No. I think it’s murky with Clinton though I understand the differences.
It’s possible to not like either instance AND see that there is a legal difference.
1 Like
It certainly did.
My read of the situation is this: the Clinton campaign suspected—correctly—that Manafort had shady dealings with the Ukraine. They hired an independent investigator to look into it, and in the course of that inquiry the investigator naturally asked some questions of people in the Ukraine.
- Clinton was not directly involved with these inquiries in any way.
- No illegal behavior is alleged on behalf of the Clinton campaign.
- Even if the event that the investigator got information from the Ukrainian government that changed the outcome of the election no one in the Hillary Clinton administration would owe any favors to a foreign power.
Like it or not what the Clinton campaign did was politics as usual (and perfectly legal). This is a very, very different situation.
18 Likes
Because it’s always the EIGHTH FUCKING TIME the auto dealer finance manager makes his pitch that I capitulate and pay extra for floor mats. Take my money!
4 Likes
1 Like
Yes, I wrote exactly that.
If this isn’t a high crime or misdemeanor, I don’t know what is.
ITMFA. Nancy, it’s your move. Now? Is now the time?
5 Likes
Don’t hold your breath.
Because unlike impeachment, Mitch will just let that fly through the Senate. Yes, that was sarcasm. Yes, it should be obvious, but Poe and all…
8 Likes
I’m more and more drawn to what Laurence Tribe has proposed. Do the impeachment process in the House, practically all the way through to the end, take a final vote, and then on the procedural front do not make the final referral to the Senate for trial, on the grounds that the outcome there will be partisan hackery, not reasonably adjudged.
12 Likes
So did you call him just to make small talk?
What an idiot douche.
5 Likes
Infuriating. Sorry I’m stating the obvious here but the senate (and president himself) can kill a bill before if becomes law just as easily as they can kill an impeachment.
1 Like
1 Like
Just saw a glimpse of the actual statute that Trump may have broken. It was Title 18 something something, only on the screen for a second - “Federal Corruption Law.”
From Ben Wittes at Lawfareblog.com:
“If it is true that the president used the threat of withholding congressionally authorized funds to—in the Post’s words—“extort” a foreign leader into investigating a domestic political opponent and his family, that would be a very big deal indeed. That allegation, if true, would unambiguously constitute an impeachable offense, indeed an offense that positively demands impeachment from any Congress that wishes to be taken seriously. It would be impeachable for at least three separate reasons: first, because it would involve the extortion of a foreign leader for personal and political gain; second, because it would involve the solicitation of a foreign government’s involvement in a U.S. election; and third, because it would involve the solicitation of a foreign government’s investigation of a political opponent in a fashion that grossly violates the civil liberties of a U.S. person, namely Biden’s son.”
12 Likes
That may be a problem.
14 Likes
Just so you know, John Solomon (who wrote that piece) consistently writes poorly-supported articles/editorials attacking anyone who investigates, criticizes, or opposes Trump (e.g., dozens of “articles” parroting every bad-faith criticism of Robert Mueller that he can find). From Solomon’s Wikipedia page, regarding some of the criticism leading up to, first, The Hill’s decision to begin labeling his “articles” as opinion pieces, and then eventually to his exit from The Hill:
That same month, Erik Wemple of The Washington Post said that newsroom staffers at The Hill had complained about Solomon’s reporting for the publication.[27] The staffers reportedly criticized Solomon’s reporting as having a conservative bias and missing important context, and that this undermined The Hill 's reputation.[27] They also expressed concerns over Solomon’s close relationship with Sean Hannity, whose TV show he appeared on more than a dozen times over a span of three months.[27]
14 Likes
3 Likes
Didn’t Clinton campaign seek dirt from Russian on Trump?
To be clear, if you mean the Steele dossier, it was republican candidates who hired Steele Fusion GPS initially and then decided not to pay basically, so the Clinton campaign paid the bill and got the report. And a research investigation is not the same as soliciting foreign interference or assistance in an election.
Edited to be more accurate, Fusion GPS hired Steele:
12 Likes
Trump suspects Biden exerted improper influence on Ukraine. His response is to exert improper influence on Ukraine. Just another day in crazytown.
5 Likes
So, just another day ending in “y”.
5 Likes
Guys, with a president like that, you don’t need enemies.
I read these stories about your business tycoon turned president and I stand both in awe and in terror.
And now he’s deploying troops to Saudi Arabia?
…Why?
