Nicker on 11/7/2020 at 08:38
All aboard the crazy train. (
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53371756) Trump Commutes Roger Stone's prison sentence.
Quote:
The White House said in a statement: "Roger Stone is a victim of the Russia Hoax that the Left and its allies in the media perpetuated for years in an attempt to undermine the Trump Presidency."
Starker on 13/7/2020 at 06:04
Mueller's open letter about the whole affair:
Quote:
(
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/11/mueller-stone-oped/)
Robert S. Mueller III served as special counsel for the Justice Department from 2017 to 2019.The work of the special counsel's office — its report, indictments, guilty pleas and convictions — should speak for itself. But I feel compelled to respond both to broad claims that our investigation was illegitimate and our motives were improper, and to specific claims that Roger Stone was a victim of our office. The Russia investigation was of paramount importance. Stone was prosecuted and convicted because he committed federal crimes. He remains a convicted felon, and rightly so.
Russia's actions were a threat to America's democracy. It was critical that they be investigated and understood. By late 2016, the FBI had evidence that the Russians had signaled to a Trump campaign adviser that they could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to the Democratic candidate. And the FBI knew that the Russians had done just that: Beginning in July 2016, WikiLeaks released emails stolen by Russian military intelligence officers from the Clinton campaign. Other online personas using false names — fronts for Russian military intelligence — also released Clinton campaign emails.
Following FBI Director James B. Comey's termination in May 2017, the acting attorney general named me as special counsel and directed the special counsel's office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The order specified lines of investigation for us to pursue, including any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. One of our cases involved Stone, an official on the campaign until mid-2015 and a supporter of the campaign throughout 2016. Stone became a central figure in our investigation for two key reasons: He communicated in 2016 with individuals known to us to be Russian intelligence officers, and he claimed advance knowledge of WikiLeaks' release of emails stolen by those Russian intelligence officers.
We now have a detailed picture of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. The special counsel's office identified two principal operations directed at our election: hacking and dumping Clinton campaign emails, and an online social media campaign to disparage the Democratic candidate. We also identified numerous links between the Russian government and Trump campaign personnel — Stone among them. We did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its activities. The investigation did, however, establish that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome. It also established that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.
Uncovering and tracing Russian outreach and interference activities was a complex task. The investigation to understand these activities took two years and substantial effort. Based on our work, eight individuals pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial, and more than two dozen Russian individuals and entities, including senior Russian intelligence officers, were charged with federal crimes.
Congress also investigated and sought information from Stone. A jury later determined he lied repeatedly to members of Congress. He lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks. He lied about the existence of written communications with his intermediary. He lied by denying he had communicated with the Trump campaign about the timing of WikiLeaks' releases. He in fact updated senior campaign officials repeatedly about WikiLeaks. And he tampered with a witness, imploring him to stonewall Congress.
The jury ultimately convicted Stone of obstruction of a congressional investigation, five counts of making false statements to Congress and tampering with a witness. Because his sentence has been commuted, he will not go to prison. But his conviction stands.
Russian efforts to interfere in our political system, and the essential question of whether those efforts involved the Trump campaign, required investigation. In that investigation, it was critical for us (and, before us, the FBI) to obtain full and accurate information. Likewise, it was critical for Congress to obtain accurate information from its witnesses. When a subject lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's efforts to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable. It may ultimately impede those efforts.
We made every decision in Stone's case, as in all our cases, based solely on the facts and the law and in accordance with the rule of law. The women and men who conducted these investigations and prosecutions acted with the highest integrity. Claims to the contrary are false.
demagogue on 13/7/2020 at 08:15
If anyone had read the Mueller report, they'd know how guilty as sin Stone and Trump both were for obstruction.
Most of the same fact patterns that convicted Stone apply to Trump the second his term is over.
But then we have to go through all of this circus all over again, where people will think prosecuting Trump is coming out of the blue and is nothing more than political grandstanding.
In other news, in my homes state of Texas, Biden has a stable and climbing 5% lead over Turmp for the 2020 election. Texas was already turning purple (red=republican, blue=democrat) over the last election and was projected to turn blue in the mid- to late-2020s just for demographic reasons (increasing Latin population, migration from the north, and it's a young state). It remains to be seen, if Texas votes blue in 2020, if that applies only to this one crazy election (it looks like the whole country is going to have a blue tide like LBJ in 1964 after JFK had just been killed), or if it represents something more sustainable. But if it ends up being durable, that's going to force some serious social-political change by itself. The thing to know is that Texas is 38 electoral votes by itself. You can't ... just mathematically, there's no way the GOP is making up 38 electoral votes from any combination of other states that have the potential to vote red if it loses Texas. If the GOP doesn't fundamentally change, it could be booted out of the presidency and congressional majority for a generation at least.
So I think that more than anything is going to force the GOP to do some serious soul searching and structural reform, which sounds like a good thing. As much as I agree that the GOP has left the building as a rational political party and deserves all the losses it has coming to it, it's not good for any political system to have only one rational and viable party that can speak for everyone; every country should have at least two viable parties (or more!), and even for a party in the deserved minority opposition, the country is better off if it still acts like a viable, rational party. Well, I hope this forces the GOP to grow up and become an adult party again. There are other alternatives, but history hasn't been kind to them.
Pyrian on 13/7/2020 at 08:39
Basically everything you just said about the Republican party was said after the 2008 and 2012 elections, but instead they went further into crazy town and then won 2016.
Jason Moyer on 13/7/2020 at 08:41
Quote Posted by demagogue
If the GOP doesn't fundamentally change, it could be booted out of the presidency and congressional majority for a generation at least.
They've already lost the popular vote in all but one presidential election since 1992. Most of their platform (civil rights, gay rights, abortion rights, etc) has had less than 50% support during that time too. Yet they've been able to cling to power through much of that time somehow.
Starker on 13/7/2020 at 11:02
Quote Posted by demagogue
In other news, in my homes state of Texas, Biden has a stable and climbing 5% lead over Turmp for the 2020 election.
That is just a snapshot in time. I realise it might not seem that way from the perspective of the US where the presidential election season is now 4 years long for incumbents, but the election is still a long time away.
demagogue on 13/7/2020 at 11:11
All the major cities in Texas already went blue in the 2018 midterms, and that was well before the insanity of 2020 was little more than just a sparkle in Donald's evil eye and started losing him the senior vote. I know it's trendy to say somethings never change, but sometimes they do.
Also note that there was a blue wave in favor of Ann Richards for governor in 1990 when her GOP opponent Clayton Williams went full cray-cray in very similar ways to Trump. That undercurrent has always been there.
Of course you have to add the disclaimer: assuming the trend continues as it is and barring unforeseen circumstances. But the trend has been stable and consistently growing for a few weeks now, so it's not like it's just a statistical fluke. Re: Jason's point, my point is that Texas is special because 38 electoral votes changes the equation so fundamentally that it's not even a viable question of whether they can squeeze out a Florida or a Wisconsin with their dodgy gerrymandering voodoo. The whole game changes for a realignment that massive.
Starker on 13/7/2020 at 11:23
Just to add a little bit more on the insanity:
[video=youtube;wjAdY_H9qbc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjAdY_H9qbc[/video]
heywood on 13/7/2020 at 12:20
Quote Posted by demagogue
All the major cities in Texas already went blue in the 2018 midterms, and that was well before the insanity of 2020 was little more than just a sparkle in Donald's evil eye and started losing him the senior vote. I know it's trendy to say somethings never change, but sometimes they do.
Also note that there was a blue wave in favor of Ann Richards for governor in 1990 when her GOP opponent Clayton Williams went full cray-cray in very similar ways to Trump. That undercurrent has always been there.
Of course you have to add the disclaimer: assuming the trend continues as it is and barring unforeseen circumstances. But the trend has been stable and consistently growing for a few weeks now, so it's not like it's just a statistical fluke. Re: Jason's point, my point is that Texas is special because 38 electoral votes changes the equation so fundamentally that it's not even a viable question of whether they can squeeze out a Florida or a Wisconsin with their dodgy gerrymandering voodoo. The whole game changes for a realignment that massive.
Polls are one thing. Turnout is another.
Assuming waves of COVID-19 will still be washing over the country on election day, turnout at the polls may be low. And Republican controlled states will fight to restrict mail-in voting. Texas Democrats are fighting in the courts to relax absentee voting criteria. They got a favorable ruling from a District Judge, which was stayed by the Appellate Court and SCOTUS. It looks rather improbable they will win.
So if it comes down to who is willing to show up at the polls, Trump has an advantage for a few reasons. His potential voters are less likely to worry about gathering in a public place during the pandemic. Democrats traditionally rely more on "boots on the ground" turnout efforts, which I assume will be harder to organize in a pandemic. And there is a dramatic difference in voter enthusiasm. The effect of enthusiasm is well debated, but turnout for Hillary in 2016 was 5M less than turnout for Obama in 2008, so I think there is something to it.