You've heard the statistics, the
warnings, but what does it mean to us? Really. People can talk all
they want, but it seems a distant threat, not a clear and present
danger. Or so people may think.
This winter for the first time I had my
roof shoveled off. Oh sure, we've always used the snow rake to try
to clear some off the edges, even though we've never had problems
with ice dams. But this year seemed different. The snow was deep,
very deep, all the way to the edges of my roof. So during one snow
storm when someone drove by offering to shovel off my roof I took him
up on his offer. You see, we were on track for another storm the
next weekend, with the heavy wet stuff. I was actually concerned
about the weight on the roof, even though everyone says that trusses
can hold a lot of weight. The result was huge piles of snow, not
just along my driveway from snow blowing, but also around my house.
It almost looked like an igloo. This was a winter that was unusual
in the current scheme of things, not just for precipitation, but for
temperatures. I don't ever remember another winter where we had
snow every other day for a long stretch, which is what we were
seeing.
So what happens when all of that snow
melts, which it has been doing? The ground is still frozen so it
runs into the rivers. Yes, we have always been at risk of spring
flooding. But obviously the more snow we have the more runoff.
It's not just Minnesota that is at risk.
When the talk revolves around the
details of climate change it's hard sometimes to picture what it will
look like.
I spoke to someone this weekend who
mentioned the large amount of flooding happening in Nebraska.
So I have today some pictures...
predictions...
and what some climate scientists have been thinking
about their region of the world and their future...
In that last video the temperature in her home is referenced as 39C. This translates to 102F.
It's not just that sea levels will rise or that global temperature is rising, it is what that will result in that is of major concern for our future life on this planet. The pictures out of Nebraska should be a warning.
77 comments:
I'm waiting for the Republican governor of Nebraska to declare that the floods are a Chinese hoax.
I'm sure there are some people who will never admit that climate change is real, even as their lives are washed away.
The ostensibly conservative Boston Herald is calling for…
"…predawn arrests for former FBI Director James
Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe,
[former FBI agent, Peter] Strzok, former FBI lawyer Lisa
Page, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, former
CIA spook John Brennan, former Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper and other [unnamed and
unnumbered] Obama administration deep state
officials…[including] former Deputy Attorney General
Sally Yates and others…,Justice Department official
Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie, Fusion GPS, Hillary’s
2016 campaign and the DNC…"
Quite an ambitious list of arrests they're calling for.
It could have happened here. It still could happen here if we are not attentive to the problem. They're serious. Luckily, they are a shrinking minority, but that just means they're getting desperate now, and they're still serious. They'd do it if they thought they could pull it off. Can't let them begin to think that.
I don't know who this guy is, but if true he has an answer to the Boston Herald's ideological bent.
I don't recognize the author either, but I do know Medium. That's where Jeff Bezos published his accusation that the National Enquirer had attempted to blackmail him (using information that Bezos has later said they acquired from Saudi Arabian sources).
(I knew of Medium before the Bezos Op-Ed; it's in my computer's bookmarks section.)
It appears that the new Republican plan is to threaten to take up the issue of health care after the 2020 election.
I'm not so sure that's a winning idea, tell the voters that you're gonna wait until after they vote to surprise them with yet another Republican health care plan.
I notice that Theresa May is going to ask for a further delay on the Brexit deal. I guess she has no choice but to ask.
The pro-Brexit forces made impossible promises about how easy it'd be and how great it would work out, and then they left it to others to make their impossible promises come true.
Small wonder Trump came down as a pro-Brexit enthusiast; that's his MO to a "tee".
(I knew of Medium before the Bezos Op-Ed; it's in my computer's bookmarks section.)
I might have to check them from time to time. That article seemed well researched.
I'm not so sure that's a winning idea, tell the voters that you're gonna wait until after they vote to surprise them with yet another Republican health care plan.
Believe or not there are voters out there who don't like surprises.
Fella writing for TheAtlantic speculates that Trump may actually know what he's doing in cutting off aid to the MezoAmerican countries making up the troubled "Northern Triangle".
If things get worse there, more people will flee to the United States, and that's politically good for Trump. He can't sucessfully rage against the migrant ‛caravans’ if there are no migrant caravans.
(Likewise it's better for Trump if ObamaCare survives for him to rail against, much better than if he were to actually manage to kill it off.)
I note that the House Intelligence Committee has voted to subpoena Mueller's report. I would note as well that Kenneth Starr made public vast amounts of grand jury testimony against President Clinton and the the grand jury testimony against Richard Nixon was ordered released in its entirety, as a matter of public interest, by the presiding federal judge, John Sirica.
The House Intelligence Committee ought to immediately proceed to getting the necessary legal authority to release to the public the grand jury testimony against Trump and Company, as a matter of public interest.
(Likewise it's better for Trump if ObamaCare survives for him to rail against, much better than if he were to actually manage to kill it off.)
He still needs something to distract people with.
I see the House is going after Trump's tax returns in earnest and his is digging in his heels.
"his" should be "he"
I had seen the notice of a formal request for Trump's tax returns by the relevant House Committee. I hadn't seen any tales of any response from Trump or from the Trump administration.
(I'd expect resistance--the clear wording of the statute notwithstanding. He's got a couple of his own guys wearing robes on the Supreme Trumpkins now, so, why not resist?)
On review of the day's headlines I see that the relevant House oversight committees have, this day, subpoenaed the Mueller Report and its supporting documentation, and demanded six (6) years' worth of Trump's personal and corporate tax returns, and begun the process to issue a subpoena for ten (10) years' worth of financial records from Trump's personal, closely held, private corporation ("Trump and Company").
Prepare ya'll's selves for a twitterstorm to come, maybe as soon as come morning.
And, just to make things worse for Trump and the Trumpkins…. Looks like Trump's ‛No Collusion’ narrative is gonna take a hit.
WashingtonPost: It turns out that Mueller had prepared a summary of his work to be released to the public, and that Attorney General William Barr killed it and then wrote his own summary, which leaks from Mueller's team are claiming seriously misrepresents their work and their conclusions. (Think 'bout that for a minute--‛leaks from Mueller's team’--Mueller's team didn't leak. Two years Mueller's team did not leak, and now they're leaking stuff. This is a big deal to them.)
Ross Garber, a CNN legal analyst, and a solid Republican, and an at least semi-committed conservative and marginally loyal citizen, writes (and not for publication at CNN it might be observed) that the Trump administration may be justified in refusing to turn over Trump's tax returns to the appropriate congressional oversight committees, in spite of the statutory language that they "shall" do so upon request.
The legal analysis is bogus, and even my non-expert mind can flush that out. (it's worth noting that his analysis relies heavily on the idea that Trump can conceivably drag this out in the courts until such time as either he, or the Democratic majority, is no longer in power.)
However, the important point isn't that either side can find lawyers willing to argue their cases to the public. The important point is contained in the notion, written all over the essay, that Trump can do any damn thing he pleases, and the only recourse against him is impeachment. He can't be indicted, and, according to this legal expert, short of impeachment he can't be reined in by Congress.
I believe this is going to be an up and coming theory in the dedicated Trumpkin/FoxNews world view. There's nothing that can be done to rein in Trump short of impeachment, and ya'll ain't got the votes for impeachment, "So there…!" We shall have to wait and see, of course, but I think that's gonna be the developing position of the dedicated Trumpkin/FoxNews/Radio-Right-Wing tribe over the course of the next few years--certainly through the 2020 elections, and even after if Trump wins in 2020.
What about the methane that cows fart out? We're supposed to be scared of that as well, aren't we?
Well I have a solution. Let's keep the cows that provide us with milk and beef. Let's instead kill off all the quad-peds in Africa! Wilderbeasts, antilopes, rhinos, elephants, zebras and all their ilk. What have they ever done for us? Mopst people only ever see them on television anyway and we have Planet Earth done already and so have a record of 'em.
Now they only run around in Africa farting out lethal gasses that will lead to NYC drowning under 100 feet of water. We can't have that!
Killing them off would likely also result in more carbon trapping trees growing so it's a win-win!
Give me ONE good reason why we shouldn't kill off all wildlife in Africa to save us all from drowning because they fart hellish gasses meant to kill us all.
Oh, and btw, if that sperg kid Greta did her "protest" not on a school day but on a day kids were free from school that one million participants would dwindle down into the hundreds (I have that on good authority from both nephwes and nieces). And anyway she only got all that media attention to shill for her completely insane mothers' book, just so you know.
Have you actually listened to the sperg kid talk? She's a shill, and an insane one at that. Only hysteria and no answers.
"Give me ONE good reason why we shouldn't kill off
all wildlife in Africa…"
A lot of the locals eat ‛bush meat’. Starving Africans are more likely to make the trek north.
Prepare ya'll's selves for a twitterstorm to come, maybe as soon as come morning.
I don't know about that, but he sure has lawyered up! I can't imagine what is so damning about his returns that he won't make them public like so many other elected officials have done.
... leaks from Mueller's team are claiming seriously misrepresents their work and their conclusions.
I actually was kind of waiting to see if something like that would happen. Once they weren't under Mueller's direct control, if there was something going on with Barr's summary, they wouldn't be able to stay silent. People just won't keep quiet. It's human nature.
So...the plot thickens...
And, why oh why won't he release his tax returns?
And who is that mysterious company that is under subpoena and paying through the nose to keep their secrets?
I think there are some serious cracks in Trumplandia.
The important point is contained in the notion, written all over the essay, that Trump can do any damn thing he pleases, and the only recourse against him is impeachment.
Well, there is that other thing. But it will take another year or so to see if it pans out. That is if enough voters start to see through Trump's fraud.
"I think there are some serious cracks in Trumplandia."
Nevertheless, he did manage to slant the coverage with all that "No Collusion; Total Vindication; Complete Exoneration" ranting that went on for week/ten days before the first cracks in that narrative began to appear. The independents who're trying to tune all the partisan fussing out were nevertheless inundated with that noise, and the corrections to Trump's early narrative may never catch up. "A lie travels around the world before the truth…etc."
A lot of the locals eat ‛bush meat’. Starving Africans are more likely to make the trek north.
I think he got you there, Marcus.
lol!
The independents who're trying to tune all the partisan fussing out were nevertheless inundated with that noise, and the corrections to Trump's early narrative may never catch up. "A lie travels around the world before the truth…etc."
This is always a possibility. But it is also true that it is easy to tune out someone who is known to lie.
"Well, there is that other thing."
There are those who claim that Trump won't accede to being voted out of office. There are those who're already saying that he'll probably have to be forcibly removed come January 2021.
I don't know, I don't think even he'd stoop that low. There are too many people he'd have to walk over.
I think I would be more concerned with Russian meddling to make sure he gets elected instead.
"I don't think even he'd stoop that low."
I, on the other hand, have no reservations about how ‛low’ he'd stoop. However, I did not endorse that speculation on account of he's shown here lately that he can be talked out of his stupider and stupidest notions. He's not going to try to make them do ‛Repeal and Pretend to Replace’ again before the 2020 election. He's not going to close the border with Mexico after all. He's not going to let his Attorney General release the grand jury testimony without a fight. (Most of these have to do with his congressional Republicans threatening to leave him out on those limbs all by himself; no backup from them if he's gonna insist on shooting for stupidest.)
I expect the congressional Republicans will turn on him with a vengeance after the 2020 elections on account of he'll probably cost them control of the Senate as well as losing the White House, and I remember how they turned on Dubya after he lost them the Senate.
So, they'll not be backing him on that one. (If he could hold the Senate for them, maybe that'd be another matter.)
TheNewYorker: Article on the contribution of global warming to the influx of refugees from Central America.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
(The continued Russian meddling in our elections is a subject worthy of a conversation of its own.)
TheNewYorker: Article on the contribution of global warming to the influx of refugees from Central America.
That was an interesting article. I think a lot of people just don't understand that climate change will have a wide array of consequences, some of which we are already seeing.
I'm afraid you will not be able to build a wall high enough to keep out desperate people who are starving. Right now we are just seeing the beginning. Eventually, if climate change is left unchecked, our planet will become uninhabitable.
"Give me ONE good reason why we shouldn't kill off
all wildlife in Africa…"
Might be dangerous to try. Turns out they fight back. Vice
Attorney General William Barr is going before the House Judiciary Committee today.
The ostensible subject of today's appearance is the DOJ budget (this is a regularly scheduled meeting), but it's hard to imagine that the committee's Democrats won't want to grandstand a little while they've got the chance.
(It's the Intelligence Committee and Ways and Means where the big fights will go down.)
I've noticed that Peter Buttigieg (a/k/a "Mayor Pete") is getting a lot of good press from widely divergent sources. I've started paying him a little more attention, trying to figure out if he's maybe more than the ‛flavor-of-the-month’ for this month. If Buttigieg turns out to be a real contender then that probably means Beto O'Rourke is in trouble.
Turns out they fight back.
I saw that, and really I was kind of wondering...
Animals are smarter than people give them credit for.
I don't know much about "Mayor Pete" other then he has apparently joined the thundering herd of Democratic Presidential candidates and has raised a good amount of financing.
Amy Klobuchar has also managed to raise a decent amount of campaign financing from small donors. Bernie Sanders leads the pack with $18.2M then comes Kamala Harris with $12.0M, Beto O'Rourke with $9.4M, Pete Butigieg with 7.0M, Amy Klobuchar with $5.2M and Cory Booker with $5.1M.
Just a thought, has there been anyone that Trump hasn't fired? Besides his family that is.
Klobuchar appears to be hangin' in there, probably outlast O'Rourke is my guess. Kirsten Gillibrand ain't lighting any fires just yet, and Elizabeth Warren seems to be not connecting either.
Betsy Devos, not fired.
Looks kinda like Trump now has that loyal lawyer in charge of the DOJ that he's been looking for. Broad hints coming down that they're gonna strike back at the FBI.
Snowing...
Again.
*sigh*
Just when I thought it was safe to put away my boots.
Klobuchar appears to be hangin' in there, probably outlast O'Rourke is my guess.
It will be interesting to see how far she gets.
I have a mild sunburn from working outside without a shirt yesterday. Today I was respectful enough of the sun to keep my shirt on, but wasn't really happy about it.
News from across the pond:
Brexit has been postponed until the fall. NBCNews
Julian Assange has been arrested, dragged out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London in handcuffs and struggling with the men dragging him. NBCNews
Been reading more pundits on the Mueller report today, and I'm noticing that everybody seems to be equating ‛collusion’ with ‛conspiracy’. That's a mistake. Mueller apparently decided that there was not enough evidence to charge Trump with conspiring with the Russians, "No Conspiracy". That does not mean there was "NO COLLUSION" to use Trump's oft repeated phrase. (Collusion isn't even illegal; probably should be, but it ain't.)
Those two phrases don't mean the same thing.
No sun here...*sigh*...just white stuff.
Yes, I saw that the EU has granted the UK an extension. But they aren't very happy about it.
Assange caught. He's gonna get extradited to the US where they'll torture him until he's insane and believes he's a woman named Juliana, like they did with Bradley Manning. That's what you get for sleeping with Swedish feminists.
I presume you've not been sleeping with any Swedish feminines lately.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Succinct read on Attorney General William Barr's new role as Chief Legal Defender of Trump and Company.
I heard they kicked him out of the Embassy because he wouldn't clean up after his cat.
He indicated that at issue was not the act of surveilling but whether officials followed proper procedures when they decided to gather intelligence on Trump’s associates in 2016.
lol! Eventually trying to play two sides will get you no friends.
Gotta tell ya, I been looking closer at Barr's moves these past couple of weeks, and he's starting to worry me. Trump has his Roy Cohn now, and has him at the head of the Justice Department.
I think, in the end, that's gonna scare even most Republican politicians (the dedicated Trumpkin masses are another story; they'll still stick).
I suppose you've noticed the news reports that Trump told the head of the Border Patrol that he'd get a presidential pardon if he got himself charged with criminal abuse of immigrants on the southern border? (The White House is denying the charge for the moment--when they're not claiming it was "just a joke".) Also, there are reports that Trump told line officers with the Border Patrol to just refuse to obey judicial rulings that they accept and process amnesty applications. (Told them to just tell the judges they couldn't comply--all full up.)
I'm tellin' ya…. They've come to believe that "the President cannot be indicted" means that he's not subject to any restraints because they're not going to allow him to be impeached, pretty much no matter what the provocation. Trump and Trumpkins have come to believe that he'sa effectively unrestrained, free to do as he pleases.
CBSNews does twenty three minutes on "(Un)welcome; The Rise of the Right". No points for guessing who's ‛unwelcome’.
Correction on that title; it's "(Un)Welcome: Sweden's Rise of the Right "
Speaking of Sweden, did anyone notice they are trying to steal Assange? Yes, right from under our noses too! Annoying, that. They are considering resurrecting the rape charges and extraditing him, before we can get our hands on him.
Also, Trump is apparently, again, talking about shipping the asylum seekers to sanctuary cities. Hmmm...now, seriously that is rather unfair. Our resorts up north are desperate for workers, as is our health care sector. Why should the sanctuary cities get first crack at possible workers?
Lee, that was a good video on Sweden and the rise of the right. The last statement by the fellow being interviewed that we are shifting more extremely to the right echos what Derek Black said at the end of the book written about his change of heart. That is, that we are at a tipping point. It is what really encouraged him to speak out against the views he had espoused for so long.
Rumors abound of secret talks between the White House and Attorney General William Barr regarding the material contained in the Mueller Report--talks conducted before Barr wrote his own summary and deep-sixed the summaries written by the Mueller team.
They sure as hell don't act innocent over there.
That could explain why people on Mueller's team were up in arms over Barr's summary. They know what's in the report and whether or not there was a white wash.
We'll see what the released report looks like.
I want to know what the subpoenaed Mueller Report looks like. I wanna know what William Barr has been trying to cut out of the public record on Trump's behalf.
Barr was clearly working his announcement as an opportunity to engage in political spin favorable to President Trump. I don't know that anybody should be surprised by that. Barr's initial job application consisted of an 19 page memorandum he sent, unsolicted, just out of the clear blue sky, to the Justice Department explaining, Barr's position that the President of the United States had an effective ‛Presidential Immunity’ to charges of Obstruction of Justice.
Theoretically, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice were supposed to be apolitical and operate independent of the President's political aims; that's been the modern, post-Watergate understanding anyway. However, Trump has never believed this should be the case; Barr obviously does not believe this should be the case either (not in the Justice Department he heads anyway), and it's not specified in the Constitution that the Justice Department should be apolitical either (the Department of Justice wasn't even established until after the Civil War). That's just been our long-time unwritten convention. It obviously no longer holds in the time of Trump.
I misplaced a comma up there ↑↑. Should have read as:
"Barr's initial job application consisted of a 19 page
memorandum he sent, unsolicited, just out of the clear blue
sky, to the Justice Department, explaining Barr's
position that…"
"The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law." Robert Mueller
I think this clearly explains Robert Mueller's opinion of Donald Trump. There is no exoneration.
Barr was clearly working his announcement as an opportunity to engage in political spin favorable to President Trump.
And Barr will have to look at himself in the mirror when he wakes up. As will all of those who have helped Donald Trump maintain the swamp he has created.
"The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws
…accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and
the principle that no person is above the law."
I disagree. But then again, I've long disagreed with the Justice Department regulations which hold that the President may not be indicted on federal charges. (And, thanks to Trump, our politics has been demeaned to the extent that this DOJ policy will probably be tested again in the foreseeable future)
Well, actually, I don't disagree with the conclusion as Mueller states it. I disagree that Congress, politics, must be the sole remedy (not actually stated by Mueller, but implied by his failure to go further when faced with decisions to make about actual criminality on the part of the President). If politics is the sole remedy then the President is above the law--but not also above political retributions.
I've been looking over reviews of the ‛redacted’ Mueller Report and I'm reminded of an observation I made in the last thread.
"And we now know that, in spite of [Trump's best efforts]
Mueller supposedly found no evidence that the Russians and
the Trump campaign were successful in getting together.
"If this is true it bespeaks a frightening level of incompetence
on the part of team Trump."
Lee C. @ Mon Mar 25, 05:05:00 am--previous thread
We now have occasion to extend that observation to the Obstruction of Justice charge. It seems that Barr assigned significant importance to the fact that the ‛Establishment’ Republicans working for Trump in the White House simply refused to carry out his orders when he ordered the Mueller investigation to be squelched.
If Trump (legally) failed to ‛obstruct’ the Mueller investigation, it wasn't for lack of trying; it was because White House officials simply refused to carry out his orders.
I haven't even begun to look at the Mueller Report, I'm getting inundated with enough stuff just reading the summaries in the news. (Curiously, nobody's talking about the summaries the Mueller team prepared--I'll be watching for word on those; but, I digress….)
It's lookin' to me like Barr had to know that his press conference in support of the President would be repudiated by the release of the Mueller Report itself. He knew it; he didn't really care. His job was to shore up Trump's standing in advance of that repudiation.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth
is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain
It was Barr's job to get in the first lick with a lie for Trump. I don't think Barr's reputation will recover from this. (Obviously, he thinks otherwise.)
There is something here that I haven't heard too much about. Understandably so, perhaps, since it is behind some of those redactions. That, of course, is those other criminal cases hiding in the shadows. We have only seen a few in the light of day, but there are many more that are still ongoing. What were those rocks Mueller was turning over, and will they too have an effect on Trump's presidency once they too meet the light of day?
It was Barr's job to get in the first lick with a lie for Trump.
That appears to have been the job of many people who have, and still do, work for Trump. It's why they get the jobs they do. It's only when it becomes too much to stomach, if they have some shred of integrity left, that they resign.
"That appears to have been the job of many people who…
work for Trump."
However, Barr previously had a rather good reputation as a career lawyer with the Department of Justice (good reputation among conservatives at the least).
He was Attorney General once before, under George H.W. Bush. (He is, however, also a member of the Federalist Society, which organization is almost worshipped on the Republican right-wing as a breeding ground of right-winger saints, and which I consider a subvervise, anti-democratic organization, openly hostile to traditional American democratic institutions. They favor autocratic/oligarchic government models as opposed to open democracy--as a group they so favor; some members may not buy all the way into that philosophy, but the majority are there.)
However, Barr previously had a rather good reputation as a career lawyer with the Department of Justice (good reputation among conservatives at the least).
The most important word in that sentence was "previously". I predict that, like those who fell in line for Hitler's agenda, there will come a time when those who fell in line with Trump's will regret it.
It looks like Mueller never had any intention of bringing criminal charges against Trump, even if he believed Trump was guilty. He seems to have been more concerned with the consequences of that kind of action.
But what he did do with his investigation was lay before Congress and the American people a picture of a president and his administration for them to judge and act as they will. In short he seemed to be saying that if we really want our democracy to continue we need to step up and be counted.
"It looks like Mueller never had any intention of bringing criminal
charges against Trump, even if he believed Trump was guilty."
Mueller made that point fairly clear. (I had been hoping he'd buck the DOJ rule that they simply would not ever charge a sitting President, no matter the provocation or the evidence, but he never considered that an option.)
Mueller also made it clear that he was refusing to accuse the President because he could not charge him and, (says Mueller) the President would have no opportunity to rebut or refute the charges. So, (says Mueller) this is for the Congress to take up--or the voters.
I believe he read his mandate too restrictively, but then again, I've never concurred with the long-standing DOJ rule that a sitting President is above the law so long as he's a sitting President.
Worse yet, Trump and his dedicated Trumpkins have noticed that there are not going to be the votes to impeach, and Barr's DOJ certainly isn't going to indict, "So", they say, "Trump is unrestrained. There are no limits he must observe. He can do whatever the hell he damn well pleases." Gonna be a long two years coming up to the next election.
And, this has all got the Democrats up in arms all over again.
The Presidential candidates are all calling for impeachment (those who're mentioning Trump and the investigation anyway). But, they've gotta play to the Democratic base for the primary fight--that kinda talk might die down among the candidates after the primary's over.
But, the Dems are up in arms over this. And that don't really help. The swing voters they'll need for the upcoming election aren't really into impeachment now. I don't think that'll change unless there comes a break that Mueller missed and it becomes unequivocally clear that Trump did conspire with the Russians.
And, just by the way…
I believe Mueller made it fairly clear that Trump did collude with the Russians to swing the 2016 election to his favor, but did not conspire with them. (Only the latter would be illegal.)
Post a Comment