General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGOP 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
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 Obamas 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? Its possible those in Trumps 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. ..............
rurallib
(62,346 posts)bdamomma
(63,658 posts)nt
rurallib
(62,346 posts)Sometimes dreams do come true
tomp
(9,512 posts)calimary
(80,700 posts)That's Merrick Garland's seat.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)No more SCOTUS thefts!
fountainofyouth
(409 posts)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.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)aeromanKC
(3,307 posts)See also Sen. Gillibrand
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)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
SoCalMusicLover
(3,194 posts)I don't want any frauds in my party.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Hope the indictments are ALL unsealed at the same damn time.
Watch the traitors all run for cover..
LiberalBrooke
(527 posts)Take down any and all treasonist Democrats too. It really is time to drain the swamp.
erronis
(14,955 posts)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).
bluestarone
(16,722 posts)Duppers
(28,094 posts)fountainofyouth
(409 posts)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)The question is whether Mueller has evidence. There is logic to the theory. Wheres the harm in putting an eye to it?
fountainofyouth
(409 posts)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)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.
Duppers
(28,094 posts)ABSOLUTELY!
You're underestimating their corruption.
fountainofyouth
(409 posts)Not wishful thinking.
bluestarone
(16,722 posts)is not as open as it should be?? some of us can see a big picture?
fountainofyouth
(409 posts)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.
jl_theprofessor
(95 posts)Not wishful thinking, magic hand waving, and suspicious timelines
onenote
(42,383 posts)Silly conspiracy theory.
Skittles
(152,967 posts)they GOOSESTEP to their leaders
fountainofyouth
(409 posts)Show me a shred of evidence before you ask me to leap.
Skittles
(152,967 posts)have you SEEN how repukes have behaved for the last FOUR DECADES?
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)But I'm sure several of them were. (at least several)
Amaryllis
(9,523 posts)the election that it was in the bag, and blocking Garland certainly makes sense if that is the case.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)triron
(21,916 posts)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)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)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.
malaise
(267,827 posts)The so-called 'liberal media' was asleep at the wheel for sure
cstanleytech
(26,082 posts)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)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.
mythology
(9,527 posts)mountain grammy
(26,571 posts)I always thought Gorsuch was part of the plan.
BigmanPigman
(51,432 posts)I trust them as much as I do Putin.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)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.
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)MurrayDelph
(5,281 posts)that she may have to teach me knitting.
volstork
(5,394 posts)McConnell and Ryan are up to their asses in corruption.
renate
(13,776 posts)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)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)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)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.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,789 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,789 posts)onenote
(42,383 posts)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)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.
onenote
(42,383 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,789 posts)Is that your one note?
Because all you are doing is being dismissive and not contributing to the discussion.
onenote
(42,383 posts)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.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,789 posts)onenote
(42,383 posts)Then why were they only working with the Trump campaign?
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,789 posts)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)conspiring to stop Trump.
Silly revisionism
bucolic_frolic
(42,678 posts)Whenever someone is so certain of the outcome of something, you know something is crooked. Right Donald Trump?
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,789 posts)Volaris
(10,260 posts)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.
onenote
(42,383 posts)haele
(12,581 posts)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)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)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)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.
superpatriotman
(6,232 posts)They would be jailed without pause.
Irish_Dem
(45,640 posts)ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)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)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.
SWBTATTReg
(21,859 posts)moondust
(19,917 posts)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)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) Russias 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 Russias meddling. The effort was stymied by several Republicans who werent willing to cooperate, including, reportedly, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Mitch was skeptical that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White Houses claims.
See timeline -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.9936497463ce
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)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?
Justice
(7,182 posts)JHB
(37,133 posts)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 Hillarys 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 Obamas 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.
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)bucolic_frolic
(42,678 posts)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)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)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)Here are more dots to connect. Papadopoulos guilty plea states that he first learned about Russias 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)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)You know what happened two days later? Obama nominated Garland, that is what hes reacting to.
Scalia died over a month before this, and McConnell announced within hours that they would not entertain anyone nominated by President Obama.
Dont waste time with this black helicopter nonsense, when there is so much real material to work with.
True Blue American
(17,972 posts)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.
Dont 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!
UCmeNdc
(9,589 posts)GOP = Corruption = Kissing Trump's Butt
dlk
(11,438 posts)niyad
(112,436 posts)calimary
(80,700 posts)I bet they were ALL in on it. At least the leadership.
northoftheborder
(7,566 posts)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)They are not popular.