Enjoy President Trump, Courtesy of The Kremlin

[pErvinalia]

And, why is it improper for Republicans to meet with Russian ambassadors, but not Democrats?

You mean 'why is it improper to secretly meet with the Russian Ambassador and then volunteer a lie about it under oath' surely? And who said it's only improper for Republican representatives to secretly meet foreign officials but not Democrats anyway? Oh that's right, only you.

Remind me why you don't care about the Russian plutocracy campaigning for Trump again.

One word - Hillary. He's biased up the fucking wazoo.

[Forty Two]

And, why is it improper for Republicans to meet with Russian ambassadors, but not Democrats?

You mean 'why is it improper to secretly meet with the Russian Ambassador and then volunteer a lie about it under oath' surely? And who said it's only improper for Republican representatives to secretly meet foreign officials but not Democrats anyway? Oh that's right, only you.

Remind me why you don't care about the Russian plutocracy campaigning for Trump again.

Only, he didn't "lie" about it. If you look at the entirety of the testimony, he's not lying. And, again, why would he lie about something like that which (a) was not illegal, and not even improper to do - if he had just said "I met with the guy..." there would have been nothing nefarious about it - so why bother lying? and (b) it was so clear that it was not hidden - there was a record of the meeting with Kislyak in the Senate and and the other "meeting" was just a chance encounter at a event.

I mean, this is such a non-issue that even someone who can't stand Sessions' politics - me for example - can't believe rational people are suggesting this is anything of an issue.

And, there is no allegation of a Russian plutocracy campaigning for Trump. The allegations are that the Russians continued to do in 2016 what they've done in every election for the last 50 years.

This is trumped up bullshit, created by the Democrat machine for political purposes. It's the usual political dirty tricks - which both major parties engage in regularly. They had the chance to to throw this mud on trump, and they took it. It's common, and I wouldn't put it past Republicans to do similar shit. It's what they do. Be careful not to step in the bullshit.

[Scot Dutchy]

I wonder how Trump will react when he is impeached? Will they need a straight jacket? He is nuts after all.

[Tero]

Only Trump approached:

A professor with ties to the Russian government contacted Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos in April 2016 to tell him Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails,” according to records released Monday.

Those details come from a plea agreement released after former Trump adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to federal officials about his contacts with Russian officials during the presidential campaign.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politic ... rylink=cpy

[Animavore]

[pErvinalia]

There's nothing to see here, Ani. It's all a beat up by the Dems. And the Dems and Republicans in the bipartisan commissions. And the Republican FBI.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Only the beginning

There’s much more to come. Buried in the depths of the Papadopoulos plea is this line: “These facts do not constitute all of the facts known to the parties concerning the charged offense.” In some ways, it’s boilerplate for a federal indictment. In this case, we know it isn’t. The cases unveiled Monday represent only tiny corners of the rocks Mueller has been turning over. There’s still the Trump Tower meeting that involved Manafort and Donald Trump Jr. There’s still Russia’s social media ad buys. There’s still the hacking of the DNC and the theft of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails. There are other suspicious meetings with Russian officials, including those by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, himself.

A meeting in Trump tower between Trump's campaign director and Trump Jr? Shocking.

You should have put the 'bullshit' warning at the start of your reply, Forty Two. It would have been much more appropriate, since every one of your points are nothing but bullshit.

You know perfectly well that the meeting that was brought together on the premise that 'the crown prosecutor of Russia' was offering information that 'would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to' Trump. Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner believed they were meeting with a representative of the Russian government in order to get assistance in defeating Clinton. If nothing else, this was clearly an attempt to collude with the Russian government.

Russia lawfully bought a few thousand dollars of advertisments on Facebook? Lock someone up!

It wasn't 'a few thousand dollars,' it was over $100,000. This wasn't Russia honestly expressing a position on the US election. Using an intermediary to disguise its involvement, the Russian government was spreading divisiveness and ginning up support for Trump, including organizing pro-Trump rallies.

Hacking of the DNC, which nobody has yet concluded was "hacking" and not "leaking?"

Every single US intelligence agency has concluded that the Russians were responsible for the hacking, and your continued denial of that fact is not going to change it. The only 'leaking' story is the Seth Rich lie pushed by the lickspittle dingbat Hannity.

Suspicious meetings with Russian officials? You mean, like Sessions, along with every other Washington elected official, met with the Russian Ambassador at various events and parties? Lawful meetings with a Russian official whose job it is to meet with people?

Despite Sessions' claims to the contrary, there is evidence that he 'discussed matters related to the Trump campaign with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian Ambassador to the United States, while the 2016 U.S. presidential race was ongoing.'

[Animavore]

[Svartalf]

[Brian Peacock]

And, why is it improper for Republicans to meet with Russian ambassadors, but not Democrats?

You mean 'why is it improper to secretly meet with the Russian Ambassador and then volunteer a lie about it under oath' surely? And who said it's only improper for Republican representatives to secretly meet foreign officials but not Democrats anyway? Oh that's right, only you.

Remind me why you don't care about the Russian plutocracy campaigning for Trump again.

Only, he didn't "lie" about it.

If you look at the entirety of the testimony, he's not lying.

Which part of the testimony, in particular, and how does it mean he didn't volunteer a lie under oath?

And, again, why would he lie about something like that which (a) was not illegal, and not even improper to do - if he had just said "I met with the guy..." there would have been nothing nefarious about it - so why bother lying? and (b) it was so clear that it was not hidden - there was a record of the meeting with Kislyak in the Senate and and the other "meeting" was just a chance encounter at a event.

You're attempting to remove the context here aren't you, as if this was just two chaps meeting in a bar and talking about the weather. Sessions was being asked questions pertaining to possible illicit and illegal contact between the Trump campaign, of which Sessions was a self-declared surrogate, and the Russian government against the background of the charge that a foreign power had offered material support to a presidential campaign. That's the context. Not that they met an official function. Not that met at a party. Not that they met for ribs and beer and Monday night football.

I mean, this is such a non-issue that even someone who can't stand Sessions' politics - me for example - can't believe rational people are suggesting this is anything of an issue.

Sure, it's a non-issue if you don't even accept the premise, even for the sake of argument, and saying that you don't much care for Sessions, and that it's simply irrational not to accept your declarations on such matters, doesn't lend any rational weight to what is essentially special pleading.

And, there is no allegation of a Russian plutocracy campaigning for Trump. The allegations are that the Russians continued to do in 2016 what they've done in every election for the last 50 years.

Really, for example spending money on Facebook ads and organising rallies in marginal and swing States isn't campaigning for Trump? This isn't material assistance? Is this an equivocation on 'campaigning' in the making perhaps?

This is trumped up bullshit, created by the Democrat machine for political purposes. It's the usual political dirty tricks - which both major parties engage in regularly. They had the chance to to throw this mud on trump, and they took it. It's common, and I wouldn't put it past Republicans to do similar shit. It's what they do. Be careful not to step in the bullshit.

False equivalences don't invalidate, remove, or otherwise offset the action of either or any party. You know this. You know that when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar saying, "But Jimmy does it all the time," isn't really anything but a responsibility shifting excuse.

Look, you still think this issue is designed to morally chastise a particular group, to make Republicans and Republican voters look and feel bad, but really it's an issue about the security of the democratic process and the robustness of democratic institutions. Now, if interfering in and undermining US democracy is something that Russia has done "for the last 50 years" then surely it's about time to address the matter head on. It might be painful and embarrassing, but that's got to be better than simply ignoring it or painting it as the other guy's fault?

You certainly shouldn't assume that I think this is purely an American issue or that I'm looking to single America out for special attention -- it's just the biggest fire on the horizon at the moment -- but I am wondering why you're affecting this air of relaxed and care-free nonchalance about even the possibility that an aggressive, authoritarian plutocracy like Russia appear, at the very least, to be up to their knees in the American political system.

[Tero]

Chief Running Joke asks, in Redditt, about Mueller:
Can someone explain to me how he would go about firing Mueller? Such an order would need to come from Rosenstein, and he is the one that appointed Mueller. Trump would have to fire Rosenstein, then try to get the Senate to approve someone to take his seat that would fire Mueller, which is very unlikely to happen at this point. Since Sessions recused himself, he wouldn't have a say either way.

I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but I just can't see this happening.

(Another Reddit poster)
The Associated Press reports that people who have spoken to Trump saythat he has recently revisited the idea of trying to remove Mueller, now that Mueller appears to be digging into Trump’s finances. Meanwhile, CNN reports that former Trump strategist Stephen K. Bannon is privately urging Trump to try to get Republicans to defund Mueller’s probe.

[Svartalf]

Please remind me who Rosenstein is already?

[Brian Peacock]

He's the guy who points to the spot where the president should sign the executive order.

[Svartalf]

the much of a flunky?

[Seabass]

Trump cultists live in a hermetically sealed bubble through which facts and truth from the outside world cannot pass. It is as fascinating as it is terrifying.