Trump's America, March 2017: Using His Inside VOICE

How nice, a shrine:

https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/846401938728108033

Mystery buyer pays $2M for Trump's boyhood home, per @Woellert.

Queens property is now Trump Birth House LLC's.

Dow has been dropping for a week straight

They're bummed that tax reform is now on the ropes

For those alive at the time how does this feel in relation to Nixon...

Not in regards to how it ended but how it began prior to his re-election. Did it feel like ultimately there wasn't enough there, was there a lengthy period of anxiety as everything dragged on?

I know these are hardly apples to apples compares esp since the Dems held Congress then but kinda curious overall. Everytime i think the current GOP couldn't possibly transparently obfuscate the investigation further we get shit like Nunes last Wed

(Obv that won't be many of you lol)

Queens property is now Trump Birth House LLC's.

Some people have money to burn.

Nunes's office has had to put out a statement re another question -- why use the White House with its secure area for intelligence stuff instead of the one at the Capitol:

https://twitter.com/jessicaschulb/status/846410963398131715

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C78Mx2SWkAEgKlp.jpg:large

This is being treated skeptically, thus:

https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/846412114218639360

If this source had access to these reports, I would bet good money he/she also has a courier card for SCI materials. So I call BS.

Xpost exclusive photo of the buyer

http://i67.tinypic.com/ix9nhj.jpg

As I've already noted a month ago so thereabouts, Watergate was a minor story, comparable to a paper cut or minor toothache. You were aware of it, it never quite faded away, and you were troubled by it, but it never seemed to go anywhere. The change came when the original burglars were convicted and Judge Sirica held long prison terms over their heads to compel their cooperation. Once they started naming names (even though it was to a grand jury) the story jumped back into prominence and accelerated steadily right up to Nixon's resignation.

yep, from June '72 til Feb or March of '73 Watergate did not catch fire, and was blasted regularly by the GOP as a partisan witchhunt. They even have Robards-as-Bradlee in the ATPM movie quote some poll along the lines of '2/3 of the public never heard of Watergate.'

man i wish i'd had the foresight to accumulate a couple of mil for trump's birth house and then have it bulldozed, burned, and the earth salted

yep, from June '72 til Feb or March of '73

Oddly enough...seems to be a similar timeline right about now.

jared and russia, sitting in a tree . . . aspen, to be exact : )

Gah, that makes me remember when aspen trees were involved in a "Republicans are massive hypocrites about information security" story. Scooter Libby wrote to Judy Miller, "Out west, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."

And the sparrow flies at midnight.

ISn't there some plant lore about aspens related to vampires or possibly being the wood that the cross was made out of?

kelly green greenway, if i have my supplyside jesus gospels right

seems to be a similar timeline right about now.

except for the RussiaRussiaRussia omg-here's-the-smoking-gun beat since November...

Let us keep in mind that Nixon at the beginning of the Watergate news cycle and Trump at the beginning of RussiaRussiaRussiagate were distinctly different public figures in distinctly different contexts.

yes, that too

NYT: G.O.P. Weighs Less Ambitious Tax Plan After Health Bill Loss

ya think?

except for the RussiaRussiaRussia omg-here's-the-smoking-gun beat since November...

it's almost as if there are people behind the scenes trying to bury the investigation!

there's a difference between pressing to investigate and MY GOD A PREZ-ELECT'S TEAM HAS NEVER TALKED TO FURRINERS

I'm as sympathetic as anyone to calls for levelheaded temperance wrt Russiagate, but that's an impressively obtuse hot take.

I'm not gonna claim there was definitely treason, or even anything necessarily prosecutable, but between the admin's completely nonsensical explanation of why Flynn had to be let go and the fact that they're now pretending they don't remember who was the campaign manager for five months in the middle of 2016 it's pretty clear that something very strange is afoot, saying "oh it's the Dems own Benghazi" is pretty ridiculous IMO

yeah, i never said that last thing

"treason" still makes me chuckle

MY GOD A PREZ-ELECT'S TEAM HAS NEVER TALKED TO FURRINERS

Is anyone on this board pushing this angle? With or without "comedy" hillbilly accent?

hyperbole, dawg (see frogbs and several hundred others above)

Tbh I can't remember anybody itt acting like the issue is that the president-elect's team "talked to foreigners"? But maybe I'm missing a layer of your argument here.

maybe I'm missing a layer of your argument here.

Wouldn't there have to be a second layer to his ILX persona for that to be possible?

You might've missed the 'Clinton is awful' subtext.

They spoke to the Russian ambassador while it was obvious Russia was interfering in the election. There are people who are complaining about that, but it's not really the same as 'talking to foreigners'. Most of the scandals has come from them lying about it afterwards.

Do we have an accounting of all the non-Slavic furriners Team Trump spoke to prior to the election?

would anyone care? maybe he gave Heartthrob Trudeau the heads-up on the pipeline.

I heard he held secret high-level talks with Scotland on critical golfing issues

More fun!

https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/846409374956507136

White House says it learned of Nunes' visit from press reports. This is very hard to believe.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C78M0s4XgAAHy82.jpg:large

I wonder whose cackle this was:

https://twitter.com/GlennThrush/status/846438195512446976

Read Spicer's claim Trump 'walked away' from 'bad' health care deal to senior WH staffer -- who laughed, laughed then laughed and said 'no.'

"treason" still makes me chuckle

If selling state secrets to a foreign power is considered treason, then it would be reasonable to consider selling US foreign policy in return for a sizable bribe as entering similar territory. The idea that Trump would be venal enough to accept cash or stock worth, let's say $50 million or upwards, in return for lifting sanctions doesn't seem utterly laughable to me. The status that money buys seems to be at the very center of his being and he appears to me to be arrogant enough to think he could do it and suffer no consequences.

The idea that, if this deal really happened, sufficient proof could be obtained to verify it seems to me extremely improbable. More than one Trump loyalist involved would have to testify to it and some damning documentary evidence would have to back them up. One may imagine it happening, but one may imagine endless things that will never come to pass.

In the meantime, stopping the republican agenda seems like a more fruitful area for us mere citizens to engage in.

selling state secrets to a foreign power is espionage, not treason

why can it not be both?

if arranging with a foreign government we've sanctioned for invading another country to lift those sanctions if they release emails they've stolen from the other candidate's presidential campaign is treasonous, then i don't ever want to be patriotic ; )

my hypothetical regarded a quid pro quo of $50 million or upwards, not merely the release of emails. I take your point, though it is unrelated to mine.

treason is very narrowly defined in u.s. law, and the things trump and his team are accused of do not meet it:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

what are they accused of?

more suspected than accused. those who are doing the accusing have no authority and atm poor quality evidence.

still can't get over the fact that Trump's campaign manager was literally being paid eight figures to push Putin's agenda

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason...

"giving aid and comfort" to "enemies" does not seem to be a particularly narrow definition to me, unless these are terms of art, much narrowed by case law not cited.

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States...adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort..."

helping putin subvert the us electoral process seems as though it might qualify

I am not a legal scholar but it has been my understanding that that phrase is interpreted as "aiding an enemy combatant's troops during a battle". Had we declared war on Russia before the election, there might be a case.

my understanding is: russia is not at war w/ the united states, so putin's government does not qualify as an "enemy" for legal purposes. ppl who spied for the germans during WW2 were charged with treason, but ppl who spied for the soviets during the cold war were generally charged with espionage. if the soviet union didn't qualify i can't imagine putin does.

obv this is in no way meant as a defense of trump et al, i just think it weakens our case if we throw around the word "treason" this casually.

yes otm (thanks, John Marshall!) and my side loves doing it

so what if these fuckers are treasonous ? Trump down to let's say Sessions , they are found guilty we impeach them all . But the republican party is still in power through proven nefouse means. hypothetically what's to stop another party from doing the same thing ? Colluding with a foreign country by any means to get their party in with some stooge expendable President and administration. We just aren't set up in any way to handle this sort of thing.