When President Trump was told of the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russian Interference Mueller’s Report states that his reaction to Sessions was:
“Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m f---ed. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me,” he said.
We should trust him. While we are looking into why he was so fearful accept his view that his election was now definitively illegitimate. It’s what he thought . . .
Something stands out to me. Trump NEVER admits fault. Yet he was freaking out about what may have been found. And that it would be “the worst thing that ever happened to him”.
Yet, most of the Mueller’s report most egregious actions are AFTER. So what was going to end his presidency? I have to guess in all of the obstruction we have not found it yet.
Generally, I haven’t thought until recently that Trump’s election was not legitimate. Yes, he lost the popular vote. Yes, clearly Russians played a role but so far as we know it was to influence voters. Personally, I hadn’t thought that makes it illegitimate.
At least to me illegitimate would mean the results we believe were tampered with. And I have a very hard time believing wikileaks wrongdoing etc would lead trump to believe he was “f’ed”.
But the Mueller report as you know shows an obession by Trump that he would be considered a fraud.
www.apnews.com/...
the Trump of the Mueller report is gripped by fear that Americans would question the very legitimacy of his presidency. Would Trump, the man who put his name on skyscrapers and his imprint on television, be perceived as a cheater and a fraud? . . . But the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election to sow discord among American voters and to help get Trump elected was his “Achilles’ heel,” one of his closest aides, Hope Hicks, would tell investigators.
www.apnews.com/...
If Trump looked at himself as a possible fraud there probably was fraud Right?
It’s been pretty telling of Trump that when something is true about himself he consciously or subconsciously projects those faults upon his opponents. So it’s come to seem pretty obvious whatever accusations he levels against others is probably something he did.
It’s called projection. And Trump does it with remarkable frequency. You may have noticed that over the last few days, Trump and his allies have begun talking a lot about the Hillary Clinton campaign’s alleged collusion with the governments of Russia and Ukraine. On Wednesday morning, for instance, Trump tweeted a quote from the conservative Washington Times that claimed, “Democrats have willfully used Moscow disinformation to influence the presidential election against Donald Trump.”
Why is Trump suddenly interested in the Democratic Party’s ties to the Russian government? Perhaps because on Monday, The New York Times broke a blockbuster story about his campaign’s ties to the Russian government.
It’s a pattern that has repeated itself again and again since Trump launched his presidential bid. Last June, as Hillary Clinton was finishing up her primary campaign, she began testing a line that she would use against Trump throughout the summer and fall: “He’s temperamentally unfit.” In her speech at the Democratic National Convention, she added that, “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.” Soon, Trump was making the same argument about her. “I don’t think she’s all there,” he declared in August. In September he called her “trigger-happy” and “very unstable.”
www.theatlantic.com/…
Most likely it would seem then that Trump “willfully used Moscow disinformation to influence the presidential election against Donald Trump.”
I just look at Trump’s post Barr letter. If you have nothing to do with Fraud you don’t worry about it. You say of Course the Report (Mueller) didn't find anything wrong I didn’t do it. I don’t think I’ve ever heard him say anything like that. What I have heard is him sighing in relief of the “conclusions” in a way like I did stuff but I guess you’re saying it’s ok then Publicly- “see everything is ok”.
Even if it is simply the possibility (which is numerically difficult to ascertain) that Russia affected the Election. Isn’t the message Trump most fears is what he says. Shouldn’t we be saying now definitively that his Election wasn’t Legitimate? I think something far worse occurred. But, losing the popular vote irked him we should call his election illegitimate. He thinks we would if investigated his greatest fear & what he least wants.
UNDERLYING CRIME: Aren’t there well . . . Many?
First, as we know it doesn’t matter if there is an underlying crime that you are obstructing being found out to be obstructing justice. But, aren’t there underlying crimes anyways?
I’d assume they think it’s good in a way for the connotation to say no crime and receive agreement.
But aren’t there many?
I’ll just look at the Logan Act, but also Manafort committed Crimes and he tried to cover them up. And if you look at things under a microscope many others did.
1.)The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized persons with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. The intent behind the Act is to prevent unauthorized negotiations from undermining the government's position.[2] The Act was passed following George Logan's unauthorized negotiations with France in 1798, and was signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799. The Act was amended in 1994, changing the penalty for violation from "fined $5,000" to "fined under this title"; this appears to be the only amendment to the Act.[2] Violation of the Logan Act is a felony.
en.wikipedia.org/…
What did Logan Do?During these meetings, he identified himself as a private citizen, discussed matters of general interest to the French, and told his audience that anti-French sentiment was prevalent in the United States. Logan's conversation with Merlin de Douai, who occupied the highest political office in the French republic, was typical. Logan stated that he did not intend to explain the American government's position, nor to criticize that of France. Instead, he suggested ways in which France could improve relations with the United States, to the benefit of both countries. He also told Merlin that pro-British propagandists in the United States were portraying the French as corrupt and anxious for war, and were stating that any friend of French principles necessarily was an enemy of the United States. Within days of Logan's last meeting, the French took steps to relieve the tensions between the two nations; they lifted the trade embargo then in place, and released American seamen held captive in French jails.
Wouldn’t talking about Sanctions, or even ADOPTION POLICY if that even happened violate the Logan Act? Examples
In March 2015, 47 Republican senators released an open letter to the Iranian government regarding President Barack Obama's attempts to broker a nuclear arms agreement between Iran and six major powers (P5+1).[13][14] The letter warns Iran of the limitations of President Obama's term in office and constitutional powers and notes that anything done without the advice and consent of the Senate could be undone by the next President. This prompted some commentators to suggest that the letter may have violated the Logan Act.[15][16][17] A petition on the White House's We The People website requesting that the Obama administration prosecute the 47 senators under the Logan Act accumulated signatures from over 320,200 people.[5]
In July 2016, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack accused Donald Trump of encouraging the Russian government to hack the email of Hillary Clinton, Trump's opponent in the 2016 presidential election. Several other Democratic Senators claimed Trump's comments appeared to violate the Logan Act.[18][19] Laurence Tribe, a former Obama mentor and professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, also commented on the incident saying, "Trump's 'jokes' inviting an adversary to wage cyberwar against the U.S. appear to violate the Logan Act and might even constitute treason."[20]
I don’t see much difference (especially with the actual actions of Logan). I think if desired that things could be considered crimes especially as his actions were to obstruct finding out the actions of everyone involved in his campaign and their crimes. They made this an important point and we should not give ground on anything. Mueller might not have thought so but others have.
You may recall Harvard Law Professor, Laurence Tribe tweeted
“Trump's "jokes" about Russia amount to "inviting an adversary to wage cyberwar against the U.S.," but they also "appear to violate the Logan Act and might even constitute treason.” (see Logan Act)
Constitutional Removal From Office
I don’t think I have seen anyone else pontificate about what I am about to. As we all know
Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution reads:
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President ...
Isn’t Trump demonstrating an Inability to discharge the Duties of the Office? The presidential oath of office that is prescribed by the U.S.Constitution (Art. II, sect. 1) makes it clear that the President's supreme responsibility is to “…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
When under attack the President is counted on to Defend the constitution. As we know we are now under attack by at least Russians every day in an effort to undermine our elections. Our elections are the Core of a Democratic Republic.
What if the President is unwilling or (unable) to Defend the the Integrity of the elections when we know it is being undermined.
Trump, as we know, is unwilling. Which is crazy as we are not talking about exposing prior conduct we are talking about making sure Russians don’t affect our elections. In the future.
Senate Democrats and Republicans can agree on perhaps just one thing about special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.
But bipartisan legislation to address foreign intrusions is all but dead amid a distinct lack of enthusiasm from Senate GOP leadership and the Trump White House.
. . .
Klobuchar and Lankford’s bill would establish an Election Assistance Commission grant program and codify existing Department of Homeland Security election security roles. It would also emphasize sharing threat information with election officials and require back up paper ballots and audits.
When asked about Klobuchar’s charges, Senate Rules Committee Chairman Roy Blunt replied, “I think that’s true” and added that neither her bill with Lankford nor other election security legislation is likely to pass in the sharply divided Congress.
www.politico.com/...
I simply do not understand how this is in any way partisan. Well, I understand why less votes and not critically looking at anything helps Republicans but I can’t imagine under any other administration seeing actual stonewalling.
In this instance I actually wholly agree with Chuck Todd:
WASHINGTON — For all the debate about whether to pursue impeachment proceedings against President Trump, House Democrats have another remedy at their disposal that’s received far less attention.
That idea? Make a big, explicit legislative push to punish individuals and campaigns trying to take advantage of future foreign interference in U.S. elections.
If a foreign government interfered in a U.S. election, and a particular campaign was eager to receive that help, why not try to pass laws making it harder for that to happen in the future?
Yes, the HR1 bill that House Democrats passed last month calls for a strategy to protect democratic institutions, as well as a commission to study it. But those provisions were buried under the act’s other voting, ethics and campaign-finance measures.
And there’s been little effort to rally around themwww.nbcnews.com/…
But even more so I personally believe that this is indicative that Trump is unwilling to to Defend the Constitution.
We have a very real crisis. It could allow foreign powers to defy the will of the American Public. And the President is ignoring it because I’d assume he prefers to tout that nothing really happened or is.
Whatever the reason I think this indicates an Article 25 crisis — if you cannot uphold your constitutional duties even if we do not know why (we can speculate) there is a disability in someway. From Trump’s statements and refusal to recognize a threat he is risking every day the Democracy, you could by extension say the Economy or Lives. Fear Mongering works as we have seen from the Republicans, I would think the Russians would be an adequate boogey-man. But this is actually REAL.
This should be amongst the most important legislation to pass on a bi-partisan basis. If it cannot be because of the Exeucutive — he is not and cannot be trusted — which I think should invoke Article 25.
Why? Won’t he. One item I was considering today.
We know he called Putin (how awful an idea even if he was clean). We know all of the myriad of other things.
One thing I don’t believe I’ve heard or don’t recall because of the other myriad of speculation .
Apparently the Russians also hacked Republicans, considering Trumps use of unsecured devices it’s pretty easy to assume they hacked his as well. And it would make sense to get information on both sides. The one you don’t reveal is well probably to blackmail.
And the Russians did hack the Republicans.
They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.
www.nytimes.com/…
Ok that felt better. I know I’m on the same Road as Millions who are living in confusion and disbelief. But, intelligently considering items and writing them down well has helped at least for the past hours.
We need to keep bringing up securing 2020 even Fox viewers (I would think) well maybe not, even many white Men, maybe? Would support stopping Russians from influencing elections, I mean after all they could choose to influence on behalf of Democrats.
At least lets keep talking about the VERY things Trumps actions indicate he doesn’t want us to.