Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

57Brave said:
the pro would be the dropping of sanctions - destabilized NATO - weakening of Western Alliances - fomenting political discord and mayhem on the mainland -


anything else ?
Click to expand...

Only that you lack reading comprehension in this example.
 
thethe said:
The whole point of this invesitgation is to prove the pro and this far has yielded nothing.
Click to expand...

so as to avoid misunderstanding due to poor translation from Latin the way I would characterize it is as follows

Russians receive
1) If Hillary wins, a weakened president. Perhaps additional discord sowed by Trump refusing to concede.
2) If Trump wins, policy considerations re sanctions, NATO, etc.

Trump receives
1) Lucrative real estate deal
2) Help to win the election (with respect to this there was some collaboration in the form of outreach from the campaign to WikiLeaks and to Russians in the form of sharing of private polling data)

There is no written and signed MOU to be sure (or at least that I'm aware of). But there is plenty of indications of outreach (some very public) in both directions as they sought to work out an understanding.

Ultimately this will be played out in the court of public opinion. The level of granular detail that the Mueller report and various congressional investigations are able to reveal will ultimately determine whether impeachment moves forward or not. It might be that the new granular detail will not be sufficient to bring about impeachment. Then the fallback for the Dems is to use the information that comes out to simply cause as much political damage as possible. This is a win-win for the Democrats, as Pelosi seems to realize. Either it is really bad. Or it is just very politically embarrassing and damaging. They simply have to be smart enough to know that impeachment should not move forward without some GOP support. It doesn't have to be a big number, but it does have to be more than 1 or 2 maverick Republicans.
 
Last edited:
thethe said:
Two sides often get positives from unrelated actions. The onus is on the accuser to prove this.
Click to expand...

true except for the first time a candidate negotiated a lucrative financial deal with a foreign power in the middle of the campaign
 
A few things

1. Maddow has gone off the deep end in conspiracy land

2. I'm confused how Teump simultaneously had no intention of winning while also colluded with Russia to help him win

3. He's a very bad Putin Pupper

4. I'm confused how Peolsi can simultaneously believe he is guilty of collusion while also not pushing for impeachment
 
sturg33 said:
A few things

1. Maddow has gone off the deep end in conspiracy land

2. I'm confused how Teump simultaneously had no intention of winning while also colluded with Russia to help him win

3. He's a very bad Putin Pupper

4. I'm confused how Peolsi can simultaneously believe he is guilty of collusion while also not pushing for impeachment
Click to expand...

With respect to 2, it isn't complicated. Many people around Trump, including Trump himself, viewed the campaign from a personal financial angle. They did NOT expect to win. But they were willing to accept help against Hillary.

With respect to 4, Pelosi is being a political realist. She may believe that Trump colluded. But what's the point of putting the country through an impeachment effort if nothing is going to come of it. I think she has in mind a plan B which is to damage Trump as much as possible and maximize the chances of defeating him in 2020.

Neither of these two points you raise are overly complicated.
 
Last edited:
Pelosi also has to deal with the fact that Jerrold Nadler is a not very talented political hack who is overly eager for impeachment. She has to keep him and others like him in her caucus onside. If the Dems had a better operator as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, someone with the skills and temperament to work across the aisle, the chances of impeachment would be higher. Nadler is about the worst person possible for trying to reach out and work with Republicans on impeachment. It is a tough enough job even for the right person.
 
nsacpi said:
With respect to 2, it isn't complicated. Many people around Trump, including Trump himself, viewed the campaign from a personal financial angle. They did NOT expect to win. But they were willing to accept help against Hillary.

With respect to 4, Pelosi is being a political realist. She may believe that Trump colluded. But what's the point of putting the country through an impeachment effort if nothing is going to come of it. I think she has in mind a plan B which is to damage Trump as much as possible and maximize the chances of defeating him in 2020.

Neither of these two points you raise are overly complicated.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you've noticed but sturg believes in absolutism. Something is either black or white and there's no gray area in-between.
 
thethe said:
What a craptastic version of identity politics here.
Click to expand...

As opposed to this version?

“You know, the left plays a tougher game, it’s very funny,” the president told Breibart’s Matthew Boyle. “I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don’t play it tougher. Okay? I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump–I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough—until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.”

I wonder what he's implying here... if only he could clarify like the fine people on both sides thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top