Seconded. Trump-Russia is its own thing. But compared to past scandals, Iran-Contra's a better fit than Watergate. Trump has years of experience with shady dealings. No matter what the campaign did, he's likely insulated from it. And, ultimately, it's up to Congress.https://twitter.com/BrendanNyhan/status/945858970119421952 …
-
-
More could come out, but probably gray evidence like Iran-Contra rather than black-and-white like Watergate. Trump, pro-Trump media, and the Americans who believe them (or benefit from them) will proclaim his innocence. That's who Congressional Republicans care about most.
Show this thread -
A Constitutional crisis is still a serious possibility. Indictment for Kushner appears likely. Don Jr. maybe as well. If Trump tries to protect them, and Congress doesn't stop him, the president and his family are effectively above the law.https://arcdigital.media/americas-on-a-collision-course-with-a-constitutional-crisis-7b732a35c6fc …
Show this thread -
Alternatively, if Mueller tries to bring charges against Trump--say, for pre-presidential money laundering--that'll spark a different type of Constitutional crisis. Can a sitting president be indicted? Different lawyers give different answers. It's never really been tested.
Show this thread -
Trump-Russia hasn't peaked yet. The country will be tested. But, based on what we know now, it looks like neither those claiming blatant collusion nor those claiming unsubstantiated witch hunt will be proven correct. And that's more like Iran-Contra than Watergate. (END)
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I find this link, in particular, wrong-minded: there's evidence of cooperation between Trump & Russians dismissible only by the sophistical nihilism of nobody-knows-anything-abt-anything, and our knowing so more securely is being obstructed by the Republican party and its media.
-
The contacts between Trump himself and major campaign and administrative staff, and the lies—often perjurious—about them, can't rationally be dismissed by 'That proves nothing!'
-
No, of course not. But the burden of proof required here is clear evidence of direct cooperation between the campaign and the Russian government involving Trump personally. We haven't seen that, and may never see it. That makes it more Iran-Contra than Watergate.
-
Three things: a) The extent of the conspiracy might occlude the clarity you ask for; all of the Republican leadership knew more than is admitted now in summer '16. b) 'Smoking gun' tape: 6/23/72. Made public: 8/5/74. As late as that week 74, enablers were saying 'No there there!'
-
c) And epistemically, how much of what evidence would clarity take? Let's set a bar and see if a multi-year RICO-like investigation—or heck,
#Benghazi-like—hurdles it. —because if that bar is where it would be to put a man with a public defender on death row, we're there *now*.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
While I mostly agree with you, I also think that part of the problem is that no one in the administration really knows what other people in the administration did because it's a disorganized mess and they don't trust each other.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.