Just to make a note Mr. Chairman, just because someone has a person of color, a black person working for them, does not mean they aren't racist. And it is insensitive that [sic] some would even say it's ra- the fact that someone would actually use a prop, a black woman, in this chamber, in this committee [sighs] is alone racist in itself.
You cannot make a coherent argument that what the Republicans did is in and of itself racist in a 5-second sound bite. (At least, not her 5-second sound bite.)
The first line was fine. It's a repeat of Pressley's point. The second line makes absolutely no sense to someone who is not already sympathetic to what she is saying. And frankly, on further reflection is completely dismissive of Lynne Patton's own opinion. A black woman is willing to go on the record and say that she doesn't think Trump is racist. To simply dismiss her own perspective as being a "prop" is condescending and hypocritical.
It requires more unpacking than "WTF U RACIST" to properly confront this issue. If you are not prepared to make the argument, then mere confrontation is not going to get the job done on its own, and in fact will probably make things worse.
Again, the first point was already clearly made - a black person saying you are not racist does not make you not a racist. If you can't explain in the time you have available why trotting Patton out was in and of itself an act of racism, then don't make the claim, because at first glance having "a black friend" is actually a pretty intuitive defense against a claim of racism in the first place. Especially to the people who might be convinced otherwise but who haven't spent time thinking about the issue.
To be clear, my issue is not that she shouldn't have said something. I agree that in an ideal world, you call that shit out immediately. But if you're going to do it, you need to do it properly. Especially given the context and the stakes at hand (a Congressional hearing with millions of people watching and only 5 minutes of airtime). I don't think she should've followed up with that second part unless she had something better than what basically came across as this:
I haven't watched Congresswoman Tlaib's testimony, but is it time to post the Jay Smooth clip "How To Tell Someone They Sound Racist?" Is it topical here?
I think it's excellent for a Congressperson to call out racist shit that's happening, in a huge hearing like this. But I think you have to be very careful about exactly what you're doing and how you do it. Words and presentation are your weapons here, you want that to be sharp. Yes the conservative media machine will try to spin it somehow, but you don't want to make it easy for them.
Of course, laying out a very precise argument is not gonna be easy come up with on the fly.
She initially called him racist and after Cummings asked her if she wanted to rephrase it she graciously changed it to his actions being what she found racist.
Didn't she say, basically, that a person bringing forward a black employee as a prop to prove he is not a racist is an act that is, in and of itself, racist?
Pretty sure her intent always was that the act was racist, not the person doing it. Which is totally true. The act was 100% a racist bullshit "I have black friends" thing. Can a person who is generally not racist do racist things? Of course! We live in a society with deep racial undercurrents that drive a ton of behavior a person could otherwise mistake for being innocent.
I was elated when she called it out, and I was screaming at the white fragility on display after she did.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I haven't watched Congresswoman Tlaib's testimony, but is it time to post the Jay Smooth clip "How To Tell Someone They Sound Racist?" Is it topical here?
I think it's excellent for a Congressperson to call out racist shit that's happening, in a huge hearing like this. But I think you have to be very careful about exactly what you're doing and how you do it. Words and presentation are your weapons here, you want that to be sharp. Yes the conservative media machine will try to spin it somehow, but you don't want to make it easy for them.
Of course, laying out a very precise argument is not gonna be easy come up with on the fly.
She initially called him racist and after Cummings asked her if she wanted to rephrase it she graciously changed it to his actions being what she found racist.
Didn't she say, basically, that a person bringing forward a black employee as a prop to prove he is not a racist is an act that is, in and of itself, racist?
Pretty sure her intent always was that the act was racist, not the person doing it. Which is totally true. The act was 100% a racist bullshit "I have black friends" thing. Can a person who is generally not racist do racist things? Of course! We live in a society with deep racial undercurrents that drive a ton of behavior a person could otherwise mistake for being innocent.
I was elated when she called it out, and I was screaming at the white fragility on display after she did.
The general public doesn't understand that nuance, and I will continue to believe that until I see evidence to the contrary
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I haven't watched Congresswoman Tlaib's testimony, but is it time to post the Jay Smooth clip "How To Tell Someone They Sound Racist?" Is it topical here?
I think it's excellent for a Congressperson to call out racist shit that's happening, in a huge hearing like this. But I think you have to be very careful about exactly what you're doing and how you do it. Words and presentation are your weapons here, you want that to be sharp. Yes the conservative media machine will try to spin it somehow, but you don't want to make it easy for them.
Of course, laying out a very precise argument is not gonna be easy come up with on the fly.
She initially called him racist and after Cummings asked her if she wanted to rephrase it she graciously changed it to his actions being what she found racist.
Didn't she say, basically, that a person bringing forward a black employee as a prop to prove he is not a racist is an act that is, in and of itself, racist?
Pretty sure her intent always was that the act was racist, not the person doing it. Which is totally true. The act was 100% a racist bullshit "I have black friends" thing. Can a person who is generally not racist do racist things? Of course! We live in a society with deep racial undercurrents that drive a ton of behavior a person could otherwise mistake for being innocent.
I was elated when she called it out, and I was screaming at the white fragility on display after she did.
The general public doesn't understand that nuance, and I will continue to believe that until I see evidence to the contrary
I definitely think Meadows doesn’t understand it, given his defense was basically “Bro, you’re black, and we work together and hang out, I’ve got black nephews, tell everyone I’m not racist”.
Or at least that’s what I got from his exchange with Cummings.
Just to make a note Mr. Chairman, just because someone has a person of color, a black person working for them, does not mean they aren't racist. And it is insensitive that [sic] some would even say it's ra- the fact that someone would actually use a prop, a black woman, in this chamber, in this committee [sighs] is alone racist in itself.
You cannot make a coherent argument that what the Republicans did is in and of itself racist in a 5-second sound bite. (At least, not her 5-second sound bite.)
She doesn’t have to. The point wasn’t to lay out a nine bullet explanation about the subtleties of racism. It was to set an example for others by confronting a racist.
I haven't watched Congresswoman Tlaib's testimony, but is it time to post the Jay Smooth clip "How To Tell Someone They Sound Racist?" Is it topical here?
I think it's excellent for a Congressperson to call out racist shit that's happening, in a huge hearing like this. But I think you have to be very careful about exactly what you're doing and how you do it. Words and presentation are your weapons here, you want that to be sharp. Yes the conservative media machine will try to spin it somehow, but you don't want to make it easy for them.
Of course, laying out a very precise argument is not gonna be easy come up with on the fly.
She initially called him racist and after Cummings asked her if she wanted to rephrase it she graciously changed it to his actions being what she found racist.
Didn't she say, basically, that a person bringing forward a black employee as a prop to prove he is not a racist is an act that is, in and of itself, racist?
Pretty sure her intent always was that the act was racist, not the person doing it. Which is totally true. The act was 100% a racist bullshit "I have black friends" thing. Can a person who is generally not racist do racist things? Of course! We live in a society with deep racial undercurrents that drive a ton of behavior a person could otherwise mistake for being innocent.
I was elated when she called it out, and I was screaming at the white fragility on display after she did.
The general public doesn't understand that nuance, and I will continue to believe that until I see evidence to the contrary
That's because there is no difference in any way that doesn't relate to making a congressman feel better about himself. There is no meaningful difference between being a racist and doing racist things. "Racist" is not some special state of being that only special bad people can be, it's just what you are when you engage in racism. It's no different than crime and the label of criminal.
We would be in a much better situation if more congressmen were a lot less concerned with how they can avoid the label of "racist" and a lot more concerned with how they can stop doing racist things.
I haven't watched Congresswoman Tlaib's testimony, but is it time to post the Jay Smooth clip "How To Tell Someone They Sound Racist?" Is it topical here?
I think it's excellent for a Congressperson to call out racist shit that's happening, in a huge hearing like this. But I think you have to be very careful about exactly what you're doing and how you do it. Words and presentation are your weapons here, you want that to be sharp. Yes the conservative media machine will try to spin it somehow, but you don't want to make it easy for them.
Of course, laying out a very precise argument is not gonna be easy come up with on the fly.
She initially called him racist and after Cummings asked her if she wanted to rephrase it she graciously changed it to his actions being what she found racist.
Didn't she say, basically, that a person bringing forward a black employee as a prop to prove he is not a racist is an act that is, in and of itself, racist?
Pretty sure her intent always was that the act was racist, not the person doing it. Which is totally true. The act was 100% a racist bullshit "I have black friends" thing. Can a person who is generally not racist do racist things? Of course! We live in a society with deep racial undercurrents that drive a ton of behavior a person could otherwise mistake for being innocent.
I was elated when she called it out, and I was screaming at the white fragility on display after she did.
The general public doesn't understand that nuance, and I will continue to believe that until I see evidence to the contrary
That's because there is no difference in any way that doesn't relate to making a congressman feel better about himself. There is no meaningful difference between being a racist and doing racist things. "Racist" is not some special state of being that only special bad people can be, it's just what you are when you engage in racism. It's no different than crime and the label of criminal.
We would be in a much better situation if more congressmen were a lot less concerned with how they can avoid the label of "racist" and a lot more concerned with how they can stop doing racist things.
This is starting to veer off topic but you can absolutely do something racist without being a racist.
Ignorance is one way. Do you know how many times I have seen a forumer call someone or something “savage”?
For me the difference is, are they willing to learn and be better?
I haven't watched Congresswoman Tlaib's testimony, but is it time to post the Jay Smooth clip "How To Tell Someone They Sound Racist?" Is it topical here?
I think it's excellent for a Congressperson to call out racist shit that's happening, in a huge hearing like this. But I think you have to be very careful about exactly what you're doing and how you do it. Words and presentation are your weapons here, you want that to be sharp. Yes the conservative media machine will try to spin it somehow, but you don't want to make it easy for them.
Of course, laying out a very precise argument is not gonna be easy come up with on the fly.
She initially called him racist and after Cummings asked her if she wanted to rephrase it she graciously changed it to his actions being what she found racist.
Didn't she say, basically, that a person bringing forward a black employee as a prop to prove he is not a racist is an act that is, in and of itself, racist?
Pretty sure her intent always was that the act was racist, not the person doing it. Which is totally true. The act was 100% a racist bullshit "I have black friends" thing. Can a person who is generally not racist do racist things? Of course! We live in a society with deep racial undercurrents that drive a ton of behavior a person could otherwise mistake for being innocent.
I was elated when she called it out, and I was screaming at the white fragility on display after she did.
The general public doesn't understand that nuance, and I will continue to believe that until I see evidence to the contrary
That's because there is no difference in any way that doesn't relate to making a congressman feel better about himself. There is no meaningful difference between being a racist and doing racist things. "Racist" is not some special state of being that only special bad people can be, it's just what you are when you engage in racism. It's no different than crime and the label of criminal.
We would be in a much better situation if more congressmen were a lot less concerned with how they can avoid the label of "racist" and a lot more concerned with how they can stop doing racist things.
This is starting to veer off topic but you can absolutely do something racist without being a racist.
Ignorance is one way. Do you know how many times I have seen a forumer call someone or something “savage”?
For me the difference is, are they willing to learn and be better?
Mark Meadows clearly is not.
You're right that this is off-topic, but I disagree absolutely. We could maybe pick this up in another thread.
I haven't watched Congresswoman Tlaib's testimony, but is it time to post the Jay Smooth clip "How To Tell Someone They Sound Racist?" Is it topical here?
I think it's excellent for a Congressperson to call out racist shit that's happening, in a huge hearing like this. But I think you have to be very careful about exactly what you're doing and how you do it. Words and presentation are your weapons here, you want that to be sharp. Yes the conservative media machine will try to spin it somehow, but you don't want to make it easy for them.
Of course, laying out a very precise argument is not gonna be easy come up with on the fly.
She initially called him racist and after Cummings asked her if she wanted to rephrase it she graciously changed it to his actions being what she found racist.
Didn't she say, basically, that a person bringing forward a black employee as a prop to prove he is not a racist is an act that is, in and of itself, racist?
Pretty sure her intent always was that the act was racist, not the person doing it. Which is totally true. The act was 100% a racist bullshit "I have black friends" thing. Can a person who is generally not racist do racist things? Of course! We live in a society with deep racial undercurrents that drive a ton of behavior a person could otherwise mistake for being innocent.
I was elated when she called it out, and I was screaming at the white fragility on display after she did.
The general public doesn't understand that nuance, and I will continue to believe that until I see evidence to the contrary
Which is exactly why the right way to address it is publicly and explosively.
I kind of wish she had just doubled down and her clarifying remark was “fuck you, racist” to Meadows.
I mean even after her completely accurate comments, he used his privilege to bully congress into pacifying him, including Tlaib.
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Just to make a note Mr. Chairman, just because someone has a person of color, a black person working for them, does not mean they aren't racist. And it is insensitive that [sic] some would even say it's ra- the fact that someone would actually use a prop, a black woman, in this chamber, in this committee [sighs] is alone racist in itself.
You cannot make a coherent argument that what the Republicans did is in and of itself racist in a 5-second sound bite. (At least, not her 5-second sound bite.)
She doesn’t have to. The point wasn’t to lay out a nine bullet explanation about the subtleties of racism. It was to set an example for others by confronting a racist.
Yeah because the best way to confront racism is to just call people racist and mic drop.
Just to make a note Mr. Chairman, just because someone has a person of color, a black person working for them, does not mean they aren't racist. And it is insensitive that [sic] some would even say it's ra- the fact that someone would actually use a prop, a black woman, in this chamber, in this committee [sighs] is alone racist in itself.
You cannot make a coherent argument that what the Republicans did is in and of itself racist in a 5-second sound bite. (At least, not her 5-second sound bite.)
She doesn’t have to. The point wasn’t to lay out a nine bullet explanation about the subtleties of racism. It was to set an example for others by confronting a racist.
Yeah because the best way to confront racism is to just call people racist and mic drop.
Sometimes it can be. Maybe someone at home watching looked at how incendiary that was, saw how much of a fucking privileged crybaby Meadows was, and something snapped.
I mean, Tlaib sure wasn’t trying to convince Meadows with her comments.
The first line was fine. It's a repeat of Pressley's point. The second line makes absolutely no sense to someone who is not already sympathetic to what she is saying. And frankly, on further reflection is completely dismissive of Lynne Patton's own opinion. A black woman is willing to go on the record and say that she doesn't think Trump is racist. To simply dismiss her own perspective as being a "prop" is condescending and hypocritical.
The point isn't to dismiss Patton's opinion, but to point out the absurdity of making that lone opinion a form of exoneration for the claim that Trump is racist. Patton isn't some ambassador or figurehead for all people of color, but the GOP treated her as such. "See? This one person of color thinks that Trump isn't racist, which means he isn't. Case closed." It's absurd and insulting, and it's that action that's racist.
At least on my news feed and from what I can google, no one is talking about the racist thing much and definitely not to the exclusion of the rest of the hearing, so it seems to have worked out fine.
A racist got called racist, he whinged like a baby as they always do, everyone on Fox News went back to talking about Cohen being a liar.
Racism should be confronted, not ignored. The more it's visibly confronted the more confronting it will feel normal within the public landscape, just as the more racist Trump and the GOP have been the more 'normal' that's felt to lots of people.
If the media choose to run with a particular angle that's not Tlaib's fault, nor should she feel she has to let racism slide.
It was already addressed, the exact thing, by Pressley, more pointedly and without derailing the meeting. Tlaib overrrached, knew she had, stumbled while reading, basically walked into the trap and had it sprung around her. Sometimes in politics you let the better punch land instead of trying to get your own shot in while crossing lines you know will blow up a meeting.
I bet Cummings gave her an earful afterwards as well, he clearly knew what was up.
I haven't watched Congresswoman Tlaib's testimony, but is it time to post the Jay Smooth clip "How To Tell Someone They Sound Racist?" Is it topical here?
I think it's excellent for a Congressperson to call out racist shit that's happening, in a huge hearing like this. But I think you have to be very careful about exactly what you're doing and how you do it. Words and presentation are your weapons here, you want that to be sharp. Yes the conservative media machine will try to spin it somehow, but you don't want to make it easy for them.
Of course, laying out a very precise argument is not gonna be easy come up with on the fly.
She initially called him racist and after Cummings asked her if she wanted to rephrase it she graciously changed it to his actions being what she found racist.
Didn't she say, basically, that a person bringing forward a black employee as a prop to prove he is not a racist is an act that is, in and of itself, racist?
Pretty sure her intent always was that the act was racist, not the person doing it. Which is totally true. The act was 100% a racist bullshit "I have black friends" thing. Can a person who is generally not racist do racist things? Of course! We live in a society with deep racial undercurrents that drive a ton of behavior a person could otherwise mistake for being innocent.
I was elated when she called it out, and I was screaming at the white fragility on display after she did.
The general public doesn't understand that nuance, and I will continue to believe that until I see evidence to the contrary
Which is exactly why the right way to address it is publicly and explosively.
I kind of wish she had just doubled down and her clarifying remark was “fuck you, racist” to Meadows.
I mean even after her completely accurate comments, he used his privilege to bully congress into pacifying him, including Tlaib.
No he didn't. He used a rule expressly forbidding Congressional members from talking shit about one another in a formal setting to call her out. She was violating the rules of body, and that's why Cummings gives her a chance to walk it back. She didn't have the desire to take the hit she knew might be coming, so she did walk it back.
I feel like we're kind of done talking about the hearing and are now kicking one particular can back and forth forever. The thread will be locked soonish and conversation about any of the points arising from it should go in the appropriate existing thread. If you think something of particular note doesn't have it's own thread, you can make a new thread.
As it turned out, I didn't kick anybody from the thread. So well done everyone.
What depresses me about this whole thing is that I think the truth is incredibly plain by now, everybody in both parties pretty much knows it, and the GOP doesn't care. Mainly because they can't risk offending Trump's base, who also doesn't care. Other than Trump committing a brand new, somehow more serious crime, I don't see what can happen now that will make them care.
+11
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
They'll care once it affects their chances of being reelected or having their own kompromat released.
What depresses me about this whole thing is that I think the truth is incredibly plain by now, everybody in both parties pretty much knows it, and the GOP doesn't care. Mainly because they can't risk offending Trump's base, who also doesn't care. Other than Trump committing a brand new, somehow more serious crime, I don't see what can happen now that will make them care.
If you look at the connections with the NRA and Russian money, and the some of the meetings at the 2016 R Convention with Russian "diplomats", the most likely reason is that a lot of the GOP is more broadly compromised than it is comfortable to think about.
+13
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
They can’t care without implicating themselves. The GOP takes NRA money in droves, and its looking more and more that they were a vector in all this. The entire GOP in 2016 took Russian money, even if they personally didn’t know the provenence.
+2
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Oh yeah, this goes deep. I think one of the primary reasons the republicans are forming the shield-wall around Trump is because, honestly, that dude will sing like a canary the first chance he gets, if he gets the chance. He'll rat people out from sheer spite, much less any sort of plea deal. "I got caught but this loser didn't? Nope! Lemme get my fiddle while this fire gets goin."
Posts
You cannot make a coherent argument that what the Republicans did is in and of itself racist in a 5-second sound bite. (At least, not her 5-second sound bite.)
The first line was fine. It's a repeat of Pressley's point. The second line makes absolutely no sense to someone who is not already sympathetic to what she is saying. And frankly, on further reflection is completely dismissive of Lynne Patton's own opinion. A black woman is willing to go on the record and say that she doesn't think Trump is racist. To simply dismiss her own perspective as being a "prop" is condescending and hypocritical.
It requires more unpacking than "WTF U RACIST" to properly confront this issue. If you are not prepared to make the argument, then mere confrontation is not going to get the job done on its own, and in fact will probably make things worse.
Again, the first point was already clearly made - a black person saying you are not racist does not make you not a racist. If you can't explain in the time you have available why trotting Patton out was in and of itself an act of racism, then don't make the claim, because at first glance having "a black friend" is actually a pretty intuitive defense against a claim of racism in the first place. Especially to the people who might be convinced otherwise but who haven't spent time thinking about the issue.
To be clear, my issue is not that she shouldn't have said something. I agree that in an ideal world, you call that shit out immediately. But if you're going to do it, you need to do it properly. Especially given the context and the stakes at hand (a Congressional hearing with millions of people watching and only 5 minutes of airtime). I don't think she should've followed up with that second part unless she had something better than what basically came across as this:
Didn't she say, basically, that a person bringing forward a black employee as a prop to prove he is not a racist is an act that is, in and of itself, racist?
Pretty sure her intent always was that the act was racist, not the person doing it. Which is totally true. The act was 100% a racist bullshit "I have black friends" thing. Can a person who is generally not racist do racist things? Of course! We live in a society with deep racial undercurrents that drive a ton of behavior a person could otherwise mistake for being innocent.
I was elated when she called it out, and I was screaming at the white fragility on display after she did.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The general public doesn't understand that nuance, and I will continue to believe that until I see evidence to the contrary
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I definitely think Meadows doesn’t understand it, given his defense was basically “Bro, you’re black, and we work together and hang out, I’ve got black nephews, tell everyone I’m not racist”.
Or at least that’s what I got from his exchange with Cummings.
She doesn’t have to. The point wasn’t to lay out a nine bullet explanation about the subtleties of racism. It was to set an example for others by confronting a racist.
Mark Meadows took a racist action yesterday.
Just because you do something racist doesn’t necessarily mean you are a racist.
Mark Meadows is definitely a racist though.
That's because there is no difference in any way that doesn't relate to making a congressman feel better about himself. There is no meaningful difference between being a racist and doing racist things. "Racist" is not some special state of being that only special bad people can be, it's just what you are when you engage in racism. It's no different than crime and the label of criminal.
We would be in a much better situation if more congressmen were a lot less concerned with how they can avoid the label of "racist" and a lot more concerned with how they can stop doing racist things.
This is starting to veer off topic but you can absolutely do something racist without being a racist.
Ignorance is one way. Do you know how many times I have seen a forumer call someone or something “savage”?
For me the difference is, are they willing to learn and be better?
Mark Meadows clearly is not.
You're right that this is off-topic, but I disagree absolutely. We could maybe pick this up in another thread.
Which is exactly why the right way to address it is publicly and explosively.
I kind of wish she had just doubled down and her clarifying remark was “fuck you, racist” to Meadows.
I mean even after her completely accurate comments, he used his privilege to bully congress into pacifying him, including Tlaib.
Yeah because the best way to confront racism is to just call people racist and mic drop.
Sometimes it can be. Maybe someone at home watching looked at how incendiary that was, saw how much of a fucking privileged crybaby Meadows was, and something snapped.
I mean, Tlaib sure wasn’t trying to convince Meadows with her comments.
This is unproductive. Also the whole tangent is now veering off into off-topic territory so it's done.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
The point isn't to dismiss Patton's opinion, but to point out the absurdity of making that lone opinion a form of exoneration for the claim that Trump is racist. Patton isn't some ambassador or figurehead for all people of color, but the GOP treated her as such. "See? This one person of color thinks that Trump isn't racist, which means he isn't. Case closed." It's absurd and insulting, and it's that action that's racist.
A racist got called racist, he whinged like a baby as they always do, everyone on Fox News went back to talking about Cohen being a liar.
It was already addressed, the exact thing, by Pressley, more pointedly and without derailing the meeting. Tlaib overrrached, knew she had, stumbled while reading, basically walked into the trap and had it sprung around her. Sometimes in politics you let the better punch land instead of trying to get your own shot in while crossing lines you know will blow up a meeting.
I bet Cummings gave her an earful afterwards as well, he clearly knew what was up.
No he didn't. He used a rule expressly forbidding Congressional members from talking shit about one another in a formal setting to call her out. She was violating the rules of body, and that's why Cummings gives her a chance to walk it back. She didn't have the desire to take the hit she knew might be coming, so she did walk it back.
As it turned out, I didn't kick anybody from the thread. So well done everyone.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
If you look at the connections with the NRA and Russian money, and the some of the meetings at the 2016 R Convention with Russian "diplomats", the most likely reason is that a lot of the GOP is more broadly compromised than it is comfortable to think about.
Geth, lock the thread.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3