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 …
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 -
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.