Trump doesn’t want to hear about 2020 Russian interference in our elections

Before Nielsen was forced out, she tried to focus the White House on one of her highest priorities as DHS secretary: preparing for new and different Russian forms of interference in 2020. Mulvaney told her not to bring it up in front of the president. https://t.co/WDNjfC52O4
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) April 24, 2019

Don’t tell Donald Trump about Russia’s election interference!https://t.co/I0uawbktw8
— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) April 24, 2019

Not quite a denial, but a counterattack! (After the story published.) pic.twitter.com/WNBOEoD01o
— Josh Dawsey (@jdawsey1) April 24, 2019

The fact a foreign adversary will continue efforts to interfere in our sacred elections should alarm all of us. No less alarming is the idea a senior government official can't brief the President on it because it might hurt his feelings. pic.twitter.com/mY7ixBZhI5
— Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) April 24, 2019

I see a congressional hearing in which former Trump officials are asked how much attention @realDonaldTrump devoted to protecting the United States from another Russian attack on an American election.
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) April 24, 2019

Just in from @RepAdamSchiff, on reports that Mick Mulvaney didn't want Kirstjen Nielsen to bring up the need to protect our political system from outside attack, because Trump would see it as denigrating the greatness of his victory: pic.twitter.com/MKIQ7gEFTN
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) April 25, 2019

What's behind President Trump's lack of engagement on Russian threat? @TiffanyDCross @amandacarpenter @ahrferrier @stefcutter discuss @TheLeadCNN https://t.co/nN4BwVlj5d pic.twitter.com/9ez2iI6iMV
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) April 24, 2019

U.S. government official: 'Like pulling teeth' to get WH to focus on Russia election interference threat @TheLeadCNN https://t.co/JhJJj2kwnz pic.twitter.com/O7poHy5yk0
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) April 24, 2019

A senior administration official tells me that while Secretary Nielsen grew frustrated with the White House‘s lack of engagement on election security, she continued to push the matter on her own, organizing two principals' meetings on her own — hosted at DHS offices in DC 1/
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) April 24, 2019

Kushner downplays Russian meddling

This is just another lie

Kushner said that the Mueller probe was worse for the country than the Russian actions. Which side is he on?

"The issue is not whether or not Trump won. The issue is that we know for certain that Russia meddled in the election. And that they — and other foreign powers — are already working to do the same in future elections."https://t.co/Nx3rqpZxo4
— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) April 23, 2019

Jared Kushner: Russian interference was "a couple of Facebook ads."

Robert Mueller: "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion."
— Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) April 23, 2019

Kushner is minimizing the impact of a foreign adversary working to upend a presidential election. How can we expect the White House to take 2020 election security seriously when a senior adviser’s talking points sound like they were written by the Kremlin?https://t.co/5pBNNtv7oD
— Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) April 23, 2019

This was not a "couple of Facebook ads." The Russians not only purchased online ads but also, according to DOJ, hacked into state election databases and stole sensitive voter information of 500,000 people. This was an attack on our democracy.https://t.co/wEsnGAaoxB
— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) April 24, 2019

Jared Kushner made clear today that he lies as shamelessly as Trump. He is as repugnant a human being as his father-in-law.
— Tony Schwartz (@tonyschwartz) April 23, 2019

New from me: Kushner downplayed Russia’s interference as a “couple ads” that did no real harm. But he obliged Russian attempts to cultivate a backchannel to the WH—twice.
A new DOJ filing says such backchannels can result in “commensurate harm” to the US. https://t.co/3Bk2Gh5YDf
— Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) April 23, 2019

Believing that Bob Mueller has hurt America more than Vladimir Putin does not strengthen one’s case for having a security clearance. https://t.co/2PqvA8VLu2
— Tom Malinowski (@Malinowski) April 23, 2019

Jared Kushner downplaying Russian interference as "a few Facebook ads" is a pretty standard blog talking point for the right.

In reality, the troll farm spent $1.25 million per month illegally boosting one candidate, and most of their influence was organic—not an ad at all. https://t.co/AqGUXXyt62
— Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) April 23, 2019

Must Watch: Shepard Smith Scorches Jared Kushner’s ‘Disingenuous and Deceptive’ Remarks on Russian Meddling https://t.co/S4cxJQeYoO pic.twitter.com/eSm8IVaY1L
— Mediaite (@Mediaite) April 23, 2019

Jared Kushner Dismisses Russian Election Interference as ‘Couple of Facebook Ads’ https://t.co/7lRuHnBZEO
— Michiko Kakutani (@michikokakutani) April 23, 2019

On Sunday, Kellyanne Conway wouldn’t even acknowledge Russia helped Trump.

And Rudy Giuliani effectively said it was fine if they did.

Today, Jared Kushner said the attack was no more than a few Facebook ads.

There is no patriotism in Trump’s GOP. Only cowardly opportunism. https://t.co/hYYgLUlUpN
— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) April 23, 2019

There was a time when anyone asserting that exposing a plot by a hostile foreign power was more harmful to America than the plot itself would have been considered deeply anti-American if not treasonous. This is the opposite of patriotism. https://t.co/6uSCCh183k
— stuart stevens (@stuartpstevens) April 23, 2019

Kushner is minimizing the impact of a foreign adversary working to upend a presidential election. How can we expect the White House to take 2020 election security seriously when a senior adviser’s talking points sound like they were written by the Kremlin?https://t.co/5pBNNtv7oD
— Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) April 23, 2019

Rudy Giuliani says “There’s nothing wrong with getting information from Russians.”

It’s not alright. Rudy is wrong. It looks like they’re inviting the Russians to help again in 2020. There are big implications for future elections. If Trump wins in 2020, it will be hard to believe he didn’t win because of Russian help. Sad!

President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, insisted on Sunday that it was acceptable for a political campaign to use hacked information about its opponent obtained from a foreign adversary — though he personally would have advised against it https://t.co/l8pKeuT66w
— The New York Times (@nytimes) April 21, 2019

Why didn’t the Trump campaign call the FBI when approached by Russia? https://t.co/mMVVJHFanH
— Brian J. Karem (@BrianKarem) April 21, 2019

One of the most remarkable things about the last couple years is we have been given no indication that Trump’s re-election campaign will hesitate to take advantage of Russian help again, in whatever form it might take. https://t.co/TNG2Zvcmfx
— Dustin Volz (@dnvolz) April 21, 2019

Question: with Trump allies defending acceptance of Russian campaign help – & Mueller absolving them of criminal wrongdoing – has the US given license to its citizens to do same in 2020 & beyond? What will stop the next American from accepting the next offer of Russian help?
— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) April 21, 2019

Trump's lawyer offered another one of his Sunday news show stunners. https://t.co/LehTA1cgax
— Esquire (@esquire) April 21, 2019

Wrong. Mueller evaluated the facts under campaign finance violations which prohibit foreign interference in elections. The only reasons he was unable to charge was because he was couldn’t place a $ valuation on the info and couldn’t show that Treason & Co. acted “willfully.” https://t.co/skjTHYYzUx
— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) April 21, 2019

Rudy Giuliani declared Sunday that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort had been nearly “tortured” in jail as part of Robert Mueller’s investigation, and referred to one of Mueller’s lead prosecutors as a “hit man” before walking both comments back https://t.co/LouD8IjCin
— POLITICO (@politico) April 21, 2019

Ask any national security professional in the military, Defense Department, intelligence community, FBI or Justice Department what would happen to them out they accepted stolen material from the Russians. https://t.co/gKPVBk8u0V
— John Sipher (@john_sipher) April 21, 2019

My G-d. There’s nothing wrong with getting information from Russians to help win a U.S election???!!!!

So that’s it? The floodgates are open for 2020? Saudis? Chinese?

This is from the president’s lawyer?

These people are not acting in America’s national security interests. https://t.co/yRaHppeRqm
— Carrie Cordero (@carriecordero) April 21, 2019

Former federal prosecutor Rudy Giuliani: “There's nothing wrong with taking information from Russians.”

Fact-check: There’s something majorly wrong with a campaign taking information from Russians.https://t.co/aFJcFNEYd9
— Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) April 21, 2019

“So it’s now okay for political campaigns to work with material stolen by foreign adversaries?” “It depends on the stolen material.” @RudyGiuliani tells me. Compares stolen WikiLeaks emails to the Pentagon Papers. #MTP
— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) April 21, 2019

This is nothing like the Pentagon Papers.

Adlai Stevenson in 1960 and Hubert Humphrey In 1968 both felt and acted differently, refusing Russian offers of help out of hand. https://t.co/j923vIi762
— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) April 21, 2019

Stunning.

This is the personal lawyer of the President of the United States praising the illegal hacking of emails by a foreign government to influence an election as a public service. https://t.co/lHjgROI3ge
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) April 21, 2019

A plan I'm sure is already in motion, if I know my Russians. (But that's not really my area of expertise or anything.) https://t.co/Qrim254m8P
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) April 21, 2019

This is just the wrongest wrong imaginable. https://t.co/xMmRFnEyDw
— Mark Hertling (@MarkHertling) April 21, 2019

This reveals the frightening implications of the blank check given to Trump by Republicans.

They’ve given our adversaries a green light to undermine our elections, and future candidates a green light to accept their aid. https://t.co/i7kJ6uaiJl
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) April 21, 2019

Rudy suggests to @jaketapper that he knows of some nefarious activity involving Romney 2012 campaign without offering evidence. “I could tell you the things he wanted to do,” calling Romney a “hypocrite.”

“There’s nothing wrong with getting information from Russians,” he adds
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) April 21, 2019

Whatever @realDonaldTrump is paying @RudyGiuliani is not enough to compensate him for the complete and utter sacrifice of integrity and credibility required to defend the indefensible. https://t.co/T4GJTTmHmq
— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) April 21, 2019

Obstruction of justice chart

For everyone who liked this chart, here is another, better, revised chart: https://t.co/NVqzOPgNzF
— Quinta Jurecic (@qjurecic) April 21, 2019

Impeachment or no impeachment?

The Democrats are in a tough position.

If they don’t impeach Trump, they will look weak. There are clearly grounds for investigating impeachment. Clinton was impeached for much less. However, impeachment is sure to fail in the Senate since Republicans don’t care what Trump does as long as he lowers taxes and appoints conservative judges. There is so much evidence, I think it will be hard for Democrats to avoid impeachment hearings.

If they do impeach, it will distract from other issues which are much more important to the daily life of voters. If it fails in the Senate, it would look like double jeopardy if he was later charged in court. At least Republicans would have to go on record that they support his terrible actions.

I still want Trump to be indicted and sent to jail if (or I think when) he is convicted. I know he will get a hearing in the Senate which will clear him. I have much more confidence in a jury.

Trump must be held accountable. He can’t get away with this!

There appears to be more than enough proof of criminality for the House of Representatives to draw up articles of impeachment. https://t.co/kceDVvlF6m
— Slate (@Slate) April 19, 2019

Some thoughts on where Democrats should go from here. They have a clear constitutional responsibility to take the evidence and conclusions in this report to their logical conclusion. But I would not start with a formal impeachment process.
— Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) April 19, 2019

Some perspective: Despite a slew of Trumpian lies; evidence of obstructing justice; repeated and improper contacts with Russia; and conduct unbecoming of any president, Donald Trump’s actions have been laid bare before Congress and the American people.
Now Congress is the judge.
— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) April 19, 2019

I’m seeing a lot of arguments that insist impeachment is constitutionally necessary no matter the politics or likelihood of success. I think that’s wrong. https://t.co/9h9Cg5CsVy
— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) April 19, 2019

“So it turns out that, indeed, President Trump is not exonerated at all…” Powerful piece by ⁦@gtconway3d⁩. https://t.co/YJNFPf1xry
— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) April 19, 2019

I’ve previously inveighed against the dangers of too much impeachment talk. But the time has come for the House Judiciary Committee to open hearings into Trump’s “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Let the facts drive the process. https://t.co/yagdD510F7
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) April 19, 2019

Impeachment is embedded in Mueller report.

Mueller: *We* can't accuse Trump of crimes because OLC memo forbids indictment (aka accusation).

OLC: "Only the House of Representatives *has the authority to *bring charges of criminal misconduct* through…impeachment."
— Justin Miller (@justinjm1) April 19, 2019

Here's the thing.

The Democratic approach to the impeachment inquiry question is a hopeless muddle right now.

It sounds political and lacks conviction.

If you want to say, "we're following up on the report, and we'll make the call soon," fine. 1/https://t.co/tFAiFiSoGG
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) April 19, 2019

Robert Mueller punts to Congress. And it could get really ugly. My take from today https://t.co/sV0jufZ8m9
— Alana Abramson (@aabramson) April 19, 2019

It's why even if he richly deserves impeachment it's a fool's errand. You cannot shame the shameless. https://t.co/BCwP3tGqge
— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) April 19, 2019

The #MuellerReport is the beginning, not the end. It will embolden House Democrats who are already investigating #Trump and increase pressure to launch formal impeachment inquiries, even though Democratic leaders are reluctant to go there. My takehttps://t.co/y8CqJt2uvF
— EJ Dionne (@EJDionne) April 19, 2019

"Dear Democrats: Mueller Just Handed You a Roadmap for Impeachment. Follow It."

My new piece for @theintercept on today's #MuellerReport. It's an open letter to House Dems arguing for #ImpeachTrump – do pls have a read and share:https://t.co/JDN1VoRcyg
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) April 18, 2019

As a presidential scholar who works in the Nixon White House tapes: at this point, the only reason Trump isn't Nixon circa late-1973 is Congress and conservative media.
— Nicole Hemmer (@pastpunditry) April 18, 2019

"There will be no broad-scale abandonment of Trump by the GOP. In fact, there may well be a rallying behind him — and a call for Democrats to move beyond the Mueller report."https://t.co/1ATbOKDt7D
— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) April 19, 2019

"There's a sentence here that's all but an explicit invitation to Congress to impeach the President … This is an invitation to Congress to say 'you can do it using the impeachment power,'" @JeffreyToobin says about the Mueller report. https://t.co/BVfutl3zWg pic.twitter.com/e1EVoB28xL
— CNN (@CNN) April 18, 2019

Trump could be charged after he leaves office

I hope so. I think he’s a criminal and I hope (but doubt) he goes to jail if he’s guilty. In addition to this and the other pending investigations, I think it’s clear that he’s guilty of election law violations similar to the ones Cohen is guilty of.

Robert Mueller’s team of prosecutors concluded over more than a dozen of the report’s 448 pages that obstruction laws did indeed limit how President Trump could use his powers https://t.co/KuLbnqacVP
— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) April 18, 2019

#AlwaysReadTheFootnotes

MUELLER, p. 390, footnote 1991: "A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office." pic.twitter.com/dw5IiEsOmA
— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) April 18, 2019

Is Trump, Jr. too stupid to be a criminal?

That’s what it sounds like though I have a hard time believing that he didn’t know it was wrong to meet with Russians about dirt on Hillary Clinton. I think he’s a crook. Sad!

The Special Counsel concluded that you were too dumb to know that the crime you committed was a crime. Congrats. https://t.co/ITFgMyxHwB
— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) April 18, 2019

The subtext here is that Mueller concluded Don Jr – who was a senior campaign official – was too dumb to know he was breaking the law.

I would also note that exculpatory ignorance is not a privilege afforded to most criminal suspects. https://t.co/l0HRYNC6NC
— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) April 18, 2019

Trump Jr "didn't know what he was doing was illegal" so not held accountable.
Crystal Mason didn't know voting while on probation was illegal, sentenced to 5 years in jail. This isn't right. #HoldTrumpJrAccountable pic.twitter.com/DsGVcLqlXP
— Amy (@PrplMnkyCupcake) April 19, 2019

My new one @Slate: The special counsel let Trump Jr. off the hook too easily for campaign finance violations. https://t.co/Nek0nZskU9 via @slate
— Rick Hasen (@rickhasen) April 18, 2019

An issue I identified back in July 2017 as a potential hurdle in any charge against Trump Jr. for a campaign finance violation: https://t.co/1d41sG5iBP https://t.co/qwouYN50m7
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) April 18, 2019

As with Mueller's "not provable they had criminal intent" assessment of the Trump Tower meeting w Russian agents, the plutocrat president & his family received a benefit of the prosecutorial doubt that would never be extended to a high school dropout who robbed a bodega https://t.co/urfxPbgYrs
— David Frum (@davidfrum) April 21, 2019

Read and RT. Ignorance of the law is not if the FBI warned you that Russians might try to compromise you and you do not report contact to help your father's campaign and you do not report it. Plus, why didn't he know foreign help is 100% prohibited? https://t.co/4Z5VBausu4
— Jill Wine-Banks (@JillWineBanks) April 20, 2019

Trump campaign makes Barr’s spying statement worse

Barr said he thought that the Trump campaign had been spied on. He provided no basis for his statement. Now the Trump campaign has ratcheted it up a notch by calling it “unlawful spying”. They’re lying about a lie and making it worse. Sad!

Trump campaign email doctors a quote from Barr. He said "spying did occur," not that "unlawful spying did occur." https://t.co/OP4Lwo4n5i pic.twitter.com/Z0sA3pYH0o
— Brendan Nyhan (@BrendanNyhan) April 13, 2019

Trump campaign fundraising by lying about what Barr said. pic.twitter.com/RXM93gzy16
— Philip Bump (@pbump) April 12, 2019

Trump campaign email: “Just this week, Attorney General William Barr said what the President has thought all along, he believes ‘unlawful spying did occur’ against Donald J. Trump's presidential campaign…” pic.twitter.com/5jpyfZhErv
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) April 13, 2019

“Spying” is not a legal word; it’s a loaded political word, signaling conspiracy theorists. Of course Barr knows this (or else he’s clueless about law enforcement). Yet He chose to use it, repeatedly. It was a political sop to Trump and a sure thing the campaign would exploit it. https://t.co/PSpJ1WpgKQ
— Elie Honig (@eliehonig) April 13, 2019

AG Barr said “I believe spying did occur.”

The word “unlawful” was not part of that quote.

But the sentence in the email is constructed in such a way that the campaign could be referring to what Trump thinks.

So misleading it seems purposefully deceptive.
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) April 13, 2019

AG Barr admitted he had no evidence to support his claim that spying on the Trump campaign “did occur.”

AG Barr must retract his statement immediately or produce specific evidence to back it up.

Perpetuating conspiracy theories is beneath the office of the Attorney General.
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) April 10, 2019

Trump’s 2016 win was not based on the economy

One catch to the "Trump wooed economically struggling white working-class voters" narrative: They were identifying more heavily as Republican for years anyway. https://t.co/xl81SAi8eK
— Philip Bump (@pbump) April 12, 2019

Trump goes even further than Barr

Donald Trump's dangerous allegation of 'illegal' and 'unprecedented' spyinghttps://t.co/j2zGJHjpFJ pic.twitter.com/BiiNN5DvlS
— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) April 11, 2019

Trump claims he’s victim of ‘illegal’ spying – but provides no evidence @abbydphillip reports @TheLeadCNN https://t.co/dyt5rzeNB5 pic.twitter.com/3Zl4y7WFyn
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) April 11, 2019