The president is clearly mentally ill to some capacity and a full-on pathological liar. Trump arguing that a hurricane was on the pathway to hit Alabama when it clearly wasn't should tell you everything you need to know about him.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Donald Trump impeachment investigation over Ukranian phone call...
- Thread starter Taleweaver
- Start date
- Views 49,642
- Replies 734
- Likes 5
I certainly do disagree - you haven't established that he's broken the law in any way if you take the statute as it is written and refrain from using a crystal ball to guess his intentions or motivation. It is not by any means clear that anything illegal took place, that's a conclusory statement.
There's also covfefe, the moon is part of mars, tossing out paper towels to hurricane survivors, his latest extremely bizarre ramble involving "Liddle'" and the use of a "hyphen" that is actually an apostrophe, calling his own daughter hot and saying he'd date her, you need ID to buy a box of cereal, young people pay $12 a year for medical insurance, asbestos would have prevented the World Trade Center from burning, environmental friendly lightbulbs and the noise from wind turbines both cause cancer, etc. etc. A person could go on for a decent enough amount of time stating all of the completely idiotic things he's said and done. The guy is pure dotard.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,004
- Trophies
- 1
- Location
- Site 19
- Website
- catgirlsin.space
- XP
- 3,441
- Country
Not quite, technically nobody has been impeached to the point where they have been removed from his seat and Trump probably won't be either.
There's only been three actual impeachments that reached past the House: Clintons and Johnsons, both of which were acquited of their charges.
Johnson was acquited due to the fact that those judging decided that it is not the right of the American executive branch to impeach the president if the branch disagrees with policy the president set (Johnson removed the secretary of war and attempted to replace him with Lorenzo Thomas, violating the Tenure of Office Act that was passed the year before.), although it should be noted that the branch did eventually get its way on the specific situation in question.
Bill Clinton was acquited of his impeachment but was later nailed on a contempt of court charge for lying during the impeachment procedures (which resulted in a plea deal involving a fine and a 5 year suspension of his law license when he left office) and settled individual charges, both of which pretty much torpedoed his political carreer.
Nixon had the articles filed and adopted by the House, but resigned before any actual trial could take place.
--
Specifically, in order to impeach and be removed from office, the following things must occur:
- Congress must file articles of impeachment. During this phase, the Congress gets the right to investigate the public official and determine the specific grounds and causes of impeachment (think of it like gathering evidence.)
- The Senate must formally adopt the articles of impeachment. At this point a president is considered impeached, but not removed from office.
- Then the impeachment procedure can start, which works just like a trial. The Senate acts as the judge, whilst the House and Congress both can choose to summon witnesses and cross-examine them.
- If the Senate deems the public official guilty, they are removed from office.
Not just the president, although the procedure is identical there.
--
Now why Donald Trump won't be impeached: The Senate is currently led by "Moscow Mitch" McConnell, who gets that beautiful little nickname for refusing to adopt an anti-corruption bill made by Congress that would allocate money to increase security during US elections as well as blocking a seperate bill that would demand politicians, staffers and families of politicians to contact federal authorities if a foreign official attempts to initiate contact with them.
Those two bills were made by Congress as a result from the Russia investigation, hence the name "Moscow Mitch" (personal opinion: its funny as hell and I'm keeping that nickname in mind from now on.)
Anyway, Moscow Mitch will never adopt the bill in question.
Does this mean this entire thing is pointless? No. The right to investigate the public official (in this case the sitting president) by Congress is important. At it's simplest, it means we finally get to see Trumps tax returns. At it's more complex, this gives the Congress the ability to put all of Trumps behavior under a spotlight and investigate the many many public gaffes and see if there's anything else wrong there (and this will probably lead to more impeachments, resignations and arrests and will probably also torpedo his re-election chances and probably land him into troubles once this stinking turd leaves office if only a percentage of all the public gaffes he's made over the past year carry their underlying suggestion). So yes, this is highly important.
On a moral level (and this is a personal one), it's also just the right thing to do.
--
Closing note: Thanks for the thread here guys! It was fun poking around on Wikipedia for this stuff, speaking as a non-american, I now have a much better idea of how the procedure works and why it has failed so many times in the past.
The Republicans still haven't let the Hillary email issue go after the investigation so you're right, but I'm not talking about the Republicans. Just because a certain group of people would do the same thing doesn't justify the group I'm talking about doing it.
I never changed anything to fit my agenda. I clarified that I was referring to the current Congress in session. What I was referring to never changed.
When you have a fluctuating value system that changes on a whim you have no moral values. Liberals embrace dishonestly and the various sins that exist. They don't have moral values and most of them won't even hesitate to deny this fact. They gloat about it.
The media and Congress cried "collusion", but none was found. If they would have been crying "obstruction" then that would be a different story, but they were wrong. Dead wrong. Two years of crying wolf. I took pleasure in seeing CNN reporters lose their shit and I take great pleasure in knowing that the Liberals were wrong and lost that particular battle.
I won't vote for a Liberal, that doesn't mean I always vote Republican. Liberals are a cancer and the if a candidate is a Liberal then that sin in itself is greater than anything his or her opponent could have possibly committed.
I read peoples interpretation of the Mueller report. From both sides. I skimmed over key sections of it, but I have no interest to read it myself. I'm not a lawyer neither are you so you're apparently interpretation of the findings are going to be just as flawed as mine. In this matter I'll take the word of the agency that did the investigation and the various entities who read, interpreted and decided not to pursue charges over some pissy Liberals that didn't get their way.
Good, because if you're not going to provide me with a list of actual stuff the current Congress has passed that hasn't been directly relating to blocking Republican legislature or to attack the President you're basically useless.
Last edited by billapong,
Please see my earlier posts where I break down the statue that was violated. If you aren't willing to read and discuss what I've already written and explained in great detail then there is no point in continuing this conversation.
For reference - post 116 and post 118 on page 6 of this thread. Although if you wish to also uphold your paper thin defense of whether or not Biden constitutes as a political rival or operate in the erroneous assumption that intent is a requirement for the law that is provided, then please refer to post 134 on page 7.
It is clearly laid out. However, If you quote areas you are struggling with I can assist further.
Edit- Changed post 13 to post 134 on page 7. left off a number and gave the page # on the thread to find that post.
Last edited by RationalityIsLost101,
Dude... Bills that are non-partisan get passed all the time. Even under Trump. Its the truly heinous shit that gets called out and that causes the dismay of everybody that gets the breaks put on. I mean literally Bills get assessed nearly every day in congress with the exception of when they are on break.
If you think the only stuff that gets "blocked" or "passed" based on what you see in the news, you need to brush up on your knowledge.
just a small sample of what is being worked on:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/
Last edited by WD_GASTER2,
Thanks for the actual constructive reply. I realize that stuff that isn't based on politics gets passed, but the media doesn't report on those things. That's why I asked. It wasn't to prove a point. I want to know, because the media doesn't provide that information. It wouldn't generate revenue.
I mean, Trump legalized Hemp and the fact that he did basically wasn't reported on because people hate him. It took having to read about CBD and dig a little deeper to find out that it was Trump's administration that got rid of the previous laws restricting the plant (and I'm all for getting rid of laws - fuck making more).
Please read mine where I've explained why you're incorrect. You're more than welcome to throw around statutes all day long, but your statement is a legal conclusion and you don't actually have the evidence to back it up - it's a theory based on what we know so far. There is a very good reason why the House Democrats are retreating from this line of attack right quick and in a hurry, read the statute you've posted. There are several holes in your reasoning - you're presenting your theory as fact without establishing some key points:
- We have not established that Trump was intending to solicit help from a foreign national. You think you have, but you haven't - it's unclear from the conversation or from the complaint. This motivation is important and would have to be proven in order to even apply, so far it's a guess on your part. According to Zelensky's own cabinet no help was solicited and even if it was, they had no intention to provide it.
- You haven't established that an investigation into the Bidens could be considered a "thing of value" as it is interpreted under the statute - it is not a monetary contribution or object of monetary value as it is commonly understood. In other words, you would have to prove how the Bidens would be negatively affected by Trump's actions and how that translates into value that enriches Trump personally or for his campaign broadly. At the very least you need to illustrate how it would impact Joe Biden in the election - it's unclear that it would. I would like to underline that Joe Biden is not involved with the company in question, Hunter is. Hunter Biden is a private citizen, he's not running. Joe Biden is only implicated in the matter peripherally, his involvement would only be damaging to him in an election if investigated in the U.S.
- Eschewing the actual wording of the statute to give you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that Trump was soliciting help, you haven't established what that request was in reference to. A cordial conversation between two leaders about cooperation in combating corruption is not unusual, even if it does peripherally involve mentioning different politicians. You cannot de facto assume that mentioning any politician from the opposition means treason, that would give the opposition effective immunity from any and all investigation by the Executive. In order for your theory to work, you would need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bidens were mentioned to smear them during the election and *not* because of a genuine effort to investigate the matter. If this was merely "the Executive doing Executive things" and the issue of Biden's involvement in the case was only mentioned as an example of a more broad issue of corruption in Ukraine, you don't have a case - you would have to prove otherwise. There is a difference between soliciting help for oneself and requesting help in an official proceeding, particularly when the two countries have an agreement to cooperate in criminal investigations already.
Spend the time to elaborate as I have. You can quote any part of my previous posts as needed. You aren't giving any suitable response for me to appropriately address further. I refuted every counter point you've raised. You've consistently moved the goal post which I've met at every turn. How familiar are you with the FEC law I've quoted? If you have questions about certain sections or how I've applied them then let's discuss it.
US citizen (Trump) knowingly solicits aid from a Foreign national to obtain potentially politically damaging information regarding a political rival in a US election
Quick Summary - (If I've missed a counter point that was raised please let me know.)
1. No Quid Pro Quo - Doesn't apply and not necessary / The solicitation of assistance was all that was required. This is outlined very clearly in the transcript already in a previous post.
2. Biden not a political rival because he's still in primary - No he is an aspiring political rival, he still counts because if the primary was impacted it in turn impacts the potential candidate in the general election. He could also become a VP even if he lost and would be a political rival on the ballot. (very improbable but that doesn't matter)
3. Ukraine President is a Foreign National and represents a foreign government
4. Use of crystal ball to guess intent or motivation of the defendant - Defendant's intent or motivation doesn't need to be addressed for this particular law. It can help solidify a certain degree of severity in the sentencing but all that is required is that the released transcript shows that a US citizen (Trump) knowingly solicits aid from a Foreign national to obtain potentially politically damaging information regarding a political rival (Biden) in a US election (yes upcoming elections count, Biden publicly announced he is running for president and Trump publicly announced he is running for reelection).
If I was hired to assist in his defense, I know where to attempt to refute this charge. It's none of the points you or anyone in this thread raised thus far. It doesn't mean that the law wasn't broken but there is a potential technicality that could be argued in the right light to avoid legal consequence (it is a pretty risky gamble though, due to the type of assistance that was requested). By tomorrow evening if no one has raised it I'll point it out and explain further. Just to be clear it does not absolve trump and I don't concede that he didn't break the law. I would only concede that he could avoid a legal consequence if he was tried in a court that leaned in his favor and this particular defense was used.
This isn't about politics for me, I'm quite impartial to party politics. As a citizen, I want people (and elected officials) to follow the law. I know people are invested in one party or another but let's escape that and just focus on the case at hand.
Finally, You talk about my statement being a legal conclusion and invalid because of insufficient evidence? I propose that you don't throw around jargon if you aren't comfortable enough to expound upon it further. What evidence are you requiring? Speak hypothetically if needed. If all you seek to state is that I simply don't have the authority to determine the legality of a situation then you've moved the discussion to a bounds where no other discussion could continue to avoid a concession. If so, that's not fun.
I'm perfectly happy with expounding upon my statements, the problem here is that posts of that nature have more to do with the evidentiary standard in the United States as opposed to the phone call that took place, as well as the exact terminology used and how flexible we're willing to be in defining the terms. Simply saying that you've fulfilled the three conditions I laid out doesn't make it so - while it is true that the Ukrainian President is (obviously) a foreign national (I've never disputed that), you haven't at all established that Trump used his position in order to solicit aid in the election in the form of a campaign contribution that is manifested by financial aid or thing of value - you merely concluded that that was the case, which is not the same thing. You've been a fairly good sport about this so far, I never accused you of bias and I don't intend to. In fact, you seem fairly reasonable, the exchange has been enjoyable so far. I also think you're confusing me with a couple other user's who posted in the thread before me, you're referring to some arguments that I personally haven't made without adequately addressing the ones I've made. Since you're being such a good sport though, I'll accommodate your request when I have spare time for something a little more elaborate, although I've already given you a couple of leads to follow up on. For instance, on the matter of "intention", you're misinterpreting what I've said as a question of intent to commit a crime - that's not the case (not that intent wasn't used in order to exonerate a public official of legal consequences in the past in cases where none was required). What I specifically meant by that was establishing if Trump was specifically asking for help in order to attain personal or political gain or if personal or political gain would've been an unrelated consequence of the action, and there is a distinction between the two. It's not a matter of being nitpicky, it's a matter of establishing the facts of the case.
§ 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).
https://www.fec.gov/regulations/110-20/2019-annual-110#110-20
g.Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals. No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
b.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
----
Now for some definitions to assist and ensure we both stay on the same page. I'm referencing https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/300.2 for these listed below:
(e)Donation. For purposes of part 300, donation means a payment, gift, subscription, loan, advance, deposit, or anything of value given to a person, but does not include contributions.
(m)To solicit. For the purposes of part 300, to solicit means to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation may be made directly or indirectly. The context includes the conduct of persons involved in the communication. A solicitation does not include mere statements of political support or mere guidance as to the applicability of a particular law or regulation.
----
Used his position - His position doesn't matter. A US citizen is the only identity he has to satisfy
Solicit aid in the election - He requested a thing of value - an investigation that involved a political rival which would potentially provide opposition research (political dirt)
Well you got it! Thing of value. This is the phrase I would argue against in a court. Everything else is pretty damning. Thing of value couldn't be precisely quantified which is why the DOJ cleared upon a preliminary investigation as to whether or not this statute was broken upon investigating the contents of this call. It's a toss-up whether or not a judge would entertain a perceived value of opposition research on a political rival in an upcoming election. I haven't delved in past court cases to determine the current legal precedence in place. I'm not sure if I will as this is likely never going to an actual trial but will only remain part of an impeachment inquiry where it is a political trial instead of a criminal trial. It's an interesting question nonetheless.
What is the value of Opposition research (political dirt)? Well it varies. It does cost something as Ukraine would have to launch an investigation and pay staff/consultants to work on said investigation that was requested. I guess that alone is a value. It is nebulous and subjective once you go beyond into the value of information requested.
With that I conclude. I'm ecstatic, I have reservations about the DOJ's opinion as I think they have conflicts of interest that pushed them to using a technicality to cover this up and dismiss the issue that was brought forth.
---
Something I read this morning I thought I'd share:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/27/20885557/criminal-laws-trump-barr-giuliani-ukraine
The Justice Department reportedly has already decided that this statute does not apply to Trump’s actions. According to BuzzFeed’s Zoe Tillman, DOJ’s “Criminal Division explored whether the July call merited opening a criminal investigation into potential campaign finance violations by the president.” But the DOJ ultimately concluded that “the information discussed on the call didn’t amount to a ‘thing of value’ that could be quantified, which is what the campaign finance laws require.”
Special counsel Robert Mueller, however, disagreed with this interpretation of the statute after a similar issue arose in his investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign.
“Political campaigns frequently conduct and pay for opposition research,” he noted. Moreover, “a foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate” than if they gave the candidate money. The idea that opposition research isn’t a thing of tremendous value to political candidates ignores very basic realities about how political campaigns operate.
---
Well we reached the end of this discussion. I'm curious to see how it plays out. Public opinion will likely rise or fall in support based on the momentum of the inquiry. I've enjoyed this outlet. Thanks for your time. Hope you have a good night.
I don't want to be a party pooper, but I've explicitly questioned whether or not a "thing of value" was requested or offered, I think I did it three times.
In fact, I called it a "thing of entertainment" earlier to be a little cheeky, but you may have missed it. If that's the case, I apologise for being confrontational earlier.EDIT: Here you go.
I can happily take it up with you - in order to violate campaign law Trump would have to stand to gain either a monetary contribution or "a thing of value", this usually refers to valuable objects. While seeing Joe Biden scramble to cover up a scandal involving his son (again) would be a "thing of entertainment", it's highly questionable whether it has any monetary value.
Now, admittedly you may have missed a couple of those points as I've added them gradually since I'm at work right now and not in a position to write an essay for you.
There's also a very good reason why I insisted on the strictly monetary value as an alternative to quid pro quo, and it has to do with evidentiary standard - I can indulge you in that regard as well if it will provide you some further entertainment. I figured that it doesn't really pertain specifically to this thread and rather to the overall concept of "value" - I didn't think it necessary to stray that far off topic, I can tell that you're clever enough to pick up on details like that.EDIT 2: Come to think of it, I may as well post the explanation of my reasoning since you're both inquisitive and polite, plus we're already discussing this anyway. The answer to your uncertainty was alluded to in my responses and is echoed by the DOJ's response, and it pertains to the ability to quantify value. In order to declare something as a "thing of value" one needs to exhibit evidence of said value that enable you to quantify it - that's the standard. The campaign finance law explicitly refers to finance, as the name implies. It pertains to contributions and objects that can be valued monetarily which aid a campaign in its election efforts. Since we do not have a monetary value stated, or that value is hard to quantify, we have to fall back to other methods of quantifying assets, which is where quid pro quo and leveraging power comes into play - let me explain. Assuming that the word "favor" wasn't used as a figure of speech, the allegedly solicited information would have to necessarily be reciprocated in order for the value to be quantifiable. The president would have to state that the reinstatement of financial aid was conditional on receiving information damaging to Biden's campaign *or* he would have to use his position in order to issue a threat, either scenario would quantify the value of the information as "worth giving aid to Ukraine" or "worth threatening Ukraine for". Since quid pro quo was not established and both parties involved state that power was not leveraged against Ukraine, so much so that the Ukrainian government was unaware of the reasoning behind freezing financial aid and did not feel threatened in any way, it's a hard sell. In the absence of the two only monetary value would classify as quantifiable, and we do not have that kind of estimate. I hope that you will find this explanation more illuminating in regards to my position, although I am by no means an expert on the subject. What I can say is that as far as criminality is concerned, it's not a referendum on whether the move was "scummy" or not, it's a referendum on whether it was legal. I called your statement conclusory because you defined the information that was allegedly requested as a "thing of value", which is a conclusion that we do lack the evidence to support - it wasn't a dig at you. Everything I've said to you was "meant to be there". Naturally impeachment proceedings do not hinge on the legality of the president's actions, but that's not what we were discussing here.
Last edited by Foxi4,
I'm just so over Trump. He's so obviously corrupt. Will he be impeached? Probably. Will the Senate vote to convict him? Not likely. I doubt Moscow Mitch will even try to try him.I just don't get what people see in Trump. I really don't.
Something I read this morning.
I must have missed this in the constant news streams that come out.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-...ten-foreigners-offered-dirt/story?id=63669304
Now I'm curious. This interview occurred a month prior to the Ukraine call. Is this just a coincidence? Would it be damning in a court of opinion that had to determine whether or not he was not seeking Oppo research?
---
I'm discussing what he potential intent could be. I've heard different sides thus far but still like to see if others agree with Trump's point of view stated in this interview.
----
The other thing I haven't seen anyone discuss on the news - https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-remains-open-business-despite-lack-quorum/
I wonder how this impacts current events. Would the FEC disagree with DOJ and actually push to assert that there is 'a thing of value' in the Ukraine call if it had the capacity to do so? Mueller didn't seek to prosecute Trump Jr. on that FEC law because of the ambiguity during the Trump tower meeting. But I wonder if there is a court case we could refer to. I haven't found one yet, but I also haven't spent much time looking.
I must have missed this in the constant news streams that come out.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-...ten-foreigners-offered-dirt/story?id=63669304
Now I'm curious. This interview occurred a month prior to the Ukraine call. Is this just a coincidence? Would it be damning in a court of opinion that had to determine whether or not he was not seeking Oppo research?
---
I'm discussing what he potential intent could be. I've heard different sides thus far but still like to see if others agree with Trump's point of view stated in this interview.
----
The other thing I haven't seen anyone discuss on the news - https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-remains-open-business-despite-lack-quorum/
I wonder how this impacts current events. Would the FEC disagree with DOJ and actually push to assert that there is 'a thing of value' in the Ukraine call if it had the capacity to do so? Mueller didn't seek to prosecute Trump Jr. on that FEC law because of the ambiguity during the Trump tower meeting. But I wonder if there is a court case we could refer to. I haven't found one yet, but I also haven't spent much time looking.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,004
- Trophies
- 1
- Location
- Site 19
- Website
- catgirlsin.space
- XP
- 3,441
- Country
It probably wouldn't help his case I think. I don't think it'd be damning though.
Funny thing is the moment he became President we were already talking about impeachment. They waited this long to make the public media aware of it?
Im still trying to figure out how he still in office this long after offending/insulting women and the Hispanic race. The guy is just a celebrity in the world of politics that doesn't choose his words carefully.
Im still trying to figure out how he still in office this long after offending/insulting women and the Hispanic race. The guy is just a celebrity in the world of politics that doesn't choose his words carefully.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,004
- Trophies
- 1
- Location
- Site 19
- Website
- catgirlsin.space
- XP
- 3,441
- Country
The problem is that the Republicans have been like this for a while, Trump just stopped pretending he isn't (and the rest of the Republican party followed suit after they determined that they could just stop pretending and still hold most of their base). The Democrats don't want to risk doing it because if done in the wrong situation, it could bolster Trumps base.
My guess is that this was an issue that the general public would understand easy enough to not risk it backfiring on the Democrats so they could follow through on it without it backfiring (the collusion investigation was doctored in the end almost entirely by the Republicans in it's repsonse, hence the lack of a followthrough for the Democrats since that would just solidify Trumps base in that the evil dems are out to get them!!1! (never mind the fact that Robert Mueller is a registered republican)).
It seems that they were right since the FOX propaganda machine is kind-of really failing at spinning this in a way that doesn't backfire at them instantly.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,757
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,588
- Country
Support for impeachment is now as high as 55% in some polls, with those who disapprove of impeachment at 45%. Support for impeachment and removal from office is split evenly at 47% versus 47% who disapprove of the notion.
Meanwhile, Giuliani, Pence, Pompeo, and Barr have all been implicated in the Ukraine scandal in one fashion or another. Barr has also reportedly been "touring the world" in search of a foreign ally to help discredit the Mueller report, though he's seemingly found little to no success. The Trump administration's desperation to find a viable distraction is palpable.
Meanwhile, Giuliani, Pence, Pompeo, and Barr have all been implicated in the Ukraine scandal in one fashion or another. Barr has also reportedly been "touring the world" in search of a foreign ally to help discredit the Mueller report, though he's seemingly found little to no success. The Trump administration's desperation to find a viable distraction is palpable.
Similar threads
Saturday dude. 
JM 