As I've mentioned before, it's immaterial how you interpret the campaign finance laws, it's already a done deal that the people whose interpretations actually count do not agree with you.

Damn, you are quite an ignorant old fool. Please keep proving it.

The Russian 'collusion' is NOT going to bringdown the Trump presidency, in spite of you assuring us for years that it would.

Whatever you have to tell yourself to make it through your day, old man. Keep digging and flailing. :)

As I've mentioned before, it's immaterial how you interpret the campaign finance laws, it's already a done deal that the people whose interpretations actually count do not agree with you.

The Russian 'collusion' is NOT going to bringdown the Trump presidency, in spite of you assuring us for years that it would.

What are you talking about? When the charges come down, that's just one out of many.

Exactly right, and as we've discussed before on this blog, it's entirely possible that the OSC and newly sworn in AG will not charge a sitting president based on DOJ memoranda of the Nixon administration that was written to protect Tricky Dick. Speaking of Dick, the parallels between Nixon and Trump are mind boggling, so much so that I hear Roger Stone is getting a new tattoo on his backside where Trump's mouth is Stone's anal orifice. :)

No, the only way to be rid of Trump is to defeat him at the ballot box. Then we're rid of him for good.

Again, exactly right. As we've also discussed on this board, when Trump is no longer protected by virtue of his status as POTUS, he's going to need several good lawyers. The State of New York will be relentless in their pursuit of Trump and his spawn; count on it. :)

You're absolutely correct, but Kick's been declaring for more than 2 yrs that he wont make it to the next election because Mueller is about to indict him because Jr told a Russian lawyer that he'd be happy to hear about dirt on Hillary, making them guilty of "collusion".

It's already quite obvious that you're a mental case, old man, there's no need to keep reiterating that fact.

You've spent 2 years hashing and rehashing your ignorant belief that it's not illegal to "get dirt" on your opponent from "evil Russkies" (your terms), and whining incessantly about collusion and people slitting their wrists... so you've established you're a sick bastard too.

FACT: I've spent 2 years posting the campaign finance law that makes it illegal to conspire with foreign nationals and listing the laws that were broken by the Trump campaign based on what they've admitted publicly during their regular exercise in moving the goalposts.

Anything else you're claiming is just made up bullshit in your addled and aged sick mind in the throes of your pathetic neediness. Carry on in your flailing! :)

You're absolutely correct, but Kick's been declaring for more than 2 yrs that he wont make it to the next election because Mueller is about to indict him because Jr told a Russian lawyer that he'd be happy to hear about dirt on Hillary, making them guilty of "collusion".

Just ain't gonna happen!

What are you talking about? When the charges come down, that's just one out of many. The problem is: Trump could shoot someone outright, and Repubs will still stick with him.

No, the only way to be rid of Trump is to defeat him at the ballot box. Then we're rid of him for good.

"my client's a moron, that's not against the law"
-a few good men

OK, so you still maintain that getting election advice from Russians is covered under the "anything of value" rule (in contradiction of first amend.), but at least you're realistic enough to realize that those charged with enforcing that rule clearly disagree with you, right?

So, are you actually conceding that the "dirt on Hillary" episode will NOT bring down the Trump presidency, or are you still grasping at that straw?

On the day that Trump leaves office over having sought (but not having GOT) "dirt on hillary from (evil) Russians", you and I will both gloat.

Your projection of your pathetic neediness onto me is just as disgusting and pathetic as your obvious and repetitive spew and your making stuff up that no one here ever said. It's obvious that you're ignoring the text of the U.S. campaign finance law and the fact that it's illegal to conspire to commit crimes contained in said law for which Michael Cohen will spend multiple years in prison. No matter how many times your face is rubbed in it, you keep insisting it's not illegal to "get dirt" from Russians, and I keep posting the text of the campaign finance law wherein it's illegal to accept "help" from foreign nationals, and that's about all we've discussed.

In the meantime, only I will gloat, holler Told Ya So, and revel in your self-induced misery.

If only I was miserable and you had any bona fide reason to gloat. I would wager no one here cares one whit anyway... and least of all me. What we are concerned with is our democracy and the rule of law, and some of us actually took an oath and take that very seriously.

Carry on in your ignorance if it satisfies your pathetic neediness, old bird.

Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how correct you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.

On the day that Trump leaves office over having sought (but not having GOT) "dirt on hillary from (evil) Russians", you and I will both gloat.

In the meantime, only I will gloat, holler Told Ya So, and revel in your self-induced misery.

Trump's karma is coming through his money laundering for the Russians, which is outside of Mueller's remit, but in the crosshairs of the SDNY AG office.

Speaking of SDNY, this is as good a time as any to remind everyone that Donald Trump is an unindicted coconspirator in an ongoing SDNY case for crimes which his attorney, Michael Cohen, has pled guilty and received a multiple year prison sentence. Cohen paid $130,000 to Stephanie Clifford, a.k.a. Stormy Daniels and conspired with a publishing company to pay $150,000 to model Karen McDougal for her story in exchange for silence regarding their affairs with Trump. The "hush" payments were to influence the 2016 election, and prosecutors have identified the payments as illegal campaign contributions that are restricted under campaign finance laws. Cohen's payment to Clifford violated the $2,700 limit on personal contributions to a single candidate for an election, while the payment to McDougal violated the law's ban on corporations contributing directly to campaigns.

So to recap: Donald Trump is already an unindicted coconspirator for violations of campaign finance laws for which Michael Cohen is sentenced to prison for multiple years, among other violations like lying to Congress. Mikey has received a 2-month reprieve on reporting to prison and is scheduled to testify publicly and privately before incarceration for his crimes:

After consulting with the Department of Justice and with Rep. Adam Schiff, the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Chairman Cummings has set the scope for the Oversight Committee’s hearing with Mr. Cohen to address the following issues:

• the President’s debts and payments relating to efforts to influence the 2016 election;

• the President’s compliance with financial disclosure requirements;

• the President’s compliance with campaign finance laws;

• the President’s compliance with tax laws;

• the President’s potential and actual conflicts of interest;

• the President’s business practices;

• the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.;

• the accuracy of the President’s public statements;

• potentially fraudulent or inappropriate practices by the Trump Foundation; and

• public efforts by the President and his attorney to intimidate Mr. Cohen or others not to testify.

Mr. Cohen has agreed to testify voluntarily and in public before the Oversight Committee. He will not be under subpoena.

On February 28, 2019, the day after Mr. Cohen testifies before the Oversight Committee, he will appear in closed session before the Intelligence Committee.

https://tinyurl.com/y643oul9

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: February is going to be lit. :)

Several of the local girls assured me repeatedly that "collusion" (described and defined as getting info from foreigners) simply HAD TO BE equivalent to taking money or "other valuable things" as defined by law, and that it was a done deal and a foregone conclusion that Trump would be gone by the end of the month, then within 90 days, then by the end of the year, etc.

You're a mental case, CRS, who seemingly cannot grasp the simple legal concept that it's a violation of campaign finance law for a political campaign to conspire with foreign nationals, and your repeated inability to comprehend the written word is on full display yet again. Additionally, no one on this blog of either gender has ever stated anything of the sort that "Trump would be gone" in a certain amount of days. However, it most certainly has been pointed out that our country has removed a president from office exactly zero times and that we are living history.

You know, it's possible that the lack of 'gloating' on the part of some folks around here, may be less a case of superior "emotional maturity" than of a reflection of the fact that they have nothing to gloat ABOUT!!!

Making stuff up that never happened in order to gloat about it does nothing more than reveal your pathetic neediness. Poor old man spends two years proving he lacks the intellectual capacity to understand the simple written law and yearns desperately to be correct. You and those like you will always have my pity. :)

Collusion - Definition: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose acting in collusion with the enemy.

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusion

"Illegal or deceitful" - one risks jail time, the other public condemnation (by some).

"...with the enemy" - the assumption here is that Russia colluded as a hostile act, and are thus "the enemy".

As I said, the clown should be scared of money laundering. I assume the Russians are too intelligent to trust him as a co-conspirator.

Actually, my "emotional growth" (Whatever that nebulous concept turns out to be) may well have stopped in grade school for all I know, (Hey, that might explain the "smug" thing, the Schadenfreude and the joy in shouting "TOLD YA SO" and the gloating that I'm currently reveling in, ya think?

I hasten to admit that you were by far the most realistic one around here (although that was a VERY LOW BAR) regarding foolish expectations that could be expected to originate from proving the "collusion" with the Russians. Several of the local girls assured me repeatedly that "collusion" (described and defined as getting info from foreigners) simply HAD TO BE equivalent to taking money or "other valuable things" as defined by law, and that it was a done deal and a foregone conclusion that Trump would be gone by the end of the month, then within 90 days, then by the end of the year, etc.

You know, it's possible that the lack of 'gloating' on the part of some folks around here, may be less a case of superior "emotional maturity" than of a reflection of the fact that they have nothing to gloat ABOUT!!! And that in turn might be related to the fact that they were 180 deg assbackwards for well over two years, ya think?

And BTW, I promise to do my very best to live up to your 'low expectations'. It's just too damn much fun not to!

CRS: you are never going to understand because your emotional growth stopped in middle school.

Most of us just want to know the truth about what happened in the 2016 election. From the start, I, and I don't think I'm alone, did not expect a smoking gun showing that the Russians conspired with Trump, mostly because we think the Russians are too smart to involve Trump in anything that requires him to keep his mouth shut.

Trump's karma is coming through his money laundering for the Russians, which is outside of Mueller's remit, but in the crosshairs of the SDNY AG office.

I'm interested to see the techniques the Russians used to influence voters - both right wingers (that studies have shown to be more gullible than the general population), as well effective suppression efforts against other voting groups, and how effective they were.

It will be amusing if Don Jr. get's indicted for being stupidly criminal during an election, but again I don't expect anything to come of it as the Justice Department isn't likely to charge the Trumps unless the evidence is so compelling that even they can't pretend it away.

If you want to gloat because that is what turns you on then do so, but it is only a sad reflection that 70+ years of your life has been a lost educational opportunity for you. Sadly we don't expect to be pleasantly surprised by your behavior.

I'm told the Ruskies responded "Bullski Shitski". Since I don't speak Russian, you guys will have to get your own translation on that, in order to keep your hopes alive until next week, when I expect you all to follow in the steps of that famous old-time WWII Japanese pilot, I forget his name, something like Harry Carey.

It happened many times before, too. Take my word for it: the biggest predictor of defeat is failure to adjust from the mid-terms.

Not sure the conventional wisdom/old rules apply in an America that got us DT.

Anyway, that's still a winning strategy for 2020. Like it or not. Perhaps we should amp down the rhetoric, this isn't a college quad. We need to be very calculating, because we get only one shot, and it needs to be true.

https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/1098304785151717377

Actually, no I don't. :)

It happened many times before, too. Take my word for it: the biggest predictor of defeat is failure to adjust from the mid-terms.

If Devine remains on BS's campaign I want that guy vetted to the nth degree.

Democrats can win with a middle of the road candidate. The only question is: will they blow the chance on a too-liberal candidate?

In the midterms Dems made gains all over by not playing to Repubs. I don't think trying to be "middle of the road" to appeal to disaffected Repubs is the winning strategy. That isn't going to drive the turnout we need.

In the midterms turnout was high - Dems won in lots of places (probably including places where dirty work took place a la NC09 - hearings of which are quite interesting) because turnout was higher than normal on the Dem side for midterms. It was higher on both sides than usual for mids, but MORE higher on Dem side.

Turnout was high on Dem side because grassroots work was going on everywhere due to the deep hatred on the Dem side for Trump. That's the energy that needs to be stoked, not reluctant Repubs.

We'll see whether Bernie acknowledges the Russian bots that took over his campaign after the primaries.

Look, if he wants to squeeze into an already small overton window at the far end, fine, but he's already missing the bigger picture: Republicans who aren't for Trump are looking for a champion. And Bernie ain't it.

Democrats can win with a middle of the road candidate. The only question is: will they blow the chance on a too-liberal candidate?

That post is LITERALLY 'full of BS', right? (Observation, NOT an insult.)

My problem with him running again is that he is very unlikely to win, but, through no fault of his own, his supporters might get on their high horses again.

Yep. And that will be down to him.

[10] CW:

I also thought Bernie got no credit at all from the Hillary crowd for, after conceding, actually actively campaigning for her. He didn't have to do that, and he was more gracious in doing it than Hillary herself was in 2008, after Obama won the nomination.

I remember very vividly the stomachache I had in the days leading up to the Convention, and then the first night of it, because Berniers had been threatening for weeks that they were going to try to screw things up. I remember vividly reading about Bernie being aghast to realize how whacked his followers had become and how he had private meetings with them and begged them to settle down and not disrupt things.

He was "aghast" because he didn't realize how far things had gotten out of hand. That's how out-of-touch he was.

He got his big night at the Convention and then he did some appearances for HRC (for which we're supposed to canonize him - you know, for doing the minimum required). Meanwhile, his followers harassed us online ceaselessly all the way to the election. About which he did nothing. And the harassment may, in fact, have been largely Russian bot activity - about which he acknowledges nothing because it would mean a lot of his virulent support wasn't real. Coz it cuts both ways, doesn't it? So many Berniers STILL argue today that HRC was a terrible candidate and lost to a loon but BS would have beaten that loon except he was robbed!!! They never acknowledge the unprecedented attacks launched by the Russians - something no candidates for POTUS had ever been up against before. Berniers pretend none of that happened because it both weakens their claims against HRC and brings up the possibility that BS was helped. That destroys their BS-mythology so their solution has been to pretend we've learned nothing since 2016.

So, CW, I think if you want HRC supporters to give BS more credit for his eventual grudging concession you'll have to start by acknowledging our complaints.

If it's-all-about-me-BS won the nom & the election was today I would vote for him over DT or whatever Repub. But it would be the bitterest vote of my life.

However we have a long year ahead of us for all this to play out so we'll see. Maybe Mr-nothing's-my-fault will win me over. I've read he's hired a well-respected person to replace Tad-worked-with-Paul-Manafort-Devine. Perhaps that person will get him to release his tax returns.

[6] Listen: Yep!

Maybe, and it's a HUGE 'maybe', you might make a quasi-legitimate case for a few of Bernie's people having simply stayed home on election day, but to claim that the most leftist of all the lefties in this country might have actually voted Republican is beyond comprehension (of course, for rational people, that is.)

And honestly, especially if Beto and Biden both stay out, I think it will come down to either Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren, and I have a sneaking suspicion that Kamala Harris would have the edge in catching fire more.

That would leave the VP nominee slot to one of the lesser known, like Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg or Sherrod Brown.

There were a surprising number of these puritans in my circle, many of whom said things about Hillary that would have been repulsive even by Fox News standards (assuming Fox News has standards, which is not proven).

I agree with CW on this one however - Bernie is a caricature of himself now, and there are better Bernies who aren't Bernie.

My problem with him running again is that he is very unlikely to win, but, through no fault of his own, his supporters might get on their high horses again. Let's hope they learned their lesson the first time round.

I feel much the same, at least in your first paragraph. I backed Bernie, and had no problem voting for Hillary when he lost. SCOTUS is important to me.

I also thought Bernie got no credit at all from the Hillary crowd for, after conceding, actually actively campaigning for her. He didn't have to do that, and he was more gracious in doing it than Hillary herself was in 2008, after Obama won the nomination.

I don't really think Bernie's going to win this time around, but I do think he'll be an interesting addition to the race in general. I could be wrong, but that's how I feel at the moment.

-CW

(see: Paula [1])

-CW

What's your position on pie in the sky?

Too high? Why, how can pie fly?

Perhaps Bokonon was misquoted?

"Tiger got to hunt,
Pie got to fly,
Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why? Why? Why?'"

Heh.

-CW

I realized I should have put the following link in this article:

http://pollingreport.com/2020wh_d.htm

for the poll I cited.

-CW

Bernie has great ideas, and is probably second only to Elizabeth Warren when it comes to good ideas that would help a majority of Americans. The biggest differences between the two, in my opinion, is that Warren not only has great ideas, she also explains how those ideas would need to be set up to be successful.

So while I like a LOT of Bernie’s ideas, I do not want him to run!

know what else was derided as too 'pie in the sky' but is also extremely popular with the public? ACTUAL pie!

JL

He has shown zero willingness to acknowledge the bridges he burned with HRC supporters and I can assure you there remains burning hostility towards him among millions of Democrats.

And now he'll enter the race, lose, and leave a bunch of sore losers behind to screw things up and help Blotus.

He's a spoiler and that's it.

I hope he is actually vetted this time and if he doesn't pony up last 10 years of taxes I hope he gets shut out of a couple of primaries.

If he cared about the country he would have stood down and thrown his support behind someone who doesn't have his baggage, but no - like Blotus he thinks he's the annointed one.

A pox on him.