Republicans always want credit for some shit they supposed to do: Mitt Romney edition.

You know the worst thing about Republicans? Republicans always want credit for some shit they supposed to do. A Republican will brag about some shit a normal man just does. A Republican will say some shit like, “I would go to the FBI” You’re supposed go to the FBI, you dumb motherfucker! What kind of ignorant obstruction of justice shit is that? “I ain’t never colluded with Russia!” What do you want, a cookie?! You’re not supposed to collude with Russia, you low-expectation-having motherfucker!

I don’t actually hate Romney. But… WTF? This isn’t about you Mitt.

Look, Mitt would go to the FBI. I’ll have no reason to think he wouldn’t go to the FBI. Great. That’s a low bar. And the fact that you wouldn’t commit light treason doesn’t matter when you’re unwilling to take action to stop the sitting president from doing it.

Mitch McConnell Will Not Act in Good Faith, Even When the Security of the Country Is at Stake

Why Obama didn’t take more action when presented with evidence of Russian attacks on our election? Mitch. That’s why.

“Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went further, officials said, voicing skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House’s claims. Through a spokeswoman, McConnell declined to comment, citing the secrecy of that meeting. Key Democrats were stunned by the GOP response and exasperated that the White House seemed willing to let Republican opposition block any pre-election move”

This is why Obama didn’t take more action. Mitch. And this guy is still there and still preventing the American people from knowing the full truth.

From: esquire.com

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27394996/mitch-mcconnell-mueller-report-donald-trump-elizabeth-warren/

A turd polishing in three acts.

Act one, the turd arrives

Act two, the turd must be made to shine

Act three, we realize it was still just a turd.

Here’s a list of all the ongoing government investigations that could spell legal trouble for Trump, regardless of whether he’s president, and the people and entities associated with him.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/after-mueller-ongoing-investigations-trump/585376/

The reaction is exactly what one might predict.

The Barr Letter completely exonerates Hillary Clinton

On October 19th 2016 Hillary Clinton stated this during her debate with then Candidate Trump:

It’s pretty clear, you won’t admit that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race.

So here’s the thing. If you break this down, statement by statement you can see that from what we know of the Mueller report and the released Barr letter, she was correct about most of it.

you won’t admit that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America”

Well this is true. We now know that Russia engaged in the cyber attacks and Trump was told this. But even at Helsinki, he was still unwilling to admit it. The Mueller indictments establish that case. In addition, we now know that there were multiple attempts by Russia to reach out to Trump and his campaign. They didn’t contact the FBI. They invited them to Trump tower.

that you encouraged espionage against our people”

There was that famous “Russia are you listening” moment. The Mueller indictments document that the Russian active ops stepped up. Clearly they listened. What’s important is that this occurred after Trump was warned that Russia was looking to interfere.

that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do,

This is a wash. It looks like Trump’s campaign changed the GOP platform, blocked sanctions congress enacted and did a host of other suspicious things, not because of a quid pro quo but because Trump really likes Putin and is looking to be his buddy? Ok. I don’t see why thats better but lets give them both partial credit here.

you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race

Again. the Mueller investigation and the Barr letter establish that Russia was looking to help Trump.

So my point is that almost everything she said about the hack during the debate on the was correct: ” of those points, Hillary was 100% right about points 1,2 and 4. And 3 is well, embarrassing for Trump.

Hillary has been exonerated.

The “Three’s Company Defense” is no longer credible.

If you aren’t familiar with the show Three’s Company, let me give you a quick synopsis: It was a 1970s sitcom where every episode revolved around some misunderstanding; often suggestively sexual in nature, that existed largely as a vehicle to put Don Knott’s supernatural facial reactions on your TeeVee. Literally the only thing I remember about that show was Don Knott’s face.

Let me now propose that any time someone is defending the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia and the repeated lies about contact with Russia and the 37 people indicted and the five people who have plead guilty about lying to investigators and suggests that this is all a hoax, a big ol’ misunderstanding; that’s the Three’s Company defense. I know it sounds like someone was doing you know what but in reality Janet was just about to sew a button on Jack’s pants.

And at this point it is no longer credible.

As examples:

  • Why did Trump deny having deals in Russia when saying something to the effect “I do business all over the world and likely have deals or could have deals in Russia. Why would anyone think that any one deal anywhere would be so important when I have so many deals everywhere?” would have had everyone shrug off the Trump Tower Moscow deal as a nothing burger?
  • Why deny the Trump Tower meeting rather than say something like “We had many meetings with many others and this is done by campaigns all the time and has never been a big deal”
  • Why deny wanting to get dirt on Hillary if it were no big deal and everyone does it?
  • Why not say something like “we had no reason to think the information they would give us would have been have come from illegal actions, why would we?”
  • Why change the story of that meeting multiple times if were no big deal?
  • If this is all a rigged Witch Hunt, why paint Cohen as a rat rather than a victim of an investigation gone bad? Why not say something like “Mr. Cohen is now lying because the investigation will attempt to use those lies against me” rather than suggest Cohen is credible because the “Witch Hunt” caught him?

If Trump and his campaign had made statements such were given in the above example, wouldn’t it sound much more like just a big misunderstanding? So that is in fact possible. So with that in mind, a person offering “Three’s Company Defense” of Trump owes you that explanation: why the lies, why the changing stories and why the pattern of behavior that has gotten people tossed in jail? What’s the credible explanation that makes this all just Janet needing to sew a button on Jack’s pants?

If they can not provide that alternate explanation they should at least give you a full on Don Knotts level bug-eyed WTF expression.

Read Michael Cohen’s opening statement here

“To be clear: Mr. Trump knew of and directed the Trump Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it. He lied about it because he never expected to win the election. He also lied about it because he stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars on the Moscow real estate project.

And so I lied about it, too – because Mr. Trump had made clear to me, through his personal statements to me that we both knew were false and through his lies to the country, that he wanted me to lie. And he made it clear to me because his personal attorneys reviewed my statement before I gave it to Congress.”

He is confirming what we know.

So when the totally predictable happens and the GOP reacts to felonies by a sitting GOP executive by dismissing it as a distraction and circling the wagons to protect the party, remember this is the 4th time since Watergate they’ve done this.

From: cnbc.com

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/27/michael-cohen-read-the-statement-about-donald-trump-here.html

RNC tells Michael Cohen to ‘have fun in prison,’ as GOP readies war room to push back on testimony

“Convicted felon Michael Cohen is going to prison for lying, including lies he told under oath to Congress,” RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel told Fox News.”

One thing stands out as odd about the GOP defense here.

Why didn’t the president do something when Cohen lied to Congress?

He would have known, right?

White House council should have said or done something.

Why wasn’t anything done until Cohen pled guilty and agreed to cooperate?

From: www-foxnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org

https://www-foxnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/rnc-tells-michael-cohen-to-have-fun-in-prison-as-gop-readies-war-room-to-push-back-on-testimony.amp

predictions on the mueller investigation report

Either the Mueller investigation report will show “collusion” or it won’t.

Either the Mueller investigation reort will link the president to criminal actions or it will not.

Expect spin regardless of the outcome. Maybe not at first. There will be debate and then they will agree on talking points.

If it shows direct collusion between the campaign and Russia with Trump’s knowledge and involvement, they will claim it everyone does it and it is no big deal. They will attempt to minimize the crime with a “so what if he colluded, it’s a technicality, everyone does it. Why are we still wasting time on this?”

If it shows direct collusion between the campaign and Russia without Trump, they will claim it exonerates Trump and defend pardoning the members of the campaign who conducted criminal acts.

If it shows no direct collusion by Trump but evidence of others crimes they will they will claim it exonerates Trump and proof that it was a rigged witch hunt. They will not be willing to discuss why those same crimes were worth impeachment of Bill Clinton and not Trump.

If it shows no direct collusion but evidence of others crimes, without Trump they will they will claim it exonerates Trump without any comment on why so many people in the campaign were willing to lie about contacts with Russia.

Do not expect any honest here.

Roger Stone and the grand unified theory of GOP villainy

In my mind there are three basic types of villains in the world.

You have your Bond Villains, they are larger than life world shaking monsters where the downfall is a plan too big for them to handle. Big ideas require big organizations and eventually someone slips up and alerts MI7. And then Double-O-Mueller shows up.

You have the cartoonish and campy Batman villains who are focused on smaller goals but with much bigger egos. They are too flashy to sneak by the rest of us forever. That and the desire to show the world they are better than Batman and smarter than everyone else is their downfall.

And then there are the thuggish Sopranos villains. It’s greed that gets them.

Most real world villainy, rather than day to day crime, comes from people who are mix of two of these archetypes. Russian oligarchs tend to be a mix of Bond villain and Sopranos villain. International Narcotics smuggling attracts these types as well. Flamboyant con men tend to be a mix of Batman villain and Sopranos villain. They tend to have cons built around their own personalities and suited to their odd aesthetics. When you mix campy Batman-type with the Bond-type you end up with something like Dr Evil from the Austin powers movies or the villains from Despicable Me.

Most of the cast of scoundrels in the Trump Russia investigation are a mix of either Bond and Sopranos or Batman and Sopranos. They were all greedy. It’s whether the Ego getting too big or the Plan too grand that separates them.

  • George Papadopoulos: Pure Sopranos. He gets beat slapped by Paully Wallnuts and turns state.
  • Paul Manafort: part Bond, part Sopranos. He wanted to be elegant and sophisticated but had too much Don in him to do it. It was his greed that gave the plan away. Case in point: https://people.com/politics/paul-manafort-ostrich-leather-jacket/
  • Alex van der Zwaan: Bond villain. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had a death laser in storage somewhere. Too much paperwork to conceal.
  • Michael Flynn: Bond villain. He just found it too hard to juggle his work for Turkey with his work for the US. Flipping to the good guys like the guy who got pulled into the caper and had second thoughts was a fitting end to this chapter.
  • Michael Cohen: Sopranos with a touch of Batman. Just listen to that phone call where is describes his revenge as “disgusting” and wonder what his theme would be. Mucus Monster? A radioactive hairball coughed up by Catwoman?

Roger Stone is special. Roger Stone is all three. Roger Stone is the in intersection of all three. He is a batman villain, a Bond villain and a Sopranos thug. He is as campy as anyone in the Batman comics down to the Richard Nixon ink on his back. As thuggish as any Sopranos heavy with his thinly veiled threats and yet somehow. He was able to maneuver in the big leagues with Oligarchs, foreign intelligence and see his Don become POTUS.

The he blew it. It was the absurdity of the plan, the greed and the ego. This chapter will be amazing.