459

You often hear in the MSM attempts to figure out why Trump won’t say a single negative word about Putin-with all the miserable things he says about everyone else-certainly he never stops saying negative things about our allies like Justin Trudeau, Angela Merkel, or Theresa May-or NATO and the EU itself.

Even since Trump’s pretty anemic ‘qualification’ about Russia’s interference-‘I meant I don’t see why it wouldn’t be Russia’ he still tweeted this the next morning:

Even now he can’t resist telling you what he really thinks-he likes Putin and Russia better than our allies…

UPDATE: Of course any momentary admission it was Russia is only for that moment as he’s long since reverted back to saying it could be anyone-China, a 400 page guy in his bedroom, etc. This past Thursday he actually admitted Russia helped him win. 

Of course, 20 minutes later he denied it. Of course, we have the tweet though maybe you better put it in a screenshot.

End of UPDATE

Many commentators have plaintively asked  what is it that Putin has on Trump? Those who still even now want to give Trump the benefit of the doubt suggest he’s just touchy about his legitimacy-even admitting Russia interfered-without collusion-calls his legitimacy into question. And for once he’s absolutely right. Of course it does!

The analogy is learning that the refs were paid off to help the team that won the championship by 2 points at the buzzer.There’s this whole huge investigation to figure out if the team itself colluded with this conspiracy to rig the championship for them. But in truth wether they did or not their ‘victory’ is totally tainted.

This morning the latest outrage is that Trump was shown strong evidence it was Putin behind the interference.

UPDATE: As much as I appreciate the sentiment of John Schindler back on July 18, 2018 as things stand to day it’s not clear that he is with Pelosi at least claiming to believe that Trump wants to be impeached-which follows what? That to frustrate him Congress shouldn’t impeach him?! 

While this is supposedly brilliant campaign strategy-sometimes you get the idea that many in both the MSM and Dem leadership think that the party is assured of victory in 2020 so long as they don’t impeach him? Americans may believe he’s a criminal but they want to see the criminal walk away-then maybe they’ll vote him out!

Alan Litchman argues it’s the opposite-Trump as the incumbent in an economy that by the conventional metrics is very healthy-though the heart of the problem remains too few decent paying jobs-the only hope the Dems have is if they do impeach him. 

End of UPDATE

True although if Trump colluded then he already knew what the intelligence community was showing him. It’s as if the investigators are showing a President of a bank the strong evidence they have of who did it but meanwhile the bank President knows it’s an inside job…

But while the question of why Trump won’t criticize Putin or acknowledge he interfered in our election-CNN puts it pretty darn well:

another very good question is why won’t the GOP get serious about Russian interference and why won’t it do more than tsk tsk a little bit with Trump’s outrageous behavior-his abuse of power and his clear failure to put America first-even though that is his slogan?

Why did the House GOP shutdown the Russia investigation in February, claim there was no evidence of collusion when they didn’t look for any, and now spend all its time investigating Clinton’s emails again, Peter Strozk’s texts, and overall, investigating the investigators?

The obvious-most relatively innocent-answer is that the GOP knows its base will punish it if they attempt to hold Trump accountable in any meaningful way. Or they figure that going after Trump will hurt the party itself.

Ok, so this premise essentially means the GOP is a bunch of moral cowards who put their own political skins and their partisan aspirations above any other consideration-even national security, the integrity of our democratic system, and our system of government itself.

But what if it’s more than that? What if the GOP itself-not just Trump-has ties to Russia, itself colluded with Russia?

A few very interesting and germane points in this regard:

1. In Mueller’s indictments last week it was revealed that at least one Congressional candidate asked Guccifer 2.o for hacked documents to use against their Democratic opponent.

An unnamed congressional candidate asked Guccifer for hacked information about an opponent.

“According to the indictment, “a candidate for U.S. Congress” contacted “Guccifer 2.0” requesting stolen information from the D.N.C.’s leaked server “on or about” August 15, 2016—the date the Guccifer 2.0 blog published a stolen D.C.C.C. memo. The memo doesn’t name a candidate involved in the conversation, or their party affiliation. But the fact that Mueller makes a note of the connection seems remarkable.”

It is and it also makes you ask-why did Russia also target Democratic candidates? This is clear evidence it was actually used though we knew this was likely at the time-as the DCCC was also hacked. That the DCCC as well as the Clinton campaign and DNC was hacked makes it clear the attack was on more than just Hillary Clinton but the Democratic party.

So maybe this is why Paul Ryan has been so skittish and willing to utter only the most anodyne platitudes in response to Trump’s #TreasonSummit.

“Paul Ryan Avoids Criticizing Trump as Helsinki Fallout Continues”

“Speaker attempts to send message about Russia to world without attacking president.”

Sort of like I didn’t inhale. But again why might Paul Ryan be unwilling to criticize Trump beyond the obvious he doesn’t want to anger the base? To be sure, he’s not even running again, though, it’s true, he is in charge of the RCCC. And that gets us closer to why he may not want to say too much. He was in control of the RCCC in 2016 too, of course. And so if there was collusion against the Democratic nominees, it stands to reason Ryan would have been front and center in that effort.

Which reminds you of what Ryan said in June of 2016: keep it in the family. 

2. Maria Butima’s recent indictment contains this DM message she sent to a Russian official.

This shows that she and the Russian officials she was collaborating with had a clear preference no later than 2015 not just for Trump but for the Republican party. This is something that needs to be unpacked-the preference for not just Trump but the GOP.

3. Finally Julian Assange. In last Friday’s indictments as I documented in a previous chapter there were messages Wikileaks sent to Russian intelligence telling them to release the emails as close as possible to the convention.

Per Mueller’s report Wikileaks and the Russians coordinated the timing for leaking the emails; this validates a theory of Hillary Clinton-and many observers-that the Russians wouldn’t have known how to navigate the intricacies of American politics so skillfully on their own-this was, of course, exquisitely skillful-the emails were leaked at the absolutely optimal moment.

“The conversations between the Russians and Wikileaks allegedly took place on or around July 6, 2016 — a few weeks before the Democratic National Convention was held in Philadelphia from July 25 through to July 28.”

“Around July 6, Wikileaks corresponded with the Russian intelligence officers, saying, “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.”

“ok … i see,” the Russians responded.

“Then, Wikileaks explained their motives for wanting information that would reveal the tension between the Sanders and Hillary camps.”

“we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary … so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting,” Wikileaks responded.

Remember when Wikileaks was supposed to be a nonpartisan, nonpolitical transparency organization? After reading that: “we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary … so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting,”  there is simply no way to credibly say that anymore.

As noted Butima and her Russian officials were already expressing a preference for the GOP in 2015. Assange for his part was already expressing it in 2013-yes 2013. 

“In the wake of the WikiLeaks frenzy, Assange often tried to clarify where he stood politically. His simultaneous embrace of leftist icons such as Noam Chomsky and right-wing libertarians seemed to indicate that he was open to ideas from either end of the political spectrum, so long as they were directed against authoritarianism. Finally, in 2013, Assange proclaimed, “The only hope as far as electoral politics presently … is the libertarian section of the Republican Party.”

“Yet even that declaration was misleading. In practice, Assange has a history of working closely with forces far more radical than the Republican Liberty Caucus. Late in 2012, Assange announced the formation of the WikiLeaks Party in Australia. The party nominated Senate candidates in three states, with Assange running for office in Victoria. (He stumped via Skype from his refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy.) It had been expected that WikiLeaks would ultimately throw its support to the Green Party—especially after the party’s National Council voted in favor of such a move. Instead, WikiLeaks aligned with a collection of far-right parties. One was the nativist Australia First, whose most prominent figure was a former neo-Nazi previously convicted of coordinating a shotgun attack on the home of an Australian representative of Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress. Members of the WikiLeaks Party blamed the flap on an “administrative error”; mass resignations from the party’s leadership followed. Those who quit cited a lack of transparency in the party’s operations, and some pointed to remarks Assange had made blasting a Green Party proposal to reform Australia’s harsh treatment of asylum seekers. For his part, Assange welcomed the walkout, saying that it had eliminated elements that were “holding the party back.” He won 1.24 percent of the vote.

In summation, if you wonder why the GOP is unwilling to get tougher on Russian interference, and holding Trump accountable here’s the answer: it’s not just Trump the entire party is compromised.

As much as Jeff Sessions hates marijuana, his party is the Party of Treason P.O.T.

UPDATE: So a lot of Assange news recently. He’s been charged by both the US and UK and now Sweden has reopened the rape case against him after closing it in early 2018.

So it’s not clear what’s next-will he be charged in the UK or extradited-to Sweden or the US? Initially he was charged for password hacking but subsequently he’s been charged with violating the Espionage Act  that has raised significant worries regarding press freedom.

Will that make it less likely Assange would be sent to the US?

It’s not clear who in the DOJ is bringing these charges-is it’s Trump’s political people or career professionals?

After the election we know PACE the Mueller Report that #TeamTreasonTrump discussed reaching out to Assange after he helped them win. 

In 2017 Manafort visited Ecuador about the possibility of the country handing Assange over to the US and Roger Stone discussed getting him a pardon. 

So this is quite a turn-which is why you wonder who at Trump DOJ was behind it?

 

License

October 28, 2016: a Day That Will Live in Infamy Copyright © by . All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book