2017 American Political Scene

[GVChamp]

Ban abortion and there will be a backlash.

Probably impossible. I can't imagine the court overturning Roe, especially since Dems are likely to get appointments in the next Presidential cycle. Also, I doubt Roberts would go for it...overturning Roe WOULD provoke a backlash, possibly enough that a Dem congress and Dem President will resort to Court-packing. The legitimacy and independence of the SC is something Roberts has massive paranoia about.

[Firestorm]

firestorm,

when you are talking about the razor thin margins by which Trump won crucial swing states, absolutely, they could have very well swung the election. this was a bigger effort than they have previously tried. (Comey was the bigger factor, though.)

I'll wait for the investigation to complete before drawing conclusions. As of now the worst that the Russians seem to have done is leak DNC emails and use internet trolls and fake news. Big deal. It is likely the DNC emails would have ended up on wikileaks anyway. And people spreading fake news were dime a dozen. My point is that the Russians were in no way able to stop Trump from showing everyone that he is an irreverent clown with no understanding of how to actually run a country and someone who is proud of sexually assaulting women. His comments on Mexicans and McCain (and PoWs in general) and the access hollywood tapes and what he said about the Khan family were shown by every media and social media website. Regardless of what the Russians did, people knew exactly who and what they were voting for. And they were still ok with it. This should scare you a lot more than what the Russians can do to be frank.

After HC lost the democrats were shell-shocked and looking for an explanation they could understand. Blaming Russia is something they can get on board with. Far easier than accepting the state of the electorate and the deep divisions in society and the fact that they completely misread the mood of the people and the impact of Republican propaganda during Obama's tenure.

[astralis]

GVChamp,

Probably impossible. I can't imagine the court overturning Roe, especially since Dems are likely to get appointments in the next Presidential cycle. Also, I doubt Roberts would go for it...overturning Roe WOULD provoke a backlash, possibly enough that a Dem congress and Dem President will resort to Court-packing. The legitimacy and independence of the SC is something Roberts has massive paranoia about.

well, IF, say, RBG departs this sad vale of tears early, then yes, Roe v Wade would be under threat.

regarding court-packing, that should be a tertiary long-term concern for the Republicans. McConnell's various powerplays are such that the next Dem Congress will be out for blood. IF Dems ever get anything like a 2009 Congress all over again, then pretty much every Dem activist will be out to make Guam and PR states, and -then- commence the court-packing. Dems will almost certainly try to get vengeance for GOP 2010 REDMAP as well.

there are multiple Pandora Boxes the GOP has opened up for itself over the last few years. Trump is an enormous magnifier of fury, and if existing norms are already degraded....

[snapper]

It is likely the DNC emails would have ended up on wikileaks anyway. And people spreading fake news were dime a dozen.

What happens happens. The Muscovites hacked both the Democrats and the Republicans. Only the most blackening of the Democrat information was released. This is one factor that no doubt lead your intelligence services to conclude that the Muscovites interferred in your election in favour of Trump. The hack was done by the GRU - we KNOW this and released not only via Wikileaks but also by other websites. They may have been unwitting accomplices but the material the GRU (Fancy Bear etc) hacked ended up published by them. There are no "may have's" - it was enemy action. Face it.

[Firestorm]

What happens happens. The Muscovites hacked both the Democrats and the Republicans. Only the most blackening of the Democrat information was released. This is one factor that no doubt lead your intelligence services to conclude that the Muscovites interferred in your election in favour of Trump. The hack was done by the GRU - we KNOW this and released not only via Wikileaks but also by other websites. They may have been unwitting accomplices but the material the GRU (Fancy Bear etc) hacked ended up published by them. There are no "may have's" - it was enemy action. Face it.

Where have I denied that the Russians did all those things? My point was about its impact in the grand scheme of things which I believe was very small.

Essentially, you are saying Trump got elected primarily because the Russians interfered and basically managed to fool the electorate. I am not denying they interfered, just saying that blaming Trump's election on that is wrong. Nothing that the RUssians leaked was particularly objectionable. Especially compared to what Trump showed about himself. The people knew exactly what Trump was and they still voted for him. Perhaps we need to face that instead of going on an on about the evil Russians.

[snapper]

A few have said that the election was decided by a relatively small number of votes so everything counts. As the impact of the hacking campaign and it's leaking provided the basis of Comey's announcement to re-open the inquest in Clinton's previous record - that almost certainly cost her the election in the electoral college apart from the 'popular vote' I would say there are reasonable grounds for inferring the Muscovite influence/interference campaign was successful. They opened Champers in Moscow when they heard that Trump had won; why? They have openly boasted that they elected your President. You may take it as negligible but when you President was colluding with them because he is compromised by information they have on his finances (mostly) you have to look to your national security. In retrospect obviously Comey and other IC leaders should have spoken out sooner about the known connections but you have to deal with the now - not the 'may have beens'. Impeach the traitor - electrocute him if you wish - whatever is your custom or choice. I do not condone capital punishment ordinarily but when at war - and we are all under attack - I have little sympathy for traitors.

[DOR]

I STILL blame Hillary Clinton for only getting some 3 million more votes than her opponent, despite Russian hacking, fake Facebook posts and widespread voter suppression. Apparently the minimum requirement last year was 5 million.

[GVChamp]

A few have said that the election was decided by a relatively small number of votes so everything counts. As the impact of the hacking campaign and it's leaking provided the basis of Comey's announcement to re-open the inquest in Clinton's previous record - that almost certainly cost her the election in the electoral college apart from the 'popular vote' I would say there are reasonable grounds for inferring the Muscovite influence/interference campaign was successful. They opened Champers in Moscow when they heard that Trump had won; why? They have openly boasted that they elected your President. You may take it as negligible but when you President was colluding with them because he is compromised by information they have on his finances (mostly) you have to look to your national security. In retrospect obviously Comey and other IC leaders should have spoken out sooner about the known connections but you have to deal with the now - not the 'may have beens'. Impeach the traitor - electrocute him if you wish - whatever is your custom or choice. I do not condone capital punishment ordinarily but when at war - and we are all under attack - I have little sympathy for traitors.

It's highly speculative that any Russian interference had more than a trivial impact. It's extremely obvious that Comey and the email scandals in general had a huge impact, because it showed up in the polling numbers.

Hillary's fainting incident on 9/11 also shows up in the numbers.

[surfgun]

Clinton / DNC fingerprints on Trump/Russia Dossier.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/1...ankroll-244131

[tbm3fan]

Clinton / DNC fingerprints on Trump/Russia Dossier.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/1...ankroll-244131

One political party funding opposition research of another. What will they think of next???

https://www.amazon.com/Opposition-Re.../dp/B007BJTINI

[Firestorm]

I STILL blame Hillary Clinton for only getting some 3 million more votes than her opponent, despite Russian hacking, fake Facebook posts and widespread voter suppression. Apparently the minimum requirement last year was 5 million.

Frankly, this kinda reminds me of that cold war era joke about two Russian generals sitting in a Paris cafe debating who won the air war.

Both HC and Trump knew that they had to win the EC to become President and that the popular vote alone would not count. They tailored their campaigns likewise. If the popular vote alone had been the only criteria from the start, the campaigns would be different and there is no guarantee HC would have won.

On the other hand Trump might have had to tone down his rhetoric a bit.

[surfgun]

Clinton lawyer denied vigorously any connection to Dossier.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/24/ny...ehind-dossier/

[snapper]

It's highly speculative that any Russian interference had more than a trivial impact. It's extremely obvious that Comey and the email scandals in general had a huge impact, because it showed up in the polling numbers.

Hillary's fainting incident on 9/11 also shows up in the numbers.

Fine, let's run a new election with due diligence. Have to say I read Flake's speech - far more of Statesman - like than ANYTHING Trumpet has ever said or thought.

[surfgun]

Fine, let's run a new election with due diligence. Have to say I read Flake's speech - far more of Statesman - like than ANYTHING Trumpet has ever said or thought.

Oh’ right away.

[Wooglin]

One political party funding opposition research of another. What will they think of next???

https://www.amazon.com/Opposition-Re.../dp/B007BJTINI

You mean it's not a big deal? Well gosh golly gee, I seem to remember it was a big deal not too long ago... let's see, what was the outrage du jour for the left then? Oh yeah, something like this...

It isn't rocket science, folks:
Opposition research is valuable.
The FEC defines contributions to include both money and “in-kind.”
Contributions – aside from strictly personal volunteering – from foreigners and their governments are illegal.
Assisting foreigners to “solicit, receive or accept” contributions is illegal.
Soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions from foreigners, directly or otherwise, is illegal.

How about conspiracy to violate Federal election laws?

Federal campaign finance law covers three broad subjects:

• Public disclosure of funds raised and spent to influence federal elections;

• Restrictions on contributions and expenditures made to influence federal elections; and

• The public financing of Presidential campaigns.

…

Prohibited Contributions and Expenditures
The FECA places prohibitions on contributions and expenditures by certain individuals and organizations. The following are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures to influence federal elections:
• Corporations;
• Labor organizations;
• Federal government contractors; and
• Foreign nationals.


Furthermore, with respect to federal elections:

•No one may make a contribution in another person’s name.

• No one may make a contribution in cash of more than $100.

In addition to the above prohibitions on contributions and expenditures in federal election campaigns, the FECA also prohibits foreign nationals, national banks and other federally chartered corporations from making contributions or expenditures in connection with state and local elections.

https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro...a_brochure.pdf


Then there’s this:
The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.
https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro.../foreign.shtml


And,

The Act prohibits certain contributions made in connection with or for the purpose of influencing federal elections. The prohibitions listed below apply to contributions received and made by political committees. Note that the prohibitions apply to all contributions, regardless of:
• What type of contribution it is (gift of money, in-kind contribution, loan and so on);
• Whether it is solicited; and
• How it is ultimately used (such as for advertising, office supplies or independent expenditures).

…

Contributions and donations may not be solicited, accepted, or received from, or made directly or indirectly by, foreign nationals who do not have permanent residence in the United States (i.e., those without green cards). This prohibition encompasses all US elections; including federal, state and local elections.
https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro.../contrib.shtml


Bottom line: if anyone in a federal election campaign has contact with foreigners interested in assisting the campaign, the first response should be to call the FBI.

Not to say "I love it."

"In case you missed it, ..."

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.

https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro.../foreign.shtml

Difference being this time it actually was paid for.