnik-227181
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-manafort-ukraine-platform_us_59f72c88e4b07fdc5fbf9007
That's a lot of quantity with little quality. I can't read all these: tell me one - just one - Manafort charge related to Russia.
ReplyDelete"I can't read all these, which represent small public glimpses of what Mueller's team has amassed. But I know for a fact they've got nothing."
ReplyDeleteWhich indictment is related to Russia?
ReplyDeleteYou mean Robert Mueller hasn't personally come to your home and laid out his entire investigation for you? That must be frustrating.
ReplyDeleteI'll meet you halfway: which one of those links has the best evidence?
ReplyDeleteNo, you'll meet Robert Mueller's case when he makes it, or doesn't. And Paul Manafort will flip, or not. Who cares if any of those links make it or not through the mail slot in the echo chamber?
ReplyDeleteThis hurdle that hasn't been cleared fast enough for your contentment is nonexistent. And no "phony witch hunt" mantra can make Mueller UN-raid Paul Manafort's home for records of his participation in that Trump Tower meeting to help the orphans. But that's like almost three dots, who could connect that many? Who's in charge of this investigation, Georges Seurat?
A small reminder:
ReplyDeleteIn 1973, James McCord got a 25-year sentence for conspiracy, burglary and wiretapping. That loosened his tongue about some other things he hadn't been indicted for. But what, I ask you, WHAT is Mueller's game?
I've been hearing this "Mueller's gonna get 'em - you'll see!" for a year now.
ReplyDeleteJames McCord was caught in a burglary at DNC headquarters. Manafort's charges are failing to register as a lobbyist and tax evasion for work he started in 2006.
Liked the Seurat reference, though.
I've been hearing this "Mueller's gonna get 'em - you'll see!" for a year now.
ReplyDeleteThis is just another rephrasing of "Why hasn't my timetable been satisfied yet?"
As you know, the Mueller investigation has zoomed like a NASCAR race compared to previous investigations of this type. But I've also been hearing "Mueller's gonna get 'em" (and also "Mueller and his crony ilk are the lying Deep State") for the identical year's time. And none of it, not a word of it, has had the smallest effect on his discoveries and progress to date. 95% of which is still below the waterline.
Conservatives don't honestly believe in "baby's object impermanence" as their standard for reality, of course. It's just all they've got for now, as the most interminable delay in human history continues.
Right, it's all going to come out in one big reveal like "Trading Spaces." Won't we all be surprised!
ReplyDeleteScoffing is almost like winning.
ReplyDeleteYou should email Paul Manafort with that "Trading Spaces" slam, though, he could probably use a laugh to brighten his day.