Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 09:12 PM Jan 2018

GOP Blocking Merrick Garland May Be Tied to Trump/Russia Scandal


Suspicious Timeline Suggests GOP Blocking Merrick Garland May Be Tied to Trump/Russia Scandal
pmorgan January 2, 2018

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating the Trump Campaign AND the Republican National Committee for their alleged Russian collusion efforts in rigging the election in key swing states, particularly Michigan and Wisconsin.

Trump adviser George Papadopoulos is helping the investigation along and now we have learned that the Republican Senate may have known the election was rigged when they blocked Obama’s Supreme Court appointment of Merrick Garland.

The Republican Senate pulled the unconstitutional stunt at a time that they should have felt concerned about the future of the White House. Hillary was the clear front-runner by most accounts at the time, so why block a Supreme Court pick when it was a statistical impossibility for Trump to win the White House? It’s possible those in Trump’s corner knew something no one else did at the time.

The New York Times just detailed a timeline of the Trump-Russia scandal and now a lot of things are making even more sense. ..............
94 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
GOP Blocking Merrick Garland May Be Tied to Trump/Russia Scandal (Original Post) L. Coyote Jan 2018 OP
O lord would I love to see Grassley in an orange jumpsuit rurallib Jan 2018 #1
McConnell too bdamomma Jan 2018 #3
oh and so many more. We can dream can't we? rurallib Jan 2018 #4
an see gorsuch impeached. nt tomp Jan 2018 #70
...and removed. calimary Jan 2018 #90
I hope it happens. lagomorph777 Jan 2018 #93
This makes no sense fountainofyouth Jan 2018 #2
No, just a couple and the rest fall in line and follow orders. uponit7771 Jan 2018 #7
See the railroad job of Al Franken aeromanKC Jan 2018 #57
And 20 or so other "fine upstanding" Senators. Or so we thought they were... Wwcd Jan 2018 #62
Fine By Me SoCalMusicLover Jan 2018 #68
Indeed. Wwcd Jan 2018 #69
I agree. LiberalBrooke Jan 2018 #76
Being "fine upstanding" is not a qualification for being a politician, especially a winning one erronis Jan 2018 #87
+1 uponit7771 Jan 2018 #64
makes absolute sense to me bluestarone Jan 2018 #9
Me too! Duppers Jan 2018 #11
Well that's great, but we don't have any evidence fountainofyouth Jan 2018 #15
We dont have to have any evidence. PdxSean Jan 2018 #30
The harm is that we take our eye off the ball fountainofyouth Jan 2018 #37
I agree this seems improbable. thucythucy Jan 2018 #60
The entire Senate GOP leadership? Duppers Jan 2018 #13
I'm trying to look at evidence fountainofyouth Jan 2018 #16
maybe your mind bluestarone Jan 2018 #21
Being open-minded does not mean not having a filter fountainofyouth Jan 2018 #39
Claims require evidence jl_theprofessor Jan 2018 #56
+1 The timeline doesn't fit the silly conspiracy theory. onenote Jan 2018 #23
LOL you are so naive Skittles Jan 2018 #26
I'm naive for believing in Occam's razor? fountainofyouth Jan 2018 #27
evidence? Skittles Jan 2018 #44
If McConnell doesn't bring it up for a vote, there doesn't even have to be anyone else involved. world wide wally Jan 2018 #51
This is not the first time this has been suggested. I believe top GOP knew long before Amaryllis Jan 2018 #5
Agreed. At the time we speculated that they were rigging the vote or they wouldn't be doing it. L. Coyote Jan 2018 #12
I recall that also. triron Jan 2018 #86
They were caught red-handed in 2000 and 2004, so no surprise to me this time. L. Coyote Jan 2018 #88
how did mc connel know the repubs would cheat to win? questionseverything Jan 2018 #89
Lock them all up malaise Jan 2018 #6
It would not surprise me if they were all atleast aware of it if not in fact active participants cstanleytech Jan 2018 #8
To annoy Obama?? Not to mention, it was not statistically impossible that Trump could win karynnj Jan 2018 #10
This. The endless conspiracy theories are silly mythology Jan 2018 #25
I really do think this is credible. mountain grammy Jan 2018 #14
The GOP sociopaths are capable of anything. BigmanPigman Jan 2018 #17
While I do not doubt this is true, I don't expect it to ever come back to bite anyone. bitterross Jan 2018 #18
Might be a good time to invest in a guillotine factory BigBearJohn Jan 2018 #19
I've already told my wife MurrayDelph Jan 2018 #48
I've thought this since the election. volstork Jan 2018 #20
I have ALWAYS thought McConnell knew Trump would win renate Jan 2018 #22
There was no guarantee that Hillary would nominate someone more liberal than Garland onenote Jan 2018 #33
it was a statistical impossability for drumpf to win? Takket Jan 2018 #24
Nonsensical. onenote Jan 2018 #28
The fix was already in. Only preposterous thing is that RepubliCONs did it, not the timing. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2018 #32
Rubio and Cruz were not in on it. They didn't know. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2018 #34
Right. But everyone else did. Sure. Got it. onenote Jan 2018 #35
Many did NOT know. McCONnell, Ryan, Priebus, Pence knew. Pence was Manafort's suggestion. Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2018 #36
Again. Sure. Right. Got it. Yup. onenote Jan 2018 #40
Don't tell me you think this is a nothingburger with only process violation indictments. Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2018 #46
i think the russians sought to influence the general election onenote Jan 2018 #47
This line of reasoning doesnt claim Russians rigged any primaries. So don't put that on us. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2018 #49
So the russians weren't working only to promote Trump? onenote Jan 2018 #50
I didn't say or imply that either. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2018 #59
Thank you. shanny Jan 2018 #41
exactly. At the point of this "conspiracy" the Republican establishment was grantcart Jan 2018 #85
Oh gee, you think? bucolic_frolic Jan 2018 #29
I have no doubt it is tied into it. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2018 #31
Cause I need the NYT investigative team to tell me things I guessed on my own on election night... Volaris Jan 2018 #38
Remind me what the russians did to fix the republican primaries onenote Jan 2018 #43
They didn't need to. The GOP couldn't win without a populist. haele Jan 2018 #54
In February 2016, the polls showed Trump as the only republican losing to Clinton onenote Jan 2018 #55
I'm speaking of the General Election specifically. Volaris Jan 2018 #63
McConnell announced his intent to block consideration of a Scalia replacement the day Scalia die onenote Jan 2018 #66
If lawyers, bankers or brokers behaved like this Congress superpatriotman Jan 2018 #42
Puzzle pieces falling together. There will be more.... nt Irish_Dem Jan 2018 #45
I'll agree with one caveat ProudLib72 Jan 2018 #52
How did gerrymandering effect the presidential election? onenote Jan 2018 #58
Treason, plain and simple...in a desperate ploy to grab power... SWBTATTReg Jan 2018 #53
It was suspicious even back then. moondust Jan 2018 #61
It is not implausible. Here is timeline. McConnell behaved strangely from February thru Election Justice Jan 2018 #65
We have a cart and horse problem. What if the Republicans sought out the Russians to hack the Dems? L. Coyote Jan 2018 #67
Read the first sentence of my post. First hack against DNC happened in 2015. Justice Jan 2018 #77
Why block a Supreme Court pick? Same reason they had for so many other things.... JHB Jan 2018 #71
The GOP is a corrupt organization Gothmog Jan 2018 #72
Do you ever get the feeling bucolic_frolic Jan 2018 #73
That would not be surprising if they blocked Garland Proud Liberal Dem Jan 2018 #74
Switching 40,000 votes alters the Electoral College outcome. L. Coyote Jan 2018 #75
yup! Botany Jan 2018 #78
agree 100% bluestarone Jan 2018 #79
This timeline demonstrates the nonsense of this theory tritsofme Jan 2018 #82
Think about this True Blue American Jan 2018 #80
Mmmmmmmmmmm! Very interesting........... UCmeNdc Jan 2018 #81
Given the Unprecedented Nature of McConnell Blocking the Vote-Foreknowledge & Involvement Make Sense dlk Jan 2018 #83
colour me soooooooo not surprised. niyad Jan 2018 #84
VERY glad this is coming up. calimary Jan 2018 #91
Speechless northoftheborder Jan 2018 #92
Even without Russia, the GOP has a "Suppress the Vote" campaign in place in many red/purple states. SleeplessinSoCal Jan 2018 #94

fountainofyouth

(409 posts)
2. This makes no sense
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 09:39 PM
Jan 2018

The entire Senate GOP leadership would have had to know what Papadopoulos did within hours of him finding out, which is absurd.

What the Senate GOP did to Merrick Garland is disgraceful enough on its own. It was completely in character for McConnell to stall his nomination. There's no need to draw random associations.

 

Wwcd

(6,288 posts)
62. And 20 or so other "fine upstanding" Senators. Or so we thought they were...
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 12:30 AM
Jan 2018

Jumped right on that train with no hesitation.

It is said that when Mueller unseals the indictments on the Senate & House members it won't just be Republicans going down.

Sh*t will hit the fan

 

Wwcd

(6,288 posts)
69. Indeed.
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 01:43 AM
Jan 2018

Hope the indictments are ALL unsealed at the same damn time.

Watch the traitors all run for cover..

erronis

(14,955 posts)
87. Being "fine upstanding" is not a qualification for being a politician, especially a winning one
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 02:25 PM
Jan 2018

At least by normal human values of "fine upstanding" - probably involves some ethics, some view of history and how actions will affect the future.

Congress/politicos of course have a different view of "fine upstanding" and it probably involves their dick and their willingness to accept bribes/blackmail (there may be a LOT of overlap).

fountainofyouth

(409 posts)
15. Well that's great, but we don't have any evidence
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 09:58 PM
Jan 2018

Which means this timeline-type logic can be used to infinitely expand the conspiracy. Maybe the Russians killed Scalia knowing they were going to tip the election to Trump?

This is classic conspiracy thinking.

PdxSean

(574 posts)
30. We dont have to have any evidence.
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 10:33 PM
Jan 2018

The question is whether Mueller has evidence. There is logic to the theory. Where’s the harm in putting an eye to it?

fountainofyouth

(409 posts)
37. The harm is that we take our eye off the ball
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 10:39 PM
Jan 2018

And weaken our ability to filter credible and non-credible information. There are endless hypotheses to test, and very few will tell us to reject the null.

Besides, we're going to get a chance to vote the bastards out in November based on the things we are certain they have done, such as looting the Treasury for a corporate tax giveaway. No conspiracy needed.

thucythucy

(7,986 posts)
60. I agree this seems improbable.
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 12:03 AM
Jan 2018

Then again, I'm old enough to remember people saying, "Attorney General John Mitchell couldn't possibly be involved," and "they'll never impeach Nixon because then Agnew would be president" and "Nixon would never be dumb enough to TAPE himself obstructing justice."

Right now I'm not dismissing this out of hand. I'm waiting to see what else develops, before declaring this theory impossible or even improbable.

The Teapot Dome Scandal probably seemed improbable to people at the time--until it turned out to be true.

fountainofyouth

(409 posts)
39. Being open-minded does not mean not having a filter
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 10:44 PM
Jan 2018

This is the kind of shit conservatives do all the time. Post stories to non-credible websites with names like patrioteagleforum.net and expect people to believe a wild theory based on fragments of tangentially connected facts.

world wide wally

(21,719 posts)
51. If McConnell doesn't bring it up for a vote, there doesn't even have to be anyone else involved.
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 11:36 PM
Jan 2018

But I'm sure several of them were. (at least several)

Amaryllis

(9,523 posts)
5. This is not the first time this has been suggested. I believe top GOP knew long before
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 09:41 PM
Jan 2018

the election that it was in the bag, and blocking Garland certainly makes sense if that is the case.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
12. Agreed. At the time we speculated that they were rigging the vote or they wouldn't be doing it.
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 09:48 PM
Jan 2018
Now we know they WERE rigging the vote!

triron

(21,916 posts)
86. I recall that also.
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 02:12 PM
Jan 2018

There was a warning blowing in the air. We tried to ignore it but now it looks different it retrospect.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
88. They were caught red-handed in 2000 and 2004, so no surprise to me this time.
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 03:53 PM
Jan 2018

Illegal voter purging altered Florida and stole Gore's victory in 2000, and vote switching was shown in Ohio 2004. The thing Republicans have learned, they can get away with it.

questionseverything

(9,631 posts)
89. how did mc connel know the repubs would cheat to win?
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 04:54 PM
Jan 2018

cause they always cheat ,that is the simple answer

remember rove's on air melt down? so they don't always get away with it

just one quibble with ur statement....in 2000 it was the failure to count the overvotes that stole gore's election

votes that punched by gore's name and wrote in gore's name were not counted

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2006/1/7/176855/-

Yes, we were all focussed on the "undervotes," caused by hanging chads, and the like. I've never heard anyone analyzing the "overvotes," ballots with more than one indication of a presidential choice. I had always assumed that there were useless, because they contained two different votes for two different candidates. I was wrong:

Those votes are not ambiguous. When you see Gore picked and then Gore written in, there's not a question in your mind who this person was voting for. When you go through those, they're unambiguous: Bush got some of those votes, but they were overwhelmingly for Gore. For example, in an analysis of the 2.7 million votes that had been cast in Florida's eight largest counties, The Washington Post found that Gore's name was punched on 46,000 of the over-vote ballots it, while Bush's name was marked on only 17,000.

cstanleytech

(26,082 posts)
8. It would not surprise me if they were all atleast aware of it if not in fact active participants
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 09:46 PM
Jan 2018

and it could explain why people like Mitch and Ryan as well as many other Repugnants were nay-saying about the Russians especially if they were in bed with them.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
10. To annoy Obama?? Not to mention, it was not statistically impossible that Trump could win
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 09:46 PM
Jan 2018

It was very unlikely until the end of the campaign, when it was merely unlikely.

What is the downside to blocking the nomination? If HRC won, they could have considered Garland and voted him in in the lame duck session if they thought HRC would get someone more liberal confirmed after taking office. They really had little to lose - as clearly the AMerican people did not punish them for that action.

 

bitterross

(4,066 posts)
18. While I do not doubt this is true, I don't expect it to ever come back to bite anyone.
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 10:08 PM
Jan 2018

I don't see there ever being any real repercussions for this. I do believe it is entirely possible they blocked Obama's nominee with the knowledge they had a way to win the election. Putting anyone in jail for that though, is a steep hill to climb.

renate

(13,776 posts)
22. I have ALWAYS thought McConnell knew Trump would win
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 10:18 PM
Jan 2018

Why else would he have risked letting Clinton nominate somebody more liberal than the famously moderate Garland? He knew the next president would nominate a far-right conservative.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
33. There was no guarantee that Hillary would nominate someone more liberal than Garland
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 10:35 PM
Jan 2018

Indeed, McConnell first announced he didn't think a replacement should be considered well before Garland was nominated.

Here is how he viewed it:

If a republican (any republican) wins, and he almost certainly thought most of the principal republican candidates in February 2016 had a chance of defeating Clinton, then they will get to nominate a conservative justice.

If Clinton wins, she might re-nominate Garland. Or some other moderate. And if she pushes for someone further to the left of Garland, the repubs could filibuster the nomination (and he probably figured that the Democrats wouldn't kill the filibuster of SCOTUS nominees, so they'd nominate someone along the lines of Garland).

Takket

(21,425 posts)
24. it was a statistical impossability for drumpf to win?
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 10:18 PM
Jan 2018

um.... no, it was not.

The GOP held the seat open on the hopes Hillary would lose, and it worked. It was never a sure thing she would lose, it was just a calculated risk they took. For everything that has leaked out, there is absolutely zero other than wild conspiracy theories that Garland was denied a hearing because the GOP KNEW drumpf was going to win.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
28. Nonsensical.
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 10:29 PM
Jan 2018

Scalia died on February 13, 2016. That very same day, McConnell put out a statement indicating that he didn't think a replacement should be considered until after the election.

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10987112/scalia-replacement-republicans


At that point in time exactly two republican primaries had been held. One on February 1, which was won by Cruz with Trump and Rubio basically tied. The other on February 9, which Trump won, but he was still the choice of only 1/3 of the primary voters.

The idea that McConnell knew at that point in time that the russians had rigged the election so Trump would win the republican nomination and then the presidency is preposterous. Why did Rubio stay in the race until mid-March and Cruz until early May, if the outcome was known at that point.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
35. Right. But everyone else did. Sure. Got it.
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 10:35 PM
Jan 2018

And how were the primaries "fixed" by the Russians for Trump and why weren't Cruz and Rubio outraged about it.

Bernardo de La Paz

(48,789 posts)
36. Many did NOT know. McCONnell, Ryan, Priebus, Pence knew. Pence was Manafort's suggestion.
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 10:38 PM
Jan 2018

Ryan is retiring, hoping he can evade the 2018 House flip and get his preparations done for his 2024 Pres. run.

Priebus was kept close to the Trump Gang so that coordination would go smoothly and not be revealed or derailed.

Sessions knew. Undoubtedly was in on it. Forgetful of meeting Russian ambassador at RepubliCON CONvention to finalize some details.




Bernardo de La Paz

(48,789 posts)
46. Don't tell me you think this is a nothingburger with only process violation indictments.
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 11:25 PM
Jan 2018

Is that your one note?

Because all you are doing is being dismissive and not contributing to the discussion.



onenote

(42,383 posts)
47. i think the russians sought to influence the general election
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 11:28 PM
Jan 2018

I think they had nada to do with the republican primary results and that the idea the repubs knew the outcome of the election in February (but none of the other dozen candidates running for the republican nomination and their financial backers had a clue) is hilarious.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
50. So the russians weren't working only to promote Trump?
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 11:35 PM
Jan 2018

Then why were they only working with the Trump campaign?

 

shanny

(6,709 posts)
41. Thank you.
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 10:53 PM
Jan 2018

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in action.

Nobody took der fluegelhienie seriously then, let alone craft the theft of a SCOTUS seat around him/

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
85. exactly. At the point of this "conspiracy" the Republican establishment was
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 01:23 PM
Jan 2018

conspiring to stop Trump.

Silly revisionism

bucolic_frolic

(42,678 posts)
29. Oh gee, you think?
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 10:29 PM
Jan 2018

Whenever someone is so certain of the outcome of something, you know something is crooked. Right Donald Trump?

Volaris

(10,260 posts)
38. Cause I need the NYT investigative team to tell me things I guessed on my own on election night...
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 10:41 PM
Jan 2018

McConnell was in on this fix from the beginning. It's why he basically told Obama to go get fucked; his payoff was a SCJ and a cabinet position for his wife.
He's a Turtle AND a (treason)Weasel.
Him and Ryan both.

haele

(12,581 posts)
54. They didn't need to. The GOP couldn't win without a populist.
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 11:47 PM
Jan 2018

Drumph already had the free media reputation coming into the field, and attracted enough people who would normally not think about voting for a politician. He also didn't have direct ties to any of the GOP power base that could be used against him; he's basically a lump of amoral clay that could take on the most appealing form where ever they might want to parade him; like Reagan, he was a character, not a "political insider" running against other politicians.
With Russia targeting social media and Mercer/Breitbart money behind him, and cover from his TV buddies hiding his past and changing the reality of his social unsuitability because he makes good ratings, he always had a better chance against any democratic opponent than the others.
He could be constructed as the least threatening to both sides of social issues. He never made a big deal about choice or civil rights unless he was directing it to the Evilangelicals.
He was always "pro-business", and pandered to racial uncertainty, basically telling those who only voted democratic out of a vague feeling of social responsibility that it was okay to be "a little" racist or sexist, and the Democrats we're going too far into SJW mode and didn't understand real people who worked for a living.
And every Republican I know was pretty sure that he was going to win by the second Primary was finished.

Haele

onenote

(42,383 posts)
55. In February 2016, the polls showed Trump as the only republican losing to Clinton
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 11:51 PM
Jan 2018

Kasich, Cruz, Rubio all did better against Clinton than Trump. And Sanders was doing better than Clinton against most of the repubs.

So it's hard to see how, the day Scalia died, which is the day McConnell announced that Scalia's replacement should be placed on hold until after the election, there was certainty as to the outcome of the November elections.

Volaris

(10,260 posts)
63. I'm speaking of the General Election specifically.
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 12:52 AM
Jan 2018

Up to that point, I think McConnell was just being a dick for the hell of it, and to be a thorn in Obamas side as he always had.
But by the time Trump was the nominee, and the administration TOLD him there was possible attempts being made to tamper/sway the election and McConnell said if you go public with this we will accuse you of attempting to play politics, McConnell knew all he had to do was stall and make sure Obama didn't do anything to out the ratfuckers or upset the apple cart.
By the time that meeting took place at the White House, the fix was in and McConnell and Ryan both knew about it. I'd bet my next paycheck on it.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
66. McConnell announced his intent to block consideration of a Scalia replacement the day Scalia die
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 01:07 AM
Jan 2018

which kind of blows up the whole idea that the decision to block the nomination was tied to the Russian effort to get Trump elected. Once McConnell started down that road, he wasn't going to suddenly turn back and let the nomination go through. Why would he. There was no down side to blocking it. If Trump won, great. If Trump lost, well, the situation would in all likelihood be no worse for republicans -- Clinton probably would re-nominate Garland and if she didn't the repubs would threaten to filibuster her choice.

I'd hide your paycheck if I was you.

ProudLib72

(17,984 posts)
52. I'll agree with one caveat
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 11:39 PM
Jan 2018

I think it was a combination of factors and not just Russia. I can certainly believe that McTurtle and Ryan knew the election was rigged through gerrymandering and voter suppression waaaaaayyyyy back. It was enough for them to delay Garland. By the time they knew that Russia was on their side, they were adamant that Garland would never even be considered.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
58. How did gerrymandering effect the presidential election?
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 11:57 PM
Jan 2018

McConnell announced the day Scalia died -- February 13, 2016 -- that a replacement for Scalia shouldn't be considered until after the election.

It was an easy call for McConnell. At that moment in time, there were two possible outcomes:

The Democratic nominee (Clinton or Sanders) wins the presidential election and renominates the same person that Obama nominates, and the repubs filibuster that nominee if they think he or she is too liberal.

The Republican nominee (Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Bush -- all still in the running after just two primaries) wins and the repubs get to name Scalia's replacement.

Given that the polls in Feb 2016 showed most of the republican candidates defeating Clinton, McConnell didn't need to know anything with a certainty to know that stalling Obama's choice was a safe bet.

moondust

(19,917 posts)
61. It was suspicious even back then.
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 12:08 AM
Jan 2018

Some of us suspected in 2016 that delaying the Garland nomination for a year was because McConnell & Co. knew the fix was in. They seemed a little too confident that the Democrat wasn't going to win the election.

Justice

(7,182 posts)
65. It is not implausible. Here is timeline. McConnell behaved strangely from February thru Election
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 01:02 AM
Jan 2018

Summer of 2015 and spring of 2016 - Russia had gained entry to DNC systems, but breaches did not become public until they were disclosed in a June 2016 report WP. But Trump campaign officials knew as early as April 2016

February 13, 2016 - Scalia dies. McConnell immediately announces no action on SCOTUS replacement until after election. Why would McConnell take such a gamble, when everyone thought Clinton would win, and nominate a candidate more liberal than Garland? He was so confident when it seemed unreasonable to be so. Could McConnell have known about Russian theft of DNC and Dem emails? GOP was getting money from millions with strong Russians connections as far back as 2015.

2015-2017 - millions from individuals with strong Russian connections given to GOP. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/12/15/putins-proxies-helped-funnel-millions-gop-campaigns. Could money have been laundered? Was money McConnell's price to go along (either initially or was money paid and demands made later).

April 2016 - Papadopoulos told Russians had embarrassing emails on Clinton in April 2016. Did he know emails stolen? from DNC? Why would Papadopoulos alert US law enforcement that Russians had stolen information? What is Papadopoulos' tie to professor? Did he know him or meet with him previously? What else did professor tell him? How do we know others in GOP didn't know earlier?

May 2016 - drunk Papadopoulos in a London bar spilled to the Australian High Commissioner to Britain, Alexander Downer, that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

July 18 to 21 GOP Convention Trump staffers alter GOP platform on Ukraine

July 22 - nearly 20,000 emails stolen from DNC dumped online by WikiLeaks

early August 2016 - CIA Director John Brennan first alerts the White House that Russia ordered an operation to defeat or at least damage Clinton and help elect Trump. Trump was GOP nominee but Clinton comfortably ahead in polls.

Aug. 15, - Homeland Security Johnson arranged a conference call with dozens of state officials, reaction “ranged from neutral to negative”

August 2016 Brennan briefed McConnell and Reid that (a) Russia’s hackings appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win election, and (b) unnamed advisers to Mr. Trump might be working with Russians to interfere in the election.

August 2016 until after Labor Day - Brennan had hard time getting appointments with certain Republicans, officials said, and it was not until after Labor Day that Brennan had reached all members of the “Gang of Eight” — the majority and minority leaders of both houses and the chairmen and ranking Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence committees. Obama asked for bipartisan condemnation of Russia’s meddling. The effort was stymied by several Republicans who weren’t willing to cooperate, including, reportedly, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Mitch was skeptical that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House’s claims.

See timeline -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.9936497463ce

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
67. We have a cart and horse problem. What if the Republicans sought out the Russians to hack the Dems?
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 01:39 AM
Jan 2018

Then you have a Republican conspiracy that predates the first hack attempt. It is fallacious to think that events begin when the hack becomes known. The hack is known to the conspirators BEFORE it happens!

So the question for the timeline is, when did the hackers gain access? Next question, who knew before then? Trump's buddy Manafort with hackers and election fixing operatives already in Russia with experience hacking and fixing elections in Ukraine? Did Trump have all this in place before announcing? Was Roger Stone involved?

A lot of what is happening now is spin, shaping the narrative to ensure the worst case scenario never becomes known. Why does someone claim to be the hacker after the leak? To move the focus from Republicans to Russians?

JHB

(37,133 posts)
71. Why block a Supreme Court pick? Same reason they had for so many other things....
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 06:53 AM
Jan 2018

Because an election was coming up and any cooperation with Obama at all would send their Wingnut base into a frenzy against them. Leave it until after the elections: if a Republican wins, they get their conservative operatives on the court. If Hillary won, they could accept Garland while waving the “Hillary’s pick would be even worse” cape in front of their bull(shit) base. The next election would be far enough down the road that any cooperation done during Obama’s lame duck time would be buried under two more years’ worth of foam.

There were pre-existing reasons for them acting the way they did. If there was any Russia connection at all, it would have only been an add-on.

bucolic_frolic

(42,678 posts)
73. Do you ever get the feeling
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 10:59 AM
Jan 2018

Obama knew much of what was going on all along, and played along to get along, and knew rooting out these
treasonous weasels would be a massive operation? And that it's still underway?

It's not like they were chasing a lilly white politician. Everyone knows politics and money are tied up together.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,355 posts)
74. That would not be surprising if they blocked Garland
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 11:12 AM
Jan 2018

because they knew it was rigged for Trump, however we still need to figure out how it was rigged. Using Russian propaganda bots to help turn voters away from Hillary is one thing, but I really want to know if they actually changed vote totals in key states- esp. states that hadn't gone Republican in decades.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
75. Switching 40,000 votes alters the Electoral College outcome.
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 11:23 AM
Jan 2018

Switched votes count twice, plus one AND minus one, so half the margin is the determinative number needed to alter the outcome of an election when you change votes.



Botany

(70,291 posts)
78. yup!
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 11:38 AM
Jan 2018
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210040820

Here are more dots to connect. Papadopoulos’ guilty plea states that he first learned about Russia’s willingness to help rig the election on March 14th of 2016. Two days later, key Senate Republican John Cornyn announced that he intended to block the Merrick Garland nomination.

bluestarone

(16,722 posts)
79. agree 100%
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 11:54 AM
Jan 2018

Nobody will ever agree completely on any one thing and some just gotta have iron-clad proof!! I can have my opinion and others can have theres so be it!! that's what makes the world go around!

tritsofme

(17,325 posts)
82. This timeline demonstrates the nonsense of this theory
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 01:04 PM
Jan 2018

You know what happened “two days later”? Obama nominated Garland, that is what he’s reacting to.


Scalia died over a month before this, and McConnell announced within hours that they would not entertain anyone nominated by President Obama.

Don’t waste time with this black helicopter nonsense, when there is so much real material to work with.

True Blue American

(17,972 posts)
80. Think about this
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 12:28 PM
Jan 2018

The Obama Administration notified McConnell and Ryan about the Russian interference.

They chose to do nothing about it. It is a simple track to they already knew and were quite aware that Trump would be installed. They accepted money from them,too.

Don’t you find it strange,suddenly Chaffetz left, Ryan is making sounds about leaving. And look how many Republicans are retiring?

Hatch was shamed by his local newspaper. He is retiring.

As Richard Painter just said after hearing about the Bannon book,” The jig is up!”

dlk

(11,438 posts)
83. Given the Unprecedented Nature of McConnell Blocking the Vote-Foreknowledge & Involvement Make Sense
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 01:07 PM
Jan 2018

northoftheborder

(7,566 posts)
92. Speechless
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 05:19 PM
Jan 2018

If this is really going to include the Congressional and Senatorial Republicans in the collusion, or knowledge of collusion, where, and how, does this end up???????????

SleeplessinSoCal

(8,998 posts)
94. Even without Russia, the GOP has a "Suppress the Vote" campaign in place in many red/purple states.
Wed Jan 3, 2018, 08:03 PM
Jan 2018

They are not popular.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»GOP Blocking Merrick Garl...