Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[cubby]

I fucking knew it!

One person holding out because they didn't want to believe what they were looking at.

@cubby

I remember mentioning something just like this.

You did say something like that. Not really surprising that that was the case. Many times it's one hold out in juries. Think about how many conversations we all have here, with the people we disagree with, and how stubborn we all can be (except me of course ) with our opinions.

Now add immense pressure, stress, and a clock on those opinions. That's jury duty.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmf...Nancy Pelosi; "Impeachment not a priority"

Makes me wonder...

The dems have to be focused on taking back the House, and they don't want to telegraph their bloodlust to the independent voters. You fucking bet it's a priority - they just can't say it until they get the House.

- - - Updated - - -

Question, with this coming out and their motivations to not convict being what they were, would that open the juror up to any charges?

They went vastly outside of the scope of the trial to not convict and chose their answers in direct contradiction of the evidence because they didn't want to believe it.

Unless there is gross misconduct by a juror, such that the judge can demonstrate the juror lied during voir dire, there is no recourse for a juror's reasoning. There are, as always, exceptions to this but generally speaking jurors can decide for whatever reason they see fit. It's a shitty system, but it's the best shitty system out of all the other options (paraphrasing Churchill here).

[Cthulhu 2020]

Hmf...Nancy Pelosi; "Impeachment not a priority"

Makes me wonder...

This has been talked about pretty extensively the last couple of days. The Dems know if they show bloodlust towards impeachment, it will turn independent voters away. While people may hate Trump, people are also fucking terrified of change, and right now ousting Trump and the upheaval scares some center-right people more than Trump's continued incompetence.

So Dems are keeping the impeachment things under wraps until 2019... Summer 2019 was my prediction for impeachment/removal, so seems I'm close to the mark.

[Kujako]

Hmf...Nancy Pelosi; "Impeachment not a priority"

Makes me wonder...

No one sane want's a President Mike Pence. Two more years of Trump is better than two to six years of that.

[Shalcker]

Clinton's biggest crime was the perjury, the lying, and while I don't want our politicians to lie, Trump has not only perjured himself pretty much every day, but he's now also been implicated in serious campaign finance law breaking. There's also the Russia angle coming down the pipe.

Still unconvinced on Russian angle, sorry.

Don't see where it will come from since Cohen's lawyer already refuted/downplayed Cohen's knowledge in that regard, and Manafort was getting everything from Ukrainians.

I guess Deripaska connection could be tried to be exploited, but Deripaska, unlike others in this story, actually registered his lobbying efforts in US. One of a very few Russians that did.

Yep, we've already established tax fraud on several of Trump's top advisers, campaign managers, as well as ties to Russia in terms of getting money and information. Hey remember when you said all of this was fake and a big nothingburger? Good times.

Still don't see "ties to Russia in terms of getting money and information" anywhere.

As for tax fraud, said from the start it is likely true for Manafort; working with Ukrainians is clear giveaway.

You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between severity of laws. It's an old soviet propaganda tactic. Along with whataboutism, "Hey my view of reality might be different from your view of reality!" and others. Crying that stealing a stick of bubblegum is the same thing as grand theft auto and first degree murder is right up there in old soviet tactics.

We don't have that many examples of impeachment in entire history to work with.

Clinton was the most recent one that actually got to voting on it; and given overall situation outcome is likely to be repeated in Trump case (that is, voting on party lines and no impeachment).

What makes you think differently?

Even those Republicans who voted against removing Clinton from office did so for the reason the Democrats acquitted him for: The president wasn't compromised, the perjury wasn't a serious enough violation to warrant upheaval of government and placing Gore in as president, etc. The articles of impeachment state many reasons for validly removing a president, and simple perjury without some other crime is not among those reasons. So... GG to your whataboutism.

Why did it get through House? Was House already compromised back then?

[cubby]

President Donald J. Trump.
Individual-1.
Unindicted Co-Conspirator in felony campaign finance fraud and conspiracy.

Trumpkins, we're taking your President away from you. Or more accurately, your President, being everything we warned you against, is going to take himself away from you.

Welcome back - and thanks (again) for taking one for the team. Unindicted co-conspirator has a nice ring to it.

- - - Updated - - -

Why did it get through House? Was House already compromised back then?

This is a classic example of your dishonesty and lying deflection. To those that don't have you on ignore yet (including me) this might be a good time to do so.

You were answering this statement from Butter Emails:

The president wasn't compromised, the perjury wasn't a serious enough violation to warrant upheaval of government and placing Gore in as president, etc. The articles of impeachment state many reasons for validly removing a president, and simple perjury without some other crime is not among those reasons. So... GG to your whataboutism.

The PRESIDENT wasn't compromised. Please at least learn to read thoroughly. That will help you get to your goal of 100% honesty.

When i'm being honest,

Are you ever?

[Shalcker]

The PRESIDENT wasn't compromised. Please at least learn to read thoroughly. That will help you get to your goal of 100% honesty.

So, you're saying that majority of Republicans that voted to convict him were already compromised 20 years ago?

...how many of those guys are still there today, btw?

[Felya]

So, you're saying that majority of Republicans that voted to convict him were already compromised 20 years ago?

Nope... as he said... this is just you making shit up to push your agenda. If any American was doing what you are doing on Russian platforms, they would have fallen backwards on a knife... a bunch of times...

[Shalcker]

Nope... as he said... this is just you making shit up to push your agenda. If any American was doing what you are doing on Russian platforms, they would be in jail.

American or Russian jail? What would be the charge, and how would they extradite one to other country?

Your "analogy" seems quite flawed.

[cubby]

So, you're saying that majority of Republicans that voted to convict him were already compromised 20 years ago?

...how many of those guys are still there today, btw?

No, I'm saying you're lying and misrepresenting what others are saying. You are deflecting and trolling and essentially shitposting your way through this forum, making it and the world a worse place.

I outlined it above, your lying and disingenuousness. Let us know what you're confused about. I'm sure it will just be more of the same for you.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope... as he said... this is just you making shit up to push your agenda. If any American was doing what you are doing on Russian platforms, they would have fallen backwards on a knife... a bunch of times...

He's lying - absolutely troll-worthy lying. Not sure why we all don't have him on our ignore list.

[Felya]

American or Russian jail?

No, I edited... it’s more like touching a door knob, that inexplicably had Russian nerve agent on it.

What would be the charge, and how would they extradite one to other country?

What was the charge Anna Politkovskaya for reporting on Chechen bombings? That one...

Your "analogy" seems quite flawed.

Yeah, I said charged, should have said murdered.

- - - Updated - - -

He's lying - absolutely troll-worthy lying. Not sure why we all don't have him on our ignore list.

Since one of my big talking points is subversion. Both the fact that mods don’t block it, like Russia would, and his repetitive nature, just acts as an example of how subversion works. With as many people having him on ignore, I am hoping folks see my replies explaining what he is doing. That’s the best I can do, to show Russian influence directly. Without him, I’d just be linking videos, without active examples.

[Endus]

This has been talked about pretty extensively the last couple of days. The Dems know if they show bloodlust towards impeachment, it will turn independent voters away. While people may hate Trump, people are also fucking terrified of change, and right now ousting Trump and the upheaval scares some center-right people more than Trump's continued incompetence.

So Dems are keeping the impeachment things under wraps until 2019... Summer 2019 was my prediction for impeachment/removal, so seems I'm close to the mark.

The more interesting possibility, to my mind, is that there may be a cadre of responsible Republicans, who've communicated to Pelosi et al that if the Mueller investigation crosses a particular line (which it's quickly approaching), they'll file impeachment proceedings themselves.

This would make the impeachment seem far less politican and partisan; it's being initiated by Republicans.
It would help them wash off the stink of Trump's Presidency, by presenting the Republicans as the ones who cast him off, rather than being blind supporters right through his being forced out.
It would guarantee some bipartisan support, which makes clinching the vote in the House and Senate a breeze, post-2018, even assuming the Dems retake the House but retain a narrow minority in the Senate where only a couple votes need to swing.

It's a better outcome for the Republican Party in the long run, and better for American democracy as a whole. And I really don't want to believe that every single Republican representative has drunk the Trump-ade. And note that I'm not suggesting some massive shift on any particular representative; I'm sure those Republicans who are staunch Trump supporters will remain as such. I'm talking about the possibility of some of the quieter ranks of the Republicans holding their ethics-and-principles close to their chest until they can plunge the knife.

It wouldn't take much. 2-3 Senators, and a few House members, is all they'd need.

[Skroe]

Welcome back Skroe, seems your ban this time brought about YUGE success. What do you think the next one will bring about? Implications of Russian conspiracy against the United States? My guess is those other 10 mistrial charges against Manafucked all return guilty.

Haha, all the "Skroe ban delivered!" posts people made brought a smile to my face. It was indeed, a little lame not being able to comment this time as shit was happening, but those definetly made me chuckle. You're all good people!

Not being able to post for a week has given me some time to think about this, maybe with a bit more discipline than an emotional, ebullient "Hot Take" if I had been around.

It was said that the investigation into Cohen, most of Trump's legal team quitting and Trump subsequently starting to get aggressive and personal against Mueller in the spring was the "end of the beginning". I agree with that. And I think Trump's Black Tuesday was the "start of the middle". Between now and then was kind of the mid-season break in this nightmare drama.

We're not close to this being over. But this is a big step forward. And important step.

The day after Trump was ingurated, I wrote about how I thought Trump was going to be removed from office, either by impeachment or resignation. I said two things.

-It's not going to come fast. Some people predicted Trump wouldn't make it 6 months, or a year. I said Trump's Administration would collapse between Summer 2018 and Late Summer / Mid Fall 2019. If he lasts until Thanksgiving 2019, he'll make it to the 2020 election. This means, right now, we're in the opening months of the Siege of the Trump Administration. And right now, we're starting to build siege towers and fortifications. Bombardment, besides some initual volleys starts later. In other words, we could have another year change of this. I think though that, if you ask me to say a "likely' window, Trump's administration will end between May and July 2019.

-I said that the 2018 election is ESSENTIAL to the effort to defeat Trump, and Trump, and the people who back him must lose badly in it. Only then will Republican defense of Trump be permanently broken. This is the key reason I never thought Trump would be removed in his first year, or even up to today. Republicans, my ex-party have been craven for years. Don't get me wrong... the party isn't ALL that, but a lot of the political class in it is extremely opportunistic. And what are we seeing? For all of Trump's nonsense, they're getting the two things they wanted: a massive tax cut - already done - and stacking federal courts with conservatives. But beyond that? They have few cares. Even deregulation is more of a soundbyte for the rubes because the Republican money men who make everything happen KNOW that their companies have to be able to operate in a regulatory environment that exists regardless of which party holds the Presidency, and in any event, their mostly-global business has to operate in an international regulatory environment, that doesn't shift because a Republican is President.

So I'm going to connect this two thoughts together, stick my neck out and make a prediction.

Donald Trump, if it gets to an impeachment trial in the Senate (as in, he fights, rather than resigns), will be removed with more than 80 Senators voting against him. All Democrats and 25-35 Republicans.

Don't look at me like I'm nuts. I'm not ascribing patriotism to these people. I'm ascribing craven political calculus to it.

Right now, Donald Trump is perceived as a "winner" in hard Republican circles. You have to look at the absurd defenses his vulgarian horde puts up that the establishment political class parrots. They're a defense of him as a success.

He will lose the House in November. And he will at best, seat trade or gain 1 seat in the Senate... and then the Senate Map for Republicans in 2020 looks, very, very, very dark. Democrats have a good shot at winning the Senate in 2020. This will paint Trump as a loser, with more losses on the horizon. And there isn't a policy win for him to reverse that verdict that could be implemented. Another tax cut? Another supreme court opening? Nope.

By next year, Trump will be held responsible for losing the House, making Republican Senate chances in 2020 look ominous. And Republicans will have largely completed their effort at transforming the federal judiciary and their tax cut already happened.

And that's when Trump's usefulness will come to an end. At the precise time the Mueller Investigation's most damning results likely explode into light, and at the time the Democrat Control House starts doing things like releasing Trump's tax returns to the public (via the Ways and Means Committee), holding real investigation into 2016 (on the Intelligence Committee) and holding hearings on Trump's crimes in the Judiciary committee.

As I said, on January 21st, 2017... taking down Donald Trump is all in the set up.

I understand that the length of this affair, and the cost of removing Trump - conservative packing of federal courts, the tax cuts, the two supreme court seats - is extraordinarily high for my liberal friends. I have nothing but disgust for how republicans and so-called conservatives conducted themselves in this. They have zero patriotism. But every bit of harm that has come can be reversed. The next Democratic President that happens to control the House and Senate should seriously consider expanding the Supreme Court from 9 to 11 justices, in retaliation, among other things. Fixing this disaster, or at least equalizing the illegitimate conservative opportunism, is very much within the realm of the possible if liberals are creative about it.

But I believe that's the only way still. So let me lay out how I think this will go in a kind of narrative formwat.

Trump is being set up, and like the moron he is, he is walking right into it.
Cohen right now, is the first big hit. The big hits to come are what will come from Manafort's more important SECOND Trial. The verdict for that will land weeks before the 2018 election. We will learn more and more about Manafort's ties to Russia and probably another Trump Tower bombshell.

After the election, in which he loses badly and is panicked about a Democratic House investigating him in 2019, a weakened and increasingly cornered Trump will attempt to assert his authority and defend himself.

He will not fire Mueller (yet). But he will fire Sessions and he will fire Rosenstein. He will hope that a Republican Senate that has one more seat in 2019 will get him somebody that he wants to be Attorney General... but what he's really doing is buying time, and hoping the Solicitor General, Noel Francisco, will be more favorable to him than Rosenstein. This is a patch, not a plan, and of course, Francisco, who has a long career in government and presumably wants to not wreck himself on Trump, turns out to not be any more favorable than Rosenstein. Remember the first rule of politics: self preservation is king. Nobody will fall on their sword for a defeated Trump (once again, underscoring why a 2018 Democratic victory has ALWAYS been the essential ingredient).

The firing of Sessions and Mueller will cause a slow motion constitutional crisis. The lame duck session only has a couple of legislative weeks before the Christmas break. They'll be focused on funding the government for FY2019... something they've been doing but will wrap up then in an omnibus, and will do in earnest because they know that 2019 will be impeachment year. Democrats will be making statements about the planned investigation of Trump once they take over in January. Republicans will say nothing publically. Behind closed doors, the growing consensus will be: this man has to go next year, so that Pence (or somebody else) can have at least part of 2019 and all of 2020 to stabilize the Party's political future.


I believe January to April 2019 is a critical period. There are a lot of legislative days. For the first time in years, it's looking like there will be no urgency is passing any continuing resolution or the prior year's budget. Rather the budget talk will be of FY2020 and the next 2 year deal (with reference to my prior posts on how those have been wildly successful for both Democrats and Republican interests). That means that the environment will be primed for Democrats to be on the offensive on investigating the Trump Administration. And they will do it, aggressively and decisively. Republican defenses, worn down over the prior two years (which couldn't even rally to Trump's defense THIS week) will be basically entirely absent. After two years, the American people's tolerance for Trump bullshit will be at an all time low.

Mueller will deliver his report, I believe, in the Spring of next year. Before Democrats choose to release it, it will be "officially leaked" to the Washington Post or New York Times (officially leaked means: a Senator or Congressmen who has it, authorizes a subordinate to leak it). It will confirm everything we've suspected up to this point: Trump is a Russian asset and deeply in hock to them, and was in active conspiracy with Russian intelligence to interfere in 2016 (the victory and success was a total accident). And that he has broke campaign finance laws, profiteered, abused power and obstructed justice in the past 3 years.

Things will move very fast from there. Trump will blame Mueller for the leak and fire him. Democrats will draw up Articles of Impeachment. Centrist-Republicans in the House will join in.

Trump may resign here. If he decides to fight. I believe we're going to have a Democratic-Republican political accommodation, which historically, this country has had many of... yes even in the worst of political environments.

The Mueller report, I believe, will basically accuse Trump of betraying America. Not treason as an indictment, but a kind of moral treason. It'll be very hard to defend against. I believe in the Senate, McConnell and Schumer will come to a backroom deal. Rather than vote-your-conscience kind of thing, it's going to be much more a defense-in-numbers kind of thing. Republicans will re-write their history and say that the Mueller firing, among other things, was a bridge too far, and the report so damning, that something must change. Democrats will (largely) not attack their Republicans colleagues over their grossly political and unpatriotic behavior over the prior 2 years (re: the Schumer deal) and focus Trump. Republicans will vote largely as block (defense in numbers) to remove Trump... again, if he doesn't resign. He may resign when he hears of McConnell and Schumer coming to an accord.

Now people looking at this again, probably think I'm nuts insaying two to three dozen Republicans will vote against a Republican President. Again, it's not patriotism. It's self-preserverence. They will have just witnessed, Trump's touch of death in the 2018 election, and in 2020, many of THEM are up for re-election. They won't need Trump anymore for court packing or a tax cut. And certainly not popularity. The Mueller firing and Mueller report would give them factual cover. The Schumer-McConnell deal would give them a political pressure release valve. Why would they vote to protect Trump. Because Republican voters approve of him? The Mueller-related actions and reports will put a dent in that. So will ending Trump's rep as a winner. So will a series of unhinged actions and statements I'm sure he'll take before then. The the Republican Senator will attempt protect itself from the backlash by taking a decisive, unified and nominally apolitical (although its of course, highly political) action.

In the end, Trump gets out of office because of the EXACT same reason he will now, forever, be known as "Individual-1". Because the people who profess loyalty to him are loyal, until the facts change and they need to save themselves. That is true of every man in his administration. That is true of every Senator. They day will come when they don't need him anymore, and if the environment is ripe for them to safely throw him in a woodchipper, they will.

Now let's talk Kavanaugh briefly.

He should not be put to the Supreme Court. I don't think he is particularly a nut or a radical, though his views on executive power are ahistorical and just plane weird. For the most part, he's a run of the mill conservative who my most accounts, is an alright guy. But this President doesn't get to put anybody else on the Supreme Court, not in the least someone who could be a judge on a case regarding him.

The chances of him making it to the Supreme Court are excellent though, and that's a fucking disgrace. Thanks again Federalist Man of the Decade, Harry Reid, you piece of garbage, wherever you are. Democrats shouldn't blow a lot of political capital on stopping him. It's not a fight they can win and will mostly just serve to buttress Trump's standing with his party (again, handing him a "win" where he had to fight). I would reccomend, put him on record about the political things you care about and don't engage in extraordinary tactics. But do ask him if he will recuse himself on things related to executive power through 2020. If he is going to be on the court and judging about routine cases the court sees... that's a disgrace, but a limited thing. But on issues related to potential Trump obstruction and criminal issues... he must be on record as to stepping aside or not.

My guess is largely "not", or "not committal". But unlike in Watergate, there are only some questions that have to go to the Supreme Court in the first place.

So that's how I think, broadly, how things will go down. I think we're in for some Drama in September and early October, and then in mid November and December. And I think the shit REALLY hits the fan in February, March, April, May and June of next year. And it's going to get bad. Very very bad. There are very dark days ahead for this country. But it's necessary to right ourselves. I'm sure I'm off on things, maybe even dates up there, but this is kind of how I see it in my head.

I think additionally, Democrats need to start planning remdial action for the post-Trump Era. They shouldn't broadcast this now, but they should start planning.

Norms have been broken for years. Norms broken when George W Bush and Barack Obama abused signing statements, executive privilege and executive orders. Norms where broken when the ISIS war continued for years in clear violation of the War Powers Act. Norms where broken when Harry Reid used the nuclear option, the biggest own-goal in modern American political history and a historic disaster for our country. Trump has broken more norms than I can enumerate in this space.

Elected Democrats need to hold closed door discussions with Elected Republicans and come to a consensus regarding norms. Are the norms going to be restored, and Republicans taking some kind of action to make amends? Or shall the race to the bottom continue. Norms and rules are an essential part of our society, but if only one side plays by them more than the others, then it doesn't work, and the solution, I believed, is scortched earth tactics to demonstrate the importance of those norms.

If Republicans don't agree to a full return to norms, Democrats should actively try and blow everything up, so to speak. They should attempt Supreme Court packing when they get the chance. They should nuke the filibuster on legislation to write legislation making that possible (meaning they'll need 50 votes + the VP to expand the Supreme Court to 11 seats, not 60). Using the nuked filibuster they should basically go nuts with respect to writing anti-conservative legislation on every issue, from abortion to rural aid to

Basically if Republican elected officials are going to defend Party, rather than national, interests... then Democrats must act in kind.

That would be a tremendously sad place for the country to be, but it's the only way to undo this disastrous era, should Republicans not agree to be willing and enthusiastic participants in undoing their illegitimate actions.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmf...Nancy Pelosi; "Impeachment not a priority"

Makes me wonder...

Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, very wisely, do not want to make the 2018 Election about Impeachment, although implicitly, it is all about impeachment.

The more they talk about it, they more it will energize Trump's base to his defense. It is the very last thing they should talk about. Covertly, people voting Democrat this election all have to be in on this. They Democrats are going to talk a lot about what they want to do when they take over the House and the Senate. Everyone has to just cheer, nod their head and not care really, because none of it will happen.

None of it will happen if 2019 is dominated by the Trump-Russia investigation, impeachment, and then the clean up... in that order.
None of it will happen in 2020, in the run up to the election.
None of it will happen so long as Pence is President, and Republicans control the House.

So talk about vision, but that's a post-2020 thing, when Democrats can win the Presidency and the Senate. For now, Democrats need to mostly bullshit about it, but really be thinking "impeachment".

But Nancy Pelosi is a problem. A serious one.

I don't like her one bit, and not for the terrible reasons conservatives usually don't like her. I can respect and like the principled political opposition. That's never an issue. Nancy Pelosi 2018 is the Mirror Universe version of Nancy Pelosi 2002. She is the living embodiment of "power corrupts". Since she became Democratic leader in the house, she has become one of the most prolific fundraisers in American political history. Obama could out-raise her, but he did it for his own campaign mostly. Many, many House Democrats, hailing from districts where there is little money to raise, owe her their jobs, because she holds fundraisers for them and bankrolls them with out of state money.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great thing that the leader of a party SHOULD DO. But she's done it to secure her power in the party. She of course justifies it... but it's an ends justifies the means kind of thing. She sees it as essential in pushing the Democratic Agenda... but strangely, it's an agenda with her and her septuagenarian sidekicks at the forefront, and not ever anybody else.

Nancy Pelosi's interview on NPR in 2016 was gross. She's lost herself in the fight. If 2002 Nancy Pelosi was about the good government can do to help people, 2016, and 2018 Nancy Pelosi is about raising money to demolish Republicans at every turn, and through that, help people. The political battles she has been in have compromised her in untold ways.

My fear is this: she's so compromised, that Trump is more useful to her exactly where he is, than anyone else. I am afraid that she will not stand up to defend America anymore than Paul Ryan will. She will think "Trump as President in 2019/2020 will allow Democrats to fund raise to a historic degree... and the House with me as Speaker can contain him".

She's right in the sense that she'll make more money off Trump, and expand her own power and influence as the highest elected leader of the opposition as Speaker of the House. She's wrong in that the House can contain him. I'm afraid she won't care.

Democrats need to do something about her. I found it repugnant that she did not become a back bencher after the Democratic defeat in the 2010 midterm election, and instead, had everyone below her in the democratic hierarchy take one step down so she could get her old Minority Leader job back. That is so contrary to the historic and healthy churn in American politics, that it probably lead directly to the future leadership hole the Democratic bench has today.

Democrats also can't afford to force her out. So what to do with her? I think the compromise is: she becomes a largely ceremonial speaker of the House. A fund raiser. And she plays a leadership role. But the Majority leader be the real front man and policy crafter this time. And that should be someone young, and probably liberal.

She very well may be part of the problem with removing Trump though. Democrats need to make sure she isn't.

[Shalcker]

No, I'm saying you're lying and misrepresenting what others are saying. You are deflecting and trolling and essentially shitposting your way through this forum, making it and the world a worse place.

Well, was decision to exonerate or not exonerate Clinton the right one? It seems to me that you consider voting against impeachment to be right.

What do you make of Republican votes there then? Ones that voted "wrong"?

What is going to stop Republicans from voting "wrong" (from your viewpoint) again in theoretical Trump impeachment, that didn't stop them in Clinton case?

Give me your answer if you don't want me to guess it.

[Breccia]

This opinion piece by Alan Derschowitz is important for a few reasons.

One, he's a long-time Trump defender. And in the piece, he admits that, if Cohen is in fact telling the truth, Trump broke the law.

Two, yes, he follows the GOP talking points "Cohen is a lying liar and nobody should trust him. Especially, nobody should hire him as their lawyer for 12 years. Hypocrisy? No thanks, those cause autism."

Third, Dershowitz has failed to say Trump didn't cheat on his wife.

But fourth and most importantly...scan the article. Check the overall tone. It's somber. It's tired. It's defeat. Dershowitz-end is forced to use "Hey, I'm a lawyer, and even I think campaign finance laws are tricky. Who knew bribing the porn starts you cheated on your wife with could be so complicated?" For someone like him to try to help Trump, by playing dumb, is proving how desperate the GOP is in saving their Golden Calf. The article is loaded with Whataboutism, with But Her Emails, with the same tired chorus the GOP has forced themselves to sing, to avoid the awkward silence when the music stops and they still have Trump on their side of the aisle.

And finally, Dershowitz does say, correctly, that a prosecutor should not take Cohen at his uncorroborated word. I happen to agree. Good thing prosecutors don't do that. Good thing Cohen, himself an experienced lawyer, knows that. Good thing David Pecker knows that, and guess who just got immunity?

Dershowitz is looking for a way out. He's just...done.

[Shalcker]

What was the charge Anna Politkovskaya for reporting on Chechen bombings? That one...

Chechens went and shot her; that was extent of their "gratitude".

[Skroe]

This opinion piece by Alan Derschowitz is important for a few reasons.

One, he's a long-time Trump defender. And in the piece, he admits that, if Cohen is in fact telling the truth, Trump broke the law.

Two, yes, he follows the GOP talking points "Cohen is a lying liar and nobody should trust him. Especially, nobody should hire him as their lawyer for 12 years. Hypocrisy? No thanks, those cause autism."

Third, Dershowitz has failed to say Trump didn't cheat on his wife.

But fourth and most importantly...scan the article. Check the overall tone. It's somber. It's tired. It's defeat. Dershowitz-end is forced to use "Hey, I'm a lawyer, and even I think campaign finance laws are tricky. Who knew bribing the porn starts you cheated on your wife with could be so complicated?" For someone like him to try to help Trump, by playing dumb, is proving how desperate the GOP is in saving their Golden Calf. The article is loaded with Whataboutism, with But Her Emails, with the same tired chorus the GOP has forced themselves to sing, to avoid the awkward silence when the music stops and they still have Trump on their side of the aisle.

And finally, Dershowitz does say, correctly, that a prosecutor should not take Cohen at his uncorroborated word. I happen to agree. Good thing prosecutors don't do that. Good thing Cohen, himself an experienced lawyer, knows that. Good thing David Pecker knows that, and guess who just got immunity?

Dershowitz is looking for a way out. He's just...done.

I still think Dershowitz's defense of Trump is motivated by him hoping that the truth about him and the Lolita Express don't spill out.

Once Trump is gone, there will be a thorough look over everything he's ever been involved in. Jeffery Epstein and the Lolita Express is one of those things. And one of the single big spot where the Trump-Dershowitz Venn diagram overlaps.

My guess: Dershowitz had sex on the Lolita Express... perhaps a once in a life time compromise who knows... and the dirty old man is trying to protect himself by protecting someone else who had sex on it.

[Shadowferal]

It figures that the lone holdout in Manafort's trial was one of those diehard Trump supporters.

[Breccia]

Congratulations Rachel Maddow, number one most watched show when the Cohen/Manafort news broke. Beat everyone on television, including Hannity, in the time slot, and sixth most watched show all day.

Her second most watched show in her history, as well.

[cubby]

Well, was decision to exonerate or not exonerate Clinton the right one? It seems to me that you consider voting against impeachment to be right.

What do you make of Republican votes there then? Ones that voted "wrong"?

What is going to stop Republicans from voting "wrong" (from your viewpoint) again in theoretical Trump impeachment, that didn't stop them in Clinton case?

Give me your answer if you don't want me to guess it.

Just stop - you are lying and deflecting. I pointed out your lies, how you misrepresent, on purpose, what people say right here and now you're just trying more of the same.

[Shalcker]

This opinion piece by Alan Derschowitz is important for a few reasons.

One, he's a long-time Trump defender. And in the piece, he admits that, if Cohen is in fact telling the truth, Trump broke the law.

Two, yes, he follows the GOP talking points "Cohen is a lying liar and nobody should trust him. Especially, nobody should hire him as their lawyer for 12 years. Hypocrisy? No thanks, those cause autism."

Third, Dershowitz has failed to say Trump didn't cheat on his wife.

But fourth and most importantly...scan the article. Check the overall tone. It's somber. It's tired. It's defeat. Dershowitz-end is forced to use "Hey, I'm a lawyer, and even I think campaign finance laws are tricky. Who knew bribing the porn starts you cheated on your wife with could be so complicated?" For someone like him to try to help Trump, by playing dumb, is proving how desperate the GOP is in saving their Golden Calf. The article is loaded with Whataboutism, with But Her Emails, with the same tired chorus the GOP has forced themselves to sing, to avoid the awkward silence when the music stops and they still have Trump on their side of the aisle.

And finally, Dershowitz does say, correctly, that a prosecutor should not take Cohen at his uncorroborated word. I happen to agree. Good thing prosecutors don't do that. Good thing Cohen, himself an experienced lawyer, knows that. Good thing David Pecker knows that, and guess who just got immunity?

Err, defeat?

What?

Does this sound like defeat?

Anyone reading the collection of statutes, regulations and rules that govern elections would immediately conclude — even while sitting — that they do not satisfy this Jeffersonian criteria. Reasonable people can disagree about whether these open-ended laws apply to any of the acts and omissions alleged against Trump by Cohen.
...
As a civil libertarian who voted and campaigned for, and contributed to, Hillary Clinton, I am critical as well of efforts to stretch these laws so as to target a president against whom I voted. The guilty plea of Michael Cohen coupled with the conviction of Paul Manafort do not make President Trump look good politically. He promised the American people to surround himself with the best advisers, but he surrounded himself with too many people who broke the law, even if he himself was not legally complicit. But the rule of law demands that we distinguish between political sins and federal felonies. As the record now stands, Donald Trump appears to be guilty of political sins, but not federal felonies or impeachable offenses.

And this seems like direct response to Skroe-like walls of wishful thinking:
You wouldn’t know that if you just watched those cable-television stations that are determined to find crimes and impeachable offenses against President Trump without regard to the law, the facts or consideration of civil liberties. If one applies a single standard without regard to politics, what I call “the shoe on the other foot test,” there are still large gaps between Michael Cohen’s plea of guilty, on the one hand, and crimes or impeachable offenses against Donald Trump on the other. Until and unless those gaps are filled with credible evidence of criminal behavior by the president, his enemies should be cautious about tolling the death knell for this presidency.