OK, This is Now Officially a Legitimate Sh%$ Storm
OK, so now we know that in June of last year, Donald Trump, Jr., aka "Fredo", was setting up a meeting with a Russian lawyer at the request of a publicist for a Russian to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. (Yes, this is profoundly weird and f%$#ed up)
This is now a big deal, not because this was necessarily a crime, I find the claims of a violation of Section 30121 of Title 52 to be a stretch in the world of Citizens United, but because we now have evidence of a conspiracy and a coverup.
It was a conspiracy to obstruct justice that took down Richard Nixon, after all.
I don't think that this is the most impeachable thing that Trump has done (that will be a later post), but this has a potential to hamstring the Trump administration, particularly if the Democrats take back the House and Senate in 2018.
The underlying crime here is still a violation of campaign finance law, not espionage, not treason† or some similar heinous crimes.
From a political perspective, I do not think that this is a good thing for the Democratic Party.
This provides yet another opportunity for the Dems to miss the opportunity to reform, and ditch the incompetent and clueless deadwood that populate the party's professional consultant class.
As opposed to a movement toward some sort of ideological coherence, the national Democratic Party will remain in, "A noun, a verb, and Vladimir Putin," mode, which I do not believe will resonate with voters.
If hostility toward Russia were a political winner nationwide, Hillary Clinton would be President now.
My guess is that right now, Republicans will slow walk any investigation, saying that they need to wait for Special Prosecutor Muller's report.
I expect months of overwrought press coverage over this, because this is a classic example of catnip for reporters.
*I cannot f%$#ing believe that I am f%$#ing citing the f%$#ing New York f%$#ing Post.
†It was never treason. Treason is specifically defined in the US Constitution because of at least a millennia of abuse in Europe, and this does not meet that very specific definition.‡
‡That being said, Nixon's sabotage of Vietnam peace talks in 1968, and Reagan and Poppy Bush's deal with Iran to keep the hostages held in Iran in 1980 might meet the statutory requirements of Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution.
This is now a big deal, not because this was necessarily a crime, I find the claims of a violation of Section 30121 of Title 52 to be a stretch in the world of Citizens United, but because we now have evidence of a conspiracy and a coverup.
It was a conspiracy to obstruct justice that took down Richard Nixon, after all.
I don't think that this is the most impeachable thing that Trump has done (that will be a later post), but this has a potential to hamstring the Trump administration, particularly if the Democrats take back the House and Senate in 2018.
The underlying crime here is still a violation of campaign finance law, not espionage, not treason† or some similar heinous crimes.
From a political perspective, I do not think that this is a good thing for the Democratic Party.
This provides yet another opportunity for the Dems to miss the opportunity to reform, and ditch the incompetent and clueless deadwood that populate the party's professional consultant class.
As opposed to a movement toward some sort of ideological coherence, the national Democratic Party will remain in, "A noun, a verb, and Vladimir Putin," mode, which I do not believe will resonate with voters.
If hostility toward Russia were a political winner nationwide, Hillary Clinton would be President now.
My guess is that right now, Republicans will slow walk any investigation, saying that they need to wait for Special Prosecutor Muller's report.
I expect months of overwrought press coverage over this, because this is a classic example of catnip for reporters.
*I cannot f%$#ing believe that I am f%$#ing citing the f%$#ing New York f%$#ing Post.
†It was never treason. Treason is specifically defined in the US Constitution because of at least a millennia of abuse in Europe, and this does not meet that very specific definition.‡
‡That being said, Nixon's sabotage of Vietnam peace talks in 1968, and Reagan and Poppy Bush's deal with Iran to keep the hostages held in Iran in 1980 might meet the statutory requirements of Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment