President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

demfad

26000 Elephants wrote: »

My point I was making (albeit mostly in my head!) was that it was Comeys letter that threw the election for Trump. All the 'interventions' by the kremlin or otherwise ( which will be difficult to prove) had failed to impact the result as much as this single event. I have had trouble understanding Comeys motives, and this article goes some ways towards explaining that.

I'm not sure I agree with you re the 'interventions'.
The worst revelation that came out about Trump was arguably the 'pussy grab' tape. Look at everything starting to come out know.

The hacks and dumps tied the media up sifting through Clinton emails.
It also split the democrat vote forcing Bernie support away from Clinton in presedential election.
Jill Stein was backed up by Spicer etc as an alternative place to put votes for democrats believing the corrupt Hillary propaganda. Stein was invited to Moscow for same event as Mike Flynn for this purpose.
All of this kept Trump barely in the race.
There was a hacker arrested in Prague 2 months ago. Rumour has it that its for hacking Wieners laptop not the DNC server which would mean that the 'knock out' blow was planned.
Hacks, Dumps, media diversions, fake news, SM trolls etc kept Trump just about standing until the 10th round where the armed him with a knock out punch. We will see.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Bottom line… What we found out from the hearing was the core claim underlying Trump’s tweets is true... That people acting on the authority of Obama opened an investigation into Trump’s campaign. Then someone criminally leaked information to news outlets in an attempt to derail his election.

Wait can you back any of this up? I mean all of it because Trump's core statement was that he was wiretapped.

Also that any investigation was ordered by Obama.

Or that it was politically motivated.

Or have you taken the closest thing to Trump's statement, that he was under investigation by the fbi due to suspicious contact between his team and the Russians and twisted to argue Trump was correct?

Leroy42

Amerika wrote: »

Oh, come on. This is what is important… the parsing of words? :rolleyes:

Bottom line… What we found out from the hearing was the core claim underlying Trump’s tweets is true... That people acting on the authority of Obama opened an investigation into Trump’s campaign. Then someone criminally leaked information to news outlets in an attempt to derail his election.

Why was Comey investigating the Trump campaign in the first place? Where did Comey get the idea to investigate the Trump campaign? We know the Hillary Clinton campaign also had contact with the Russians. Was there also an investigation into her campaign? If not, why not. And most importantly... Who criminally leaked the information to news outlets? These are big questions that need to be answered.

One thing we can agree on, and that’s Trump and the newspapers that printed the story agree… Obama was investigating him.

Obama's hands appear to be all over this. Whether they can find any proof that leads back to him is another story. But one thing they apparently got wrong is... If you're going to pull off these kind of dirty deeds you better damn well make sure your gal wins.

1st off, I am still massively surprised that anyone can have such a disregard for a democracy that are willing to overlook the possibility of foreign interference. To think that internal interference should take precedence in any investigation is mindboggling. That does not mean that internal interference should be acceptable, but when faced with the possibility of both of them you seem to think that the bigger threat is coming from HC and Obama rather than Russia.

Anyway, back to your post.

Amerika wrote: »

Bottom line… What we found out from the hearing was the core claim underlying Trump’s tweets is true...

Sorry, but Comey clearly stated that he had no evidence to back up any part of the claim, and National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers said that claims of GCHQ were involved were totally false.

Amerika wrote: »

That people acting on the authority of Obama opened an investigation into Trump’s campaign.

Well, all you have is that people who were in charge of the FBI at the time Obama was president undertook an investigation. Where is the proof that Obama even knew of it, no less authorised it?

Amerika wrote: »

Then someone criminally leaked information to news outlets in an attempt to derail his election.

When did the leaks about the investigation come out? Before the election? There were rumours of links but had someone actually stated that an investigation was under way? When was this?

Amerika wrote: »

Why was Comey investigating the Trump campaign in the first place?

i know you are asking this in a way to try to highlight bias, but really this is the key question. Why has the FBI been investigating Trump since July? WHy are they still investigating him? The POTUS is actively being investigated for collusion with a foreign power, and not any foreign power, but one of the USA's biggest threats.

Amerika wrote: »

Where did Comey get the idea to investigate the Trump campaign?

That really is a big question. To actively set up an investigation into a candidate for POTUS during a campaign. I reckon it must be a first. Comey would not give details but my guess is that they didn't do it simply to have something to do.

Amerika wrote: »

We know the Hillary Clinton campaign also had contact with the Russians.

Are you alleging that HC was being helped by the Russians. Comey did not state this yesterday, there is no investigation.

Amerika wrote: »

Was there also an investigation into her campaign? If not, why not.

possibly because to date there has been little to suggest that HC was working to the benefit of the Russians.

Amerika wrote: »

And most importantly... Who criminally leaked the information to news outlets? These are big questions that need to be answered.

Ok, lets run with this for a second. Lets agree, that this is the most important aspect of all this. Comey comes out and says it was Mr Ar. Now what? What possible difference does that make? Either the investigation is right or it isn't. All that would do is scare of any potential future whistleblowers. Does it really matter who calls the cops to report a crime if when the cops get there a crime is being committed?

Amerika wrote: »

One thing we can agree on, and that’s Trump and the newspapers that printed the story agree… Obama was investigating him.

Really? The press have been stating that Obama was investigating Trump? Can you provide a link a few of these as I haven't seen any. I have seen plenty that state that Comey has stated that the FBI was investigating Trump.

Amerika

demfad wrote: »

Can you please reference the part in bold from the hearing yesterday and teh newspapers mentioned?
This is not part of FBI procedure (as outlined by Director Comey) nor was it 'found out' yesterday. As far as I can see what you are claiming as truth is patently false.

Because Comey noted there has been an investigation into the Trump organization since July 2016... And as Harry Truman once famously said "The buck stops" here. We know Obama got daily briefings. And this would have been part of them. Did he ask if Hillary's organization was also being investigated so as to not give the appearance of any impropriety with an open-ended investigation of a candidate’s campaign during an election season. There have been news accounts that point to John Brennan, Obama's the most partisan political appointees, as the instigator of the multi-agency investigation into Trump. For the life of me I don't understand why Republicans didn't grill Comey on this and other important factors. The GOP in Congress have become a bunch of wimps letting the investigation get away with focusing on the parsing of particular wording used by Trump rather than the context behind it, IMO.

Manic Moran

BoatMad wrote: »

The US issue isnt its effectiveness of its military , its the mess it leaves the world to clean up after it goes home. ( see Iraq, Syria, Egypt , Libya, Israel , etc ) perhaps its a good thing it cant fight such warm eh.

What happened in the past happened in the past. China doesn't care about whether or not Egypt or Libya are messes, what it cares about is what can influence anything in the Chinese area of interest. South Korea couldn't care less about Syria's current condition when it has DPRK to worry about. Same happens for every other country. US commitments to places like Korea and Europe need to be assessed on the basis of the merits of those commitments to places like Korea and Europe. Iraq and Syria do not enter the equation.

Trumps comments were not well received because like almost everything he spouts , he is wrong ( he is wrong on Germany contribution for example ) thats what annoyed the Nato allies , not the issue itself

The concerns started long before this week's very incorrect comments about Germany owing anyone money. They started when he (correctly) observed that most NATO countries were not actually committing the 2% target that was pledged back in 2006, and that maybe the US should 'reconsider' it NATO relationship. The US SecDef told NATO defense ministers last month that the US would "moderate its commitment to the alliance" if the other countries didn't pull their weight. The German defense minister has stated that the US has a "Fair demand" ( http://www.dw.com/en/us-request-for-nato-spending-boost-a-fair-demand-german-defense-minister-says/a-37505631 ) , and that the German military needs a bigger budget to meet it. ( http://www.dw.com/en/ursula-von-der-leyen-calls-for-more-defense-spending-ahead-of-nato-summit/a-37558058 ) . From the article "Her proposal is an extremely unpopular one in Germany, even as the army suffers from the consequences of outdated equipment and lack of resources."

I knew you'd nit pick this , I was comparing the overall response in New Orleans which was nothing short of shamefull

Agreed, but not because of the hardware which was available for dispatch.

as an aside , EUNAVFOR had a bigger naval presence then the US in the same waters, should it desire , the EU can easily equip itself with military hardware and is possibly the only grouping that matches it technically if not numerically

Isn't that the problem, though? There aren't enough of them. EU ops off Somalia happened as a result of a planned deployment. The US response to Japan happened because the US had enough ships that they were already there. (And, because they were doing a disaster relief exercise at the time, were also loaded up for it). Plus it can certainly be argued whether a Horizon or Daring is as capable as an Arleigh Burke, before one observes that the UK is getting six Darings (without missiles!) while the US is at 66 Burkes and still building.

re-arming can be accomplished very very quickly once a desire exists , WW2 demonstrated that in droves

It did? What country, if any, re-armed in less than two years of crash building? And that's before you get to the intensity levels of modern war. You remember that infamous "You go to war with the Army you have" comment? It may have been infamous, but it's not wrong. Modern equipment is also a tad more complicated to build build, you can't just re-tool GM's Muncie plant on the fly to make tanks instead of locomotives like they did in WW2.

of course , thats not in question , but given the need, Europe has the money and technical capability to arm itself to any extent needed, all it needs is a desire .

Agreed. But it doesn't have that desire, despite the publicly stated need. Yet the US is being lambasted for having a large defense budget because it actually is showing the desire to meet the need. This seems to underline Trump's original point: The US is shouldering a lot of the weight and other nations are coasting because of it.

Call me Al

The Republicans did grill Comey on this. Comey was quite specific with his answer when he explained that Putin hates HC and has done so for years.In fact both witnesses stated this.
Their take on it was that their dislike of HC would be motive enough for them to interfere, but especially for an opponent of hers that they liked.

Leroy42

So Amerika, what you really mean is that Obama knew and didn't tell anyone? Do you think Obama should have broken confidentiality to leak the news, I would say not since you think that is the major question.

Do you think he should have stepped in to stop the investigation? For the POTUS to become actively involved in a potential criminal investigation?

If Obama did know, then fair play to him for keeping quite about it. If he had mentioned it, it would have blown Trump and possibly the GOP out of the water.

Just like he didn't get involved in the HC investigation. That is a far cry from authorising the investigation, or authorising wire taps.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Because Comey noted there has been an investigation into the Trump organization since July 2016... And as Harry Truman once famously said "The buck stops" here. We know Obama got daily briefings. And this would have been part of them. Did he ask if Hillary's organization was also being investigated so as to not give the appearance of any impropriety with an open-ended investigation of a candidate’s campaign during an election season. There have been news accounts that point to John Brennan, Obama's the most partisan political appointees, as the instigator of the multi-agency investigation into Trump. For the life of me I don't understand why Republicans didn't grill Comey on this and other important factors. The GOP in Congress have become a bunch of wimps letting the investigation get away with focusing on the parsing of particular wording used by Trump rather than the context behind it, IMO.

Wait what should Obama have done when Comey came to him and said the Trump campaign is under investigation? To me he should keep quiet and let the investigation run its own course. Which he did. He can hardly stop for the sake of the election now can he, imagine the uproar if he had stopped the investigation into the Clinton emails!

You give vague hints at a conspiracy to avoid solidly saying what you think happened and what was done wrong. Trump started this by saying he was wiretapped which is at best unclear and realistically an outright lie.

Now you are saying investigation mumble mumble Obama knew about it mumble mumble. I need those mumbles filled in to find any coherent argument as what exactly you feel Obama did wrong because you have yet to state it.

Chips Lovell

Hi everyone,
Can I remind people to familiarise themselves with the charter, specifically:

Deliberately misleading posts or posters aiming to spread misinformation will be sanctioned. We do not expect posters to be experts in all areas, however, the onus is on all posters to fact check their information. If a poster is corrected, or information corrected in a thread, any poster who continues to relate misinformation as fact will be sanctioned.

I know everyone has their own opinion on events and statements but there's a line between that and outright misrepresentation and a few people have been crossing that line. It doesn't serve the debate well if even obvious facts are being disputed.

Thank you

wildgreen

The Great One must be short of dollars:

The United States has renewed its demand for Cambodia to repay a war debt of $500m amid President Donald Trump's push to improve the State budget. Such a demand has met with an outcry from Cambodian political leaders and their people, who have consistently called the debt "dirty" and "blood stained".

Billy86

Leroy42 wrote: »

Am I reading this right, did Comey confirm that not only was there an investigation into Trump and possible Russian ties but that the investigation had actually begun back in July 2016?

Why did he mention the review of HC e-mails but stay schtum about Trump?

Comey seemed to anticipate that this would cause some concern so added that they were different, since one was already closed.

Now since he says that the Russia investigation would not end for quite some time one can only deduce that the HC was already closed, in which case why did he not state that clearly in his letter?

Has an election ever had to be rerun as this one looks like it was interfered with all over the place.

That's a question people have been asking for months, Comey has a heavily rumoured hatred of the Clintons and is a GOP type of guy that has been investigating them for years and years, hence his own breaking of the law by going out of his way to influence the election (and polls showed a 40 or so percent swing in the 10 days afterwards). Much like Trump supporters still blindly defending everything he says and does because of the (R) beside, he put party before country and hopefully will face his own time answering questions in front of potential prosecutors on that.

His statement to congress was actually about the Clinton case being reopened, but when you have as weak and lazy a media as seen in the US, you know they won't question that kind of thing. Kind of like when the Mike Flynn/Russia story broke, it was huge news... especially because Trump & co were made aware of it when it was reported several weeks earlier and just brushed over.

Peregrinus

BoatMad wrote: »

different situation , hard criminal case , Nixon of course resigned , he was not actually impeached

Nixon resigned because he saw, and was told by all his advisers, that he had reached a point where impeachment was inevitable if he did not resign.

It's worth remembering that, right up to the bitter end, according to the opinion polls Nixon still enjoyed majority support among Republican voters (much as Trump still does, despite his best efforts). But in the end that didn't matter; the support he needed was not the support of Republican voters, but the support of Congressmen. And he had lost that.

And here we come to the signficant difference from today. In 1974, the Democrats enjoyed a majority both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. Right now, the opposite is the case. That doesn't make it impossible to impeach Trump successfully, but it does make it very difficult.

And in some ways, Trump's own egregious behaviour has made it even more difficult. Through "salami tactics", with a series of increasingly outrageous steps, Trump has demonstrated that he is unfitted for the office he holds, but he has still managed to secure the nomination of his party, and its support in Congress, because none of his steps, viewed individually, have been so outrageous as to make the party say "enough is enough". And the result is we end up with a President who has established that he can act in a way that, two years ago, we would have said was wholly unacceptable in a President, and yet still retain the support of his party. Given what they have been able to stomach up to now, it's hard to see what Trump could do at this stage that would make his party turn on him.

Billy86

I still couldn't see Trump stepping down on his own accord to be honest. Nixon from what I understand was nothing if not pragmatic, I don't think anything along those lines can be said about true p.

Nody

Billy86 wrote: »

I still couldn't see Trump stepping down on his own accord to be honest. Nixon from what I understand was nothing if not pragmatic, I don't think anything along those lines can be said about true p.

Trump is well known for running away and paying to not have to take responsibility (see Trump university as the latest example) so I can easily see him agree to stand down over being kicked out for example. He'll see it as protecting his name by "choosing" to resign rather than being fired and hence humiliated; it would also cause the Republicans least damage. He can retire on "health grounds" and to "spend more time with the family during his/their last days" or something along those lines.

Billy86

Nody wrote: »

Trump is well known for running away and paying to not have to take responsibility (see Trump university as the latest example) so I can easily see him agree to stand down over being kicked out for example. He'll see it as protecting his name by "choosing" to resign rather than being fired and hence humiliated; it would also cause the Republicans least damage. He can retire on "health grounds" and to "spend more time with the family during his/their last days" or something along those lines.

The thing is, he'll often do that to avoid looking bad by losing the case, with Trump university for example it just got a quick mention for a day or two after settling and was given - had he lost (which we all know he would have) then it would have got tonnes of publicity. With the heightened paranoia he is showing and his rhetoric the last year of two,plus the fact a resignation would get as much attention as an impeachment at this stage (didn't exactly help people forget about Nixon quicker either), I can't see him doing the same since resigning would be an admission of defeat and still very, very public. He'd rather claim the system was rigged against him and the judge was Obama in a mission missile style face mask (come to think of it he probably would claim that).

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nixon resigned because he saw, and was told by all his advisers, that he had reached a point where impeachment was inevitable if he did not resign.

It's worth remembering that, right up to the bitter end, according to the opinion polls Nixon still enjoyed majority support among Republican voters (much as Trump still does, despite his best efforts). But in the end that didn't matter; the support he needed was not the support of Republican voters, but the support of Congressmen. And he had lost that.

And here we come to the signficant difference from today. In 1974, the Democrats enjoyed a majority both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. Right now, the opposite is the case. That doesn't make it impossible to impeach Trump successfully, but it does make it very difficult.

And in some ways, Trump's own egregious behaviour has made it even more difficult. Through "salami tactics", with a series of increasingly outrageous steps, Trump has demonstrated that he is unfitted for the office he holds, but he has still managed to secure the nomination of his party, and its support in Congress, because none of his steps, viewed individually, have been so outrageous as to make the party say "enough is enough". And the result is we end up with a President who has established that he can act in a way that, two years ago, we would have said was wholly unacceptable in a President, and yet still retain the support of his party. Given what they have been able to stomach up to now, it's hard to see what Trump could do at this stage that would make his party turn on him.

I think it will be a case of something revealed that he has done or his campaign has done.
The Republican party has been hyper partisan for a long time now. When they were the plaintiffs in the Benghazi investigations (12 of them) leaks were not an issue and were encouraged. When it was revealed on Monday that several of the Trump campaign team were under investigation (for espionage) they were more concerned with the source of the leaks.
That bears out your point. What is different to Nixon is that the claim here relates to collusion with a foreign hostile power.
That brings allies into the equation and that brings up the possibility that the US government is under foreign hostile influence. That cant be ignored.
The first day of the House Intel committee was Trumps worst day as president.
Paul Manafort, who was Trumps campaign manager has just hired a 'crisis' lawyer. Spicer said yesterday that Manafort only played a minor role (campaign manager).
There is bad news coming and lots of it. This will happen sooner than people think and if the Republicans want their party to survive they wont be able to ignore it.

demfad

Amerika wrote: »

Because Comey noted there has been an investigation into the Trump organization since July 2016... And as Harry Truman once famously said "The buck stops" here. We know Obama got daily briefings. And this would have been part of them.

Again can you reference from the speech yesterday where Comey outlined that the procedure for FISA investigations involved getting permission from the US president and giving him daily briefings. He outlined quite clearly that the procedure had nothing to do with the president.
For example, Donald Trump would not have been officially aware that there was a FISA investigation until Monday. Where was the outcry?
Can you please stop stating falsehoods as facts?

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Amerika will be taking a break from this forum.

Water John

The tipping point will be when it's in the GOP's interest as the lesser damage of two evils, to move Pence to POTUS rather than leave Trump continue there.

This will either be the issue of foreign power influence or simply the severe damage that might await them in the mid terms.

This point was clearly made by the Dems at the hearing. That a Republican would still be POTUS. That is the line that will be constantly drip fed until it will become the predominant narrative.

Quin_Dub

Water John wrote: »

The tipping point will be when it's in the GOP's interest as the lesser damage of two evils, to move Pence to POTUS rather than leave Trump continue there.

This will either be the issue of foreign power influence or simply the severe damage that might await them in the mid terms.

This point was clearly made by the Dems at the hearing. That a Republican would still be POTUS. That is the line that will be constantly drip fed until it will become the predominant narrative.

Genuine Procedural question here..

I get that if Trump is impeached/steps down Pence takes over , but what would happen if Pence was also implicated (I don't think that it is , just thinking hypothetically) ?

Does it go to Paul Ryan or would it force a new election?

BoatMad

. Given what they have been able to stomach up to now, it's hard to see what Trump could do at this stage that would make his party turn on him.

I agree, Trump will not resign and will not be impeached

The interesting thing will be the mod term elections , thats were the apple cart may be seriously upset

Peregrinus

Trump has a long history of abandoning projects when he loses interest in them or when they stop going his way. I recall before he announced his vice-presidential nominee one of the seasoned commentators - can't remember who, I'm afraid - saying that people should pay particular attention to his vice-president, because there was an above-average chance that he would become president.

Regular readers of this thread will know that I have a low opinion of Trump, and his fitness for the office to which a cynical providence has raised him. If I'm right, then Trump will in fact find being President a difficult and unpleasant experience. His psychological defence mechanisms will be constantly challenged by the brutal reality of that office in a way that they never have been before, and and some point something has to give.

One possible outcome is that Trump quits in a huff, essentially flouncing out because the American people don't deserve him, don't appreciate him as they ought to, don't love him unconditionally as Mommy should. Frankly, I don't think that's very likely, but it's possible.

Another possibilty is that Trump increasingly becomes a figurehead, with real executive direction and policymaking being handed over to Pence and others. Trump does the photo-ops, and continues with his bizarre non-election election rallies, which I think massage his ego in a way that he finds necessary to maintain his self-esteem. For this to work, I think there'll have to be a compromise; Trump can posture all he likes, provided he doesn't posture in a way which makes the real work done by his VP and others more difficult. So no more claims about being phone-tapped; no more abusing US allies; no more making foreign policy up on the fly. But you can pretty much open the throttle on tweets of the self-congratulatory kind, Mr. President.

Nody

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Genuine Procedural question here..

I get that if Trump is impeached/steps down Pence takes over , but what would happen if Pence was also implicated (I don't think that it is , just thinking hypothetically) ?

Does it go to Paul Ryan or would it force a new election?

It goes down the list of successions.
No. Office Current officer
1 Vice President Mike Pence (R)
2 Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan (R)
3 President pro tempore of the Senate Orrin Hatch (R)
4 Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (R)
5 Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin (R)
6 Secretary of Defense James Mattis (I)
7 Attorney General Jeff Sessions (R)
8 Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke (R)
– Secretary of Agriculture Mike Young (D)[a]
9 Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross (R)
– Secretary of Labor Ed Hugler (I)[a]
10 Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price (R)
11 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson (R)
– Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao (R)
12 Secretary of Energy Rick Perry (R)
13 Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos (R)
14 Secretary of Veterans Affairs David Shulkin (I)
15 Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly (I)

Water John

If there is a link established between Trump and a hostile foreign power, then he is toast. GOP won't stand for it.

BoatMad

Water John wrote: »

If there is a link established between Trump and a hostile foreign power, then he is toast. GOP won't stand for it.

no actual fire will be found and in the meantime the GOP has no stomach for this and it will die away

Peregrinus

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Genuine Procedural question here..

I get that if Trump is impeached/steps down Pence takes over , but what would happen if Pence was also implicated (I don't think that it is , just thinking hypothetically) ?

Does it go to Paul Ryan or would it force a new election?

Pence would have to be separately impeached.

Something like this almost happened in 1974, when Nixon's Vice-President Spiro Agnew had to go (turned out he'd been accepting brown paper bags full of cash in his previous role as Governor of Maryland) and Gerald Ford was appointed VP. Nixon then had to go for unrelated reasons and, lo, Ford became President even though he hadn't even been on the ticket in 1972.

If Trump is successfully impeached, Pence becomes President and gets to nominate a new VP. If Pence is then successfully impeached that new VP gets the gig.

If it happens the other way around - Pence impeached first - then it's Trump who gets to nominate the new VP. Upon Trump's impeachment that VP again becomes President.

Billy86

Water John wrote: »

If there is a link established between Trump and a hostile foreign power, then he is toast. GOP won't stand for it.

If they feel it won't harm their election chances, I think they will. The last few weeks if nothing else have shown that much if the GOP couldn't care less about America or their constituents, just their own personal gain and the letter (R), and they're not even trying to hide it.

Zubeneschamali

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Genuine Procedural question here..

I get that if Trump is impeached/steps down Pence takes over , but what would happen if Pence was also implicated (I don't think that it is , just thinking hypothetically) ?

During Nixon's 2nd term, Spiro Agnew was the elected VP. He resigned because of non-Watergate corruption, and Gerald Ford was appointed VP without an election.

Then when Nixon resigned, Ford became President (again without an election).

So Pence could take over, appoint Amerika VP and then be implicated and have to resign later, making Amerika president without an election.

demfad

Another body blow to the Trump administration breaking:

Yesterday Sean Spicer seemed to distance the Trump campaign from former campaign manager Paul Manafort saying the campaign manager of 4 months only had a small role in the campaign.

Today a story has broken showing why Spicer made that unusual statement.

President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics, The Associated Press has learned. The work appears to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests.

Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics to benefit the Putin government, even as U.S.-Russia relations under Republican President George W. Bush grew worse. Manafort pitched the plans to Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a $10 million annual contract beginning in 2006, according to interviews with several people familiar with payments to Manafort and business records obtained by the AP. Manafort and Deripaska maintained a business relationship until at least 2009, according to one person familiar with the work.

"We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success," Manafort wrote in the 2005 memo to Deripaska. The effort, Manafort wrote, "will be offering a great service that can re-focus, both internally and externally, the policies of the Putin government."

Manafort is apparently also wanted in Ukraine for money laundering.

A lot of the evidence against the Trump team is circumstantial (apparently).
But Trump (and Manafort) has stated that Manafort had no dealings with Russia.
Now not alone has Manafort lied about dealings with Russia but the dealings were to directly help Putin outside of Russia including the USA.
We may be getting close to the first human domino about to fall.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

. . . So Pence could take over, appoint Amerika VP and then be implicated and have to resign later, making Amerika president without an election.

The new VP has to be confirmed by the Senate, and in circumstances were one of Trump/Pence has just been impeached for taking the Kremlin's rouble and the other is about to be, you can't assume even a Republican-controlled Senate would rubber-stamp whatever cowboy was put before them. It would be hard not to nominate someone capable of rebuilding trust - i.e. one completely untainted by association with, or support for, Trump/Pence. And in the last analysis the Senate could refuse to approve a nominee it didn't like and let the office eventually fall to Ryan.