Trump is using his vast fundraising network to reward senators who pledge to have his back on impeachment — and send a message to those who don't.
That, um, kinda sounds like bribery.
— Caroline Orr (@RVAwonk) October 31, 2019
… thrown by a guy who signs & thumbprints the rock. Any Repub dumb enough to think they’ll actually see any of those donor funds (assuming the donors in question pony up in the first place) deserves… to be a Trump minion:
… Trump is tapping his vast fundraising network for a handful of loyal senators facing tough reelection bids in 2020. Each of them has signed onto a Republican-backed resolution condemning the inquiry as “unprecedented and undemocratic.”
Conspicuously absent from the group is Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a politically vulnerable Republican who’s refused to support the resolution and avoided taking a stance on impeachment. With his new push, Trump is exerting leverage over a group he badly needs in his corner with an impeachment trial likely coming soon to the Senate — but that also needs him.
Republican senators on the ballot next year are lagging in fundraising, stoking uncertainty about the GOP’s hold on the chamber, and could use the fundraising might of the president. Trump’s political operation has raked in over $300 million this year.
On Wednesday, the Trump reelection campaign sent a fundraising appeal to its massive email list urging donors to provide a contribution that would be divided between the president and Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner, Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, and North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis. Each of the senators are supporting the anti-impeachment resolution despite being endangered in 2020…
Arizona Sen. Martha McSally, another vulnerable Republican facing reelection, was also omitted, though apparently for a different reason. While McSally signed onto the anti-impeachment resolution, she has frustrated Republican officials over her reluctance to exclusively use WinRed, a Trump-endorsed online fundraising tool. Party officials are trying to turn WinRed into a centralized hub of small-donor giving ahead of the 2020 election and used the platform to send out Trump’s appeal for the three senators…
‘Divided’ — but in what proportions? And how much of a cut is Brad Parscale and the rest of the WinRed team gonna get, before the coins are doled out?
Trump’s also ‘hosting’ a couple of fundraising events, despite his notorious shyness about speaking in front of pre-screened audiences of rich donors. (That’s assuming the ‘beneficiaries’ of those events don’t find it politically safer to cancel than to tie their fate to his, between now and the scheduled dates.)
to defend him from allegations of a quid pro quo in Ukraine.
the president is offering funds to potential jurors who will support him in a trial about said alleged crimes.
— Hayes Brown (@HayesBrown) October 31, 2019
New bribery to cover up the old bribery.
— Rich (@H3i9htM3N) October 31, 2019
Also seems like a Dem campaign ad that writes itself: “Senator X didn’t just vote to acquit Trump in the face of overwhelming evidence, he/she also took money that Trump raised for him/her during the impeachment process” https://t.co/xEu3K58IQ8
— Mark Follman (@markfollman) October 31, 2019
Quid dough quo.
I want Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to have to recuse.
ETA: Because you know some question or two or three is going to make it to the Supreme Court.
The entire 2020 GOP campaign can be boiled down to Boss Tweed’s famous challenge: “What are you going to do about it?”
First, Chris Hayes live audience shows on Friday have been pretty good, including tonight.
Second, I’ve assumed from the start there is no way the Senate convicts Trump anyways (would love to be wrong on this), so I don’t know how much Trump holding those bribes over Senators matter. I guess maybe having 1 or 2 or 3 R Senators shifting from yes to no might have some meaning (say the difference is either no R votes for conviction vs 1 or 2 vs 3 or 4) but I’m not sure it is any kind of game changer.
And for folks like Collins or Gardiner (sp) I think taking $ from Trump in the midst of the impeachment process lessens their re-election prospects.
Holy fucking FSM, Batman! These scumbags (sorry, scum. sorry, bags) really are trying to do ALL the crimes!
Seems like Trump’s campaign finance activities might present a target-rich environment for criminal investigations, if there’s ever again a Justice Department not under the control of crooks.
May we look back, instead of forward, for a time, for once.
How many Republican Senators have accepted Russian money?
@Paul T: I think you’ll find it easier to ask, How many Russthuglican Senators haven’t accepted Rooski money?
@Paul T: AOT,K! (Perhaps laundered through the NRA in some cases, but I’d be immensely surprised if any were entirely clean.)
Ceterum censeo factionem Republicanam esse delendam.
Trump’s position is much more precarious than you assume. He looks strong because he’s been able to keep the Republicans apparently unified behind him, but they’re looking less and less solid in their support. They’ve started moving from backing everything he’s done to admitting that he’s done something wrong but that it isn’t bad enough to justify removing him from office. If any of them take that next step and say he should be removed, the rest may go along. I don’t think it’s going to be just one or two Republican defections in the Senate. It’s either going to be none or a bunch, so Trump is fighting mightily to keep it to none. That he’s doing so before all the public hearings in the House should tell you how stable he thinks his support in the Senate is.
@Paul T: What else do you think they mean with “vast fundraising network”?
Start with the ones who were in Moscow on July 4th??
Bah! I am sure that, like a former Chief Justice of England, they will reassure everyone that the bribe won’t influence their decision.
Of course his MO was to accept money from both sides. Can George Soros step in here?
@Dave L: Well, if the real Boss Tweed is any indication, the answer is “Throw your corrupt asses in jail.”
Major Major Major Major
At least… at least everything they’re doing is really obvious?
I think the big question is how many of them have admitted to themselves that the money they’re taking is Russian. Yes, there are people like Mitch McConnell who know damn well they’re taking Russian money and don’t care, but I think a major reason for the money laundering is to let the politicians who are accepting Russian money pretend to themselves that they’re doing no such thing.
Doesn’t your Senate have ethics rules that forbid this kind of quid pro quo? (the naive foreigner asked.)
Mike in NC
Parscale was hired because like his boss, he’s a grifter, pathological liar, and white supremacist. But his greed could be his downfall. Might be a lot of discards from Fat Bastard’s inner circle in 2020.
They only apply to Democrats
Watching Rachel M. According to a David Ignatious (sp) piece in the WP, looks like there was already a Ukraine quid quo pro between the Trump admin & the former Ukraine president that involved shutting down the Ukraine investigation of Manafort.
It’s just crimey wimey all the way down.
WOOHOO! Bribing multiple Senators is the center square on my Trump Bullshit Bingo card.
@(((CassandraLeo))) thanks for having me learn a new word today! AOTK!
hells littlest angel
Who will be the first Republican to scoff at the idea that bribery rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Graham? McCarthy?
@hells littlest angel:
Matt Gaetz, or…..no, Louie Gohmert….
This is too hard.
@Marcopolo: This kind of surprises me to. Dump shouldn’t need to bribe these idiots. They’re already his.
TS (the original)
@Marcopolo: Sad part about that article from David Ignatius is this statement
Not sure what the quotes mean but most people would read it as Mueller clearing trump – which he did not.
@TS (the original): Also, “collusion” isn’t a legal term. The specific charge Mueller addressed in his report was conspiracy, which has a much more stringent legal definition and requires a lot of specific elements that aren’t present in the colloquial usages of either “conspiracy” or “collusion”. In a similar vein, the legal definition of “treason” is much more stringent than the colloquial usage of the term. My reason for bringing this up is left as an exercise for the reader.
Ceterum censeo factionem Republicanam esse delendam.
All of them, Katie. //
I honestly do think that the unshakeable hold that Trump has over the Republicans is that he’s shown each of them proof that they received laundered contributions from Russia, and if they turn on him, he’ll give the evidence to the FEC for criminal prosecution. And if Trump does it, Barr will prosecute to make those senators illustrations of what happens if you cross Trump and Putin.
@Roger Moore: Broskovich! These are American rubles!
If Trump is impeached, Kavanaugh will in history will always be “the SC judge who the impeached president Trump nominated the year before he was impeached” as well as other descriptions. A dirty asterisk. It’s not much but I think it matters.
I was going to say!
@Amir Khalid: This is traitorous Russthuglican Trump trash we’re talking about here.
That was the free spot on your Trump trash bingo card?
J R in WV
“…have to recuse.” ??? Where does the “have to recuse” thought come from? There is no requirement under law for a Supreme to recuse themself from a case before the Supremes.
ETA: Clarence’s wife was involved in cases he heard. Tony Kennedy’s son was involved in cases he heard… I’m sure there are others that I don’t recall, Google is your friend…
@hells littlest angel:
I’m calling it now – Susan Collins will be very concerned about all the Russthuglicans taking Rooski rubles.
@Aleta: Can Kavanaugh still be a blackout drunk, college rapist?
Maybe mentioned earlier.
White House official who heard Trump’s call with Ukraine leader testified that he was told to keep quiet
J R in WV
Short answer: NO…
There are technically laws/ethics rules regarding this sort of bribe taking, but no one recently has been indicted for such violations…
@Aleta: ?A-criming they all go, a-criming they all go, hi ho the Trump trash-o, a-criming they all go?
@Mnemosyne: If Trump had anything on anyone, he’d have spilled the beans years ago by crowing about it on Twitter. He’s not smart enough to blackmail anyone. The simpler explanation that doesn’t require a cunning diabolical plot is that they are **all** traitors who sold out their country well before Trump came on the scene.
@mrmoshpotato: Well, earlier today Sen Kennedy (LA) said sure there was a quid pro quo but it was okay cause it was all in the service of rooting out corruption.
Conservatives are convinced it’s okay to break the law to show that other people are breaking the law. They’re always shocked and indignant when it turns out that’s not actually a valid defense.
@Marcopolo: Bwhahajahahahaj rooting out corruption with MORE corruption! You couldn’t write this shit.
ETA – I’ll get rid of my rattlesnake problem by creating a king snake problem! I am so smart! S-M-R-T!
@J R in WV
It skirts the edge under today’s circumstances, yes, but IMHO cannot be construed as bribery in a criminal sense unless the actions continue AFTER he is formally impeached, at which time the senators change from potential ‘jurors’ to empaneled ones.
“I love quid and often get it as an appetizer at my favorite Italian joint.”
@mrmoshpotato: Susan Collins is going to need a giant economy sized shot of Botox to deal with all the brow furrows brought on by this issue.
TS (the original)
@NotMax: So it’s OK to approach anyone who may be a juror in a criminal trial & offer them money from the accused, but this must stop once the jury has been chosen?
Alternatively, the fact that trump knows each of these people WILL be the jury still allows him to offer them funds on the basis of their comments re how they will vote?
@mrmoshpotato: Rather have a king snake around than a rattler.
@Kattails: Her entire face will transform into a furrowed brow.
@?BillinGlendaleCA: Party pooper. What if you have ophidiophobia?
See you are too honest, you don’t understand how this works.
You depend on someone, they own you.
You buy yourself someone, you own them.
And ownership is everything. Because if you are going down, you have receipts and you are taking them with you.
So a defendant in a criminal trial could legally hand $100 bills to everyone in the jury selection room because they haven’t actually been chosen yet?
I think we may need an actual lawyer to rule on this.
“President Stupid’s dumpster fireside chat” -Driftglass
@TS (the original)
Different situation. It is not a criminal trial. It’s a political process.
Any senator, at any time, can be considered a potential ‘juror’ regardless of whether impeachment is under consideration, so you’d have to charge anyone whose office is subject to impeachment for making any donation to a senatorial campaign.
And online, you pwn them. PWNED!
??? Goku (aka Amerikan Baka) ??
That doesn’t surprise me, sadly. How often do you see in police procedurals like Law and Order: SVU (a guilty pleasure of mine, much preferred the earlier seasons when Stabler was still on) or Dirty Harry where the good guys did what they had to do to get the bad guys, even if it meant violating department procedures, not to mention constitutional law. Lots of pissing and moaning about “bleeding hearts” and bureaucrats.
I’m honestly shocked Chicago PD, the show, hasn’t gotten slammed more for it’s portrayals of police brutality as a good thing.
All of this is to say that conservatives are authoritarians and think that rules get in the way of doing “what must be done” to all the criminals and thugs of the world. And that rules don’t apply to them because they’re obviously good well meaning people (in their own minds), like you said
It’s literally an abuser’s mentality
@Mnemosyne: “Hey. Nice little jury pool you have here. It’d be a shame if I didn’t bribe everyone, but just handed out cash.”
Now you’re being ridiculous. A defendant has already been brought up on charges, which is a parallel to what impeachment does, and why I made the distinction between pre- and post-impeachment.
J R in WV
I’m good with charging anyone whose office is subject to impeachment for making ANY donation to any senatorial campaign!!! Anyone!
So it’s okay to hand out $100 to everyone on a grand jury that’s deliberating whether or not to indict you?
@hells littlest angel:
Upper-case “Bribery” is an impeachable offense, but it’s OK if it’s lower-case “bribery”.
(ETA, yeah, trial in the Senate is a political process. Optics don’t care.)
Need it be said? No, because those are empaneled jurors.
And that makes them different from sitting Senators who have taken an oath to the Constitution in what way?
I think this was true a week or two ago, but now they’re falling back into line. If you look at popular support for impeachment, it’s actually dropping now, and most of what’s happening is that the few Republicans who were wavering are back behind Trump. There’s no way Republican politicians are going to think defecting from Trump loyalty is politically viable.
Because sitting senators are administered an additional and unique oath when sitting in judgment on cases of impeachment.
The one’s that want to continue to be politicians just might flip. I doubt that republicans will do that, many of them are not that bright and the one’s that are seem to have tasted the Kool Aid. But self preservation is a strong motivator. And if push comes to run over one never knows who will break first. Also this is not about the people that won’t do their duty in the future, it is about the ones that won’t do it at the time it happens. And this is the system that we have. This is what there is. Think about it this way, if trump is impeached and articles are sent to the senate and they do nothing, what is that going to look like to the public? If Nancy P does everything right, which is what she is doing and the senate does everything wrong, which is what it looks like is quite possible, do you think the people will stand for it? Even some of the dead heads in the republican party will see that for what it is.
@Mike in NC:
Seriously, is there anyone in politics today who looks more like the cliched stereotype of a Kentucky Klan-member than Brad Parscale?
So, just to be clear, it is and should be 100 percent legal for someone who’s being investigated to give $100 cash to everyone called for grand jury service on a particular day, even if that includes everyone who ends up on the panel that hears the evidence against them.
After all, it’s not bribery if they haven’t been empaneled yet, so no harm, no foul.
What is your problem? Aside from completely twisting what I’ve given as an opinion, you bring up ludicrous examples. That is clearly subornation of perjury, to use a technical legal jargon (and a crime). No, it is not all right.
Also not relevant, as I was specifically speaking of and to not a criminal trial but a political one. Capiche?
And to be absolutely clear, – no, I don’t believe what Dolt 45 is up to is ethical nor proper. It is sleazy and underhanded (to say the least).
To turn your technique of misrepresenting an argument and stretching things beyond the breaking point on its head, apparently you would advocate locking up every single lawyer who contributes to a senatorial campaign because he or she might someday become a federal judge (an office subject to impeachment and judgment by the Senate)?