At the very least, the emails and subsequent meetings demonstrate a willingness on the part of Trump campaign members to collude, even if such collusion did not take place. Even more clearly, it appears that campaign finance laws were violated, laws which prohibit the solicitation of things of value from foreign nationals. Opposition research is most certainly a thing of value which would have been reported as an in-kind contribution.
However, just hours after confirming the date and time of the Trump, Jr. meeting with the Russians to get anti-Hillary information, Trump publicly announced that he would in a few days give a speech detailing Hillary dirt. We're supposed to believe that was just a coincidence and that the President knew nothing of the "adoption" meeting? Given the President's penchant for lying, it's hard to believe this claim is true.
It's probably only a matter of time before it is revealed that President Trump was well aware of his campaign staff's interactions with the Russian officials to help him defeat Hillary Clinton. While collusion was never the only thing that mattered in the investigation (I always thought that related financial crimes were likely the bigger story), it appears that collusion really did take place, or at the very least an attempt to collude.
Now that collusion is a strong possibility,, what is the Trump response? Well, of course, to say that even if there was collusion, collusion is perfectly okay because everyone in politics does it! Late this morning, Donald Trump tweeted:
Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent. That's politics!
Of course, that's a ridiculous claim. But even if it were true, it's not a defense. If you run a stop sign, it is not a defense that other people run that same stop sign too.
The word "impeachment" is increasingly being mentioned by more and more Democrats, an idea dismissed out of hand by most Republicans. They shouldn't. Democrats are likely to run on impeachment in 2018 and, if history is any guide, they almost certainly will win a majority of seats. When that happens, impeachment proceedings are almost certain to happen.
Even if impeachment is successful, the President's case would still have to be tried in the Senate. Given the seats up in 2018, it is virtually impossible for the Democrats to do much better than draw even with the Republicans who have a 52-48 majority. While that would seemingly close the door on Trump's removal, I don't buy it. Given the likely bad 2018 election results, I think 17 Republicans could be found to vote to rid the country of the incompetent, ethically-challenged administration that would likely be an albatross as they go into the 2020 election.
You Never-Trumpers will always be fighting the Primaries. For all the flaws in Mr. Trump, and I include the egregious stupidity of selecting as a running mate the deeply lame-brained fake conservative low energy Mike Pence, I will always be thankful DJT was elected POTUS instead of socailist marxist corrupt as hell treasonous Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Does that mean I am pleased with everything this DJT Admin is doing? No. But if I recall correctly neither Ronald Reagan or Jesus Christ were on the November 2016 ballot.
I'm not sure any Trump supporter should complain that another Republican is a "fake conservative." Trump was easily the most liberal the 17 Republicans who ran for President. Trump has come out for 1) universal health care paid for by the "government," i.e. the taxpayers; 2) child care paid for by the taxpayers; and 3) mandatory paid family leave for employees. (Let's not forget Trump talking about how great Planned Parenthood is.) Trump is probably ever bit as socialist as Hillary Clinton. As far as "treasonous," I am surprised that you'd use that word given the Russian stench that hangs over the Trump campaign. Hillary Clinton wasn't the candidate in bed with the United States' biggest enemy in an effort to win the presidential election. That would be Donald Trump...or so it would certainly appear to be the case.
Collusion between US warmongers is normal:
I am now completely convinced the blog author is in truth a Hillary Clinton left liberal democrat swathed in RINO republican polyester
Anon 11:37, it never ceases to amaze me when Trump supporters call lifelong conservative Repubilcans "RINOs." Do those people not realize Trump only recently became a Republican and was the most liberal GOP candidate in the presidential field? Or does the cult Kool-Aid they're drinking cloud their judgment?
Is it possible the conservative, libertarian-leaning, and Tea Party Republicans are the RINOs? It seems like the elected officials at all levels seem to do the same things; either the "real" Republicans are like Linus with Lucy and the football or the real Republicans are the elected officials. Elections have consequences. Eric Morris
Post a Comment