When this is all over and the investigation is allowed to officially announce that Trump is individual 1... do we all have to act surprised?
Obligatory Simpsons quote:
“Good morning, class. A certain agitator, for privacy’s sake let’s call her Lisa S., no, that’s too obvious. Let’s say L. Simpson.” – Principal Skinner
Kyle Griffin is a producer at MSNBC's The Last Word
However, this is an important quote in the piece.
For now, Republicans on Capitol Hill are still inclined to stand by Trump and give the president the benefit of the doubt. But one pro-Trump senator said privately that a breaking point would be if Mueller documents conspiracy with Russians.
“Then they’ve lost me,” said the senator, noting that several Republican lawmakers have been willing to publicly break with Trump when they believe it is in their interests — as many did over Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s role in the brutal killing of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
If this opinion is large enough in the GOP congress it's Nixon time once Mueller unveils his report.
Wouldn't you, you know, also redact any information that provides positive identification?
I'm just saying, it seems like a massive oversight. (or somebody is giving Trump the middle finger)
Because the point is not to stop any kind of identification at all. It's to follow guidelines that says "you do not use the name of people who are not the actual subject of the investigation in the report" or something vaguely like that.
Wouldn't you, you know, also redact any information that provides positive identification?
I'm just saying, it seems like a massive oversight. (or somebody is giving Trump the middle finger)
Because the point is not to stop any kind of identification at all. It's to follow guidelines that says "you do not use the name of people who are not the actual subject of the investigation in the report" or something vaguely like that.
But I assume that protocol exists for a reason, and that providing other means of positive ID would contradict that reason.
Otherwise you're saying they just do it for the sake of doing it and while I wouldn't put that past our government, I have a feeling that's not the case.
Wouldn't you, you know, also redact any information that provides positive identification?
I'm just saying, it seems like a massive oversight. (or somebody is giving Trump the middle finger)
Because the point is not to stop any kind of identification at all. It's to follow guidelines that says "you do not use the name of people who are not the actual subject of the investigation in the report" or something vaguely like that.
I’ve heard that this report was basically a ‘fuck you’ to Trump. They followed the letter of the law but not the spirit so that everyone would know exactly what that fucker did but they can still turn around and say “I don’t know what you’re talking about, we never revealed that information.”
Wouldn't you, you know, also redact any information that provides positive identification?
I'm just saying, it seems like a massive oversight. (or somebody is giving Trump the middle finger)
Because the point is not to stop any kind of identification at all. It's to follow guidelines that says "you do not use the name of people who are not the actual subject of the investigation in the report" or something vaguely like that.
But I assume that protocol exists for a reason, and that providing other means of positive ID would contradict that reason.
Otherwise you're saying they just do it for the sake of doing it and while I wouldn't put that past our government, I have a feeling that's not the case.
As far as I remember it being said, it's a guideline for writing reports. So yes, you literally do it for the sake of doing it.
Most reports like this do not receive this level of attention. These guidelines were written so that if someone Googles your name, they don't find it in a police report and freak out, even though you were just a witness or victim. This is a reasonable precaution to take. The guidelines don't really work in this case, but everyone would have figured it out even if they thoroughly redacted the document, so why bother being more thorough?
Kyle Griffin is a producer at MSNBC's The Last Word
However, this is an important quote in the piece.
For now, Republicans on Capitol Hill are still inclined to stand by Trump and give the president the benefit of the doubt. But one pro-Trump senator said privately that a breaking point would be if Mueller documents conspiracy with Russians.
“Then they’ve lost me,” said the senator, noting that several Republican lawmakers have been willing to publicly break with Trump when they believe it is in their interests — as many did over Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s role in the brutal killing of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
If this opinion is large enough in the GOP congress it's Nixon time once Mueller unveils his report.
They could censure the president. That's a nice empty gesture that makes them feel good about themselves.
Kyle Griffin is a producer at MSNBC's The Last Word
However, this is an important quote in the piece.
For now, Republicans on Capitol Hill are still inclined to stand by Trump and give the president the benefit of the doubt. But one pro-Trump senator said privately that a breaking point would be if Mueller documents conspiracy with Russians.
“Then they’ve lost me,” said the senator, noting that several Republican lawmakers have been willing to publicly break with Trump when they believe it is in their interests — as many did over Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s role in the brutal killing of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
If this opinion is large enough in the GOP congress it's Nixon time once Mueller unveils his report.
They could censure the president. That's a nice empty gesture that makes them feel good about themselves.
There is no excuse, technicality or outright fabrication that is beyond them these days. The alternative is to basically light their party on fire as the "Trump, forever and always" people turn on the rest.
Kyle Griffin is a producer at MSNBC's The Last Word
However, this is an important quote in the piece.
For now, Republicans on Capitol Hill are still inclined to stand by Trump and give the president the benefit of the doubt. But one pro-Trump senator said privately that a breaking point would be if Mueller documents conspiracy with Russians.
“Then they’ve lost me,” said the senator, noting that several Republican lawmakers have been willing to publicly break with Trump when they believe it is in their interests — as many did over Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s role in the brutal killing of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
If this opinion is large enough in the GOP congress it's Nixon time once Mueller unveils his report.
They could censure the president. That's a nice empty gesture that makes them feel good about themselves.
They won't even do that. Trump would flip out on them regardless and so would the base. Even the illusion of disloyalty cannot be abided.
They'll turn on him when they believe the assumption that underlies this alleged strategy no longer holds true.
The tide does seem to be turning on Donald, and not just from the Russia Investigation. He's alienated nearly every agency and branch of government. He's sitting on a shaky stock market that could crash any time; a shakiness he accelerated by putting in tariffs. He's up to his eyeballs in corruption, both personal and political. He can't hold onto any staff because everyone hates him, or they end up indicted, or resigning in shame because of unethical behavior. His chief of staff won't even talk to him, meaning we have an actual crisis of leadership since most believe Kelly is acting president anyway. (Or Trump is so lazy he won't do the work) He's got a hostile house coming in January. He's damaged the republican brand worldwide. If Trump loses Mitch, he's basically lost the only enabler he's got left.
People will abide most things in a leader, but clear, continued stupidity will erode even the most steadfast support.
Dark_Side on
+20
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Most reports like this do not receive this level of attention. These guidelines were written so that if someone Googles your name, they don't find it in a police report and freak out, even though you were just a witness or victim. This is a reasonable precaution to take. The guidelines don't really work in this case, but everyone would have figured it out even if they thoroughly redacted the document, so why bother being more thorough?
Yeah it's a reasonable measure to protect the identity of regular people, but it obviously won't work for the POTUS.
The fact that Individual 1 was running for president was also relevant for the case, so probably couldn't be excluded anyway.
Nothing is going to happen as long as they know that supporting trunp gets you just enough margins of die hard supporters so that you succeed, and if you go against him, the base will turn, and you risk being voted out. It's basica surivival in the ranks, self preservation, which is how tyrants and dictators rule. You know you're doing wrong, but to go against the king means you and your family will go down. Maybe you are serious, and mention it to someone, but now are scared, so you turn them in for proclamations against the crown. I mean, presidency.
I never thought our democracy could fall, but all the cracks are amlost in place for it to happen. If we impeach trump there's a chance rightwing nuts do something bad. Maybe cival war, not like last time, but general dissent happens.
Until the base turns on trump, congress gets some balls and starts speaking the truth, and the media also starts educating people instead of using fear for ratings nothing is going to change. But I hope so.
This is how things should work in the real world. But he's rich, white, and protected, and has a dangerous extreme base.
But....we have documented conspiracy between many members of Trump's team and the Russians, some of which comes directly from the people involved in the conspiracy just tweeting it out!
That's such a bullshit excuse that I can't help but read it as "If Mueller documents enough Russian conspiracy that it is politically tenable to turn on the President"
| Zinnar on most things | Avatar by Blameless Cleric
+39
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
GOP Senators won’t turn on Trump for the same reason that quote was anonymous. It shouldn’t be controversial to say “If Mueller proves Trump colluded I’ll vote to impeach,” because the GOP line is still “Mueller won’t prove anything.” But whoever that was can’t put their name out there, because no matter how many GOP Senators might wish they could impeach Trump, none of them are willing to go first (which bears the terrible possibility of going alone, and being destroyed). It’s a collective action problem and we all know how great the Republican party is at those...
There is no excuse, technicality or outright fabrication that is beyond them these days. The alternative is to basically light their party on fire as the "Trump, forever and always" people turn on the rest.
Up until the moment Trump is out of office (whether it's premature, 2020 or 2024), and then you'll have 20+ Senators and 80+ Congresspeople (the rest will be trying to fill the vacancy) all saying that it was terrible that he was President, and they would have done something but there wasn't anything they could do, but they were always against him, and that they should get credit for being against him all along, despite no real record of opposition.
+32
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited December 2018
It's honestly not worth talking about the GOP's possible actions. even if they impeached him tomorrow the line will be that it was too late and they abetted too much, and of course they don't really mean it anyway. and I'm not even saying that's wrong but talking about them from the perspective that they could/wouldn't possibly do the 'right thing' in the eyes of at least most people here is a waste of time.
it's news that even an anonymous GOP member mentioned the idea of Trump's presidency ending early. It's significant most especially in light of what feels to me like more separation between trump and them since the midterms than in the 2 years prior. That they are as of yet not acting and that even if they do it won't really be enough to salvage them in our eyes doesn't matter.
Jerome Corsi is an aqaintance of Roger Stone and is a person of interest in teh Mueller investigation. He's recently made news by publicly whining about the investigation.
+11
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Corsi is a conspiracy theorist. He wrote the book on birtherism.
He claims he’s being unfairly targeted by Mueller because he “guessed” that Wikileaks would leak emails that had been hacked from the Clinton campaign.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
+1
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Corsi is a conspiracy theorist. He wrote the book on birtherism.
He claims he’s being unfairly targeted by Mueller because he “guessed” that Wikileaks would leak emails that had been hacked from the Clinton campaign.
Associate of Roger Stone, conspiracy theorist, long-time quite successful Republican smear man. At the forefront of swift boating Kerry and the birther movement. Was working with Stone and Wikileaks on releasing damaging information against Clinton supplied by the Russians.
Mueller's been trying to flip him. But once Whitaker was appointed he clammed up. Marcy Wheeler believes it's because he knows Whitaker won't sign off on Mueller on going after him. (specifically, the supeonas as I understand it) Basically, he's counting on GOP obstruction of justice to keep his ass safe. He's suing Mueller to try and muddy the waters and to go after him with lawyers and such. We've known this was coming for a while now.
But....we have documented conspiracy between many members of Trump's team and the Russians, some of which comes directly from the people involved in the conspiracy just tweeting it out!
That's such a bullshit excuse that I can't help but read it as "If Mueller documents enough Russian conspiracy that it is politically tenable to turn on the President"
Enough, i.e., n+1 documentations, where n is the number of documentations.
It’s infuriating that the official, stated-in-court-documents position of the Department of Justice is that Trump committed 2 felonies isn’t the story and we’re back to fucking reality TV arguments to distract.
Posts
“Good morning, class. A certain agitator, for privacy’s sake let’s call her Lisa S., no, that’s too obvious. Let’s say L. Simpson.” – Principal Skinner
Even Trump isn't so stupid as to not figure that one out.
I wasn't president until January of 2017! MAGA!
Yeah isn't it just a matter of the rules for these things?
Kyle Griffin is a producer at MSNBC's The Last Word
However, this is an important quote in the piece.
If this opinion is large enough in the GOP congress it's Nixon time once Mueller unveils his report.
Wouldn't you, you know, also redact any information that provides positive identification?
I'm just saying, it seems like a massive oversight. (or somebody is giving Trump the middle finger)
Because the point is not to stop any kind of identification at all. It's to follow guidelines that says "you do not use the name of people who are not the actual subject of the investigation in the report" or something vaguely like that.
But I assume that protocol exists for a reason, and that providing other means of positive ID would contradict that reason.
Otherwise you're saying they just do it for the sake of doing it and while I wouldn't put that past our government, I have a feeling that's not the case.
I’ve heard that this report was basically a ‘fuck you’ to Trump. They followed the letter of the law but not the spirit so that everyone would know exactly what that fucker did but they can still turn around and say “I don’t know what you’re talking about, we never revealed that information.”
As far as I remember it being said, it's a guideline for writing reports. So yes, you literally do it for the sake of doing it.
They could censure the president. That's a nice empty gesture that makes them feel good about themselves.
I doubt they'll go that far honestly
There is no excuse, technicality or outright fabrication that is beyond them these days. The alternative is to basically light their party on fire as the "Trump, forever and always" people turn on the rest.
They won't even do that. Trump would flip out on them regardless and so would the base. Even the illusion of disloyalty cannot be abided.
They'll turn on him when they believe the assumption that underlies this alleged strategy no longer holds true.
People will abide most things in a leader, but clear, continued stupidity will erode even the most steadfast support.
Yeah it's a reasonable measure to protect the identity of regular people, but it obviously won't work for the POTUS.
The fact that Individual 1 was running for president was also relevant for the case, so probably couldn't be excluded anyway.
I never thought our democracy could fall, but all the cracks are amlost in place for it to happen. If we impeach trump there's a chance rightwing nuts do something bad. Maybe cival war, not like last time, but general dissent happens.
Until the base turns on trump, congress gets some balls and starts speaking the truth, and the media also starts educating people instead of using fear for ratings nothing is going to change. But I hope so.
This is how things should work in the real world. But he's rich, white, and protected, and has a dangerous extreme base.
https://youtu.be/HOABHShgGjg
That's such a bullshit excuse that I can't help but read it as "If Mueller documents enough Russian conspiracy that it is politically tenable to turn on the President"
Then again, they also used to hate Russia...
Up until the moment Trump is out of office (whether it's premature, 2020 or 2024), and then you'll have 20+ Senators and 80+ Congresspeople (the rest will be trying to fill the vacancy) all saying that it was terrible that he was President, and they would have done something but there wasn't anything they could do, but they were always against him, and that they should get credit for being against him all along, despite no real record of opposition.
it's news that even an anonymous GOP member mentioned the idea of Trump's presidency ending early. It's significant most especially in light of what feels to me like more separation between trump and them since the midterms than in the 2 years prior. That they are as of yet not acting and that even if they do it won't really be enough to salvage them in our eyes doesn't matter.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/10/politics/jerome-corsi-robert-mueller-lawsuit/index.html
Who or what is Jerome Corsi?
He claims he’s being unfairly targeted by Mueller because he “guessed” that Wikileaks would leak emails that had been hacked from the Clinton campaign.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
He's also the Swift Boat guy.
Associate of Roger Stone, conspiracy theorist, long-time quite successful Republican smear man. At the forefront of swift boating Kerry and the birther movement. Was working with Stone and Wikileaks on releasing damaging information against Clinton supplied by the Russians.
Mueller's been trying to flip him. But once Whitaker was appointed he clammed up. Marcy Wheeler believes it's because he knows Whitaker won't sign off on Mueller on going after him. (specifically, the supeonas as I understand it) Basically, he's counting on GOP obstruction of justice to keep his ass safe. He's suing Mueller to try and muddy the waters and to go after him with lawyers and such. We've known this was coming for a while now.
You don't need a smocking gun to prove someone did it.
Enough, i.e., n+1 documentations, where n is the number of documentations.
“And even if it did happen, and it totally didn’t guys...but if it did, then it’s the lawyers fault. Not mine, even though it’s super legal anyway.”
He just . . . tweeted it out