yovargas wrote:
Seriously though, didn't we already have a bunch of evidence that he knew and was involved?
No, the only thing that was publicly known was Michael Cohen's vague statement in his guilty plea that his actions were made "in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office." This Wall Street Journal report suggests that investigators have much more specific evidence implicating Mr. Trump than just Mr. Cohen's word.
Túrin wrote:
In the 538 LiveChat someone (Micah Cohen, from memory) made the point that a lot of Democrats seem determined to find some magic bullet to take down Trump, and this probably isn't a particularly good strategy. I agree with this. After every U.S. Presidential election I've followed (starting in 2004) there seems to be some section of the losing party for whom simply opposing the President and working towards a mid-term victory is not enough; they want to prove that his election was invalid in the first place. This never seems to work, and as far as I know, hasn't actually worked since 1973. If Trump is defeated in 2020, it will be through a conventional campaign.
The key phrase in there is "hasn't actually worked since 1973." In my opinion, the only U.S. President remotely analogous to Mr. Trump in recent U.S. history is Mr. Nixon. However, as John Dean, Nixon's White House counsel who was a key figure in bringing Nixon down,
recently said "History will treat Nixon’s moral failures as relatively less troubling than Trump’s sustained and growing decadence, deviousness and self-delusive behavior. Nixon=corrupt; Trump=evil."
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
