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

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

I see this line trotted out and it amazes me each time. it seems the narrative is being driven, and accepted by many, that this whole thing is just a dastardly plan to bring down Trump and the Drain the Swamp movement.

Firstly, there is no evidence, whatsoever, to back this claim up.
Second, if anything, Comey is pro Trump based on his actions regarding HC.
Thirdly, Comey stated that the investigation had begun last July, well before Trump had any reason to be feared or upsetting to the FBI/CIA.

This investigation has nothing to do with POTUS Trump, and everything to do with possible issues regarding Russia attempts to interfere. Given the clear links between Manafort, Flynn, Tillerson and Russia, and coupled with Trumps strange behaviour in basically calling out enemies all over the place but never once having anything bad to say about either Putin or Russia, it is not exactly a stretch to think that something could possibly be going on.

Now, its a long way from having some suspicions and actually it being true, but clearly all the circumstantial evidence is pointing to at least the possibility.

As POTUS, and the GOP being leaders of the House and Senate, they really owe it to the US people to get back confidence in the system. They appear, at present, to be going out of their way to rip it up.

I never suggested there was a conspiracy. You misunderstand my point because you assume that Comey and others who may be sympathetic to Trump are the only ones with access to, and control of, possible incriminating evidence. It only takes one (pissed off) person to leak damning information. I'm very confident that such intel will seep out into the public domain in time.

Water John

I think it will mainly be the multiple links and cooincidental actions which will build the case of collusion type contact.
It will reach the standard, of beyond reasonable doubt.

demfad

Water John wrote: »

I think it will mainly be the multiple links and cooincidental actions which will build the case of collusion type contact.
It will reach the standard, of beyond reasonable doubt.

Manafort is a key man. The Ukranians are investigating him as are the Americans. One of his oligarch sponsors Dmitri Firtash is in the process of being extradited to the US from Austria.
They dont have absolute proof of collusion now according to the CNN leaks. But they are not far off. All it will need is for one of the rats to talk and then the dominos will fall.
The list of people who would be called to testify before an independent investigation and special prosecutor is pretty long.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I never suggested there was a conspiracy. You misunderstand my point because you assume that Comey and others who may be sympathetic to Trump are the only ones with access to, and control of, possible incriminating evidence. It only takes one (pissed off) person to leak damning information. I'm very confident that such intel will seep out into the public domain in time.

I wasn't having a go at you, but the thinking behind the line.

I should have made that clearer (or clear!). I have heard that line trotted out in a few places and it is just a way to distract from the actual story.

Billy86

An interesting side development (or not-so-side development in the case of Breitbart, re Bannon - both the implications for him and the decision/timing to make him campaign manager when things got too hot around Manafort).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-treason-donald-trump-russia-us-election-alt-right-websites-george-w-bush-ethics-lawyer-a7644966.html

The man who served as former president George W Bush's most senior ethics lawyer has suggested that the FBI is "uncovering evidence of treason" by far right US news websites over their links with Russia.

Richard Painter tweeted a link to an article suggesting that the Bureau was looking into news outlets like Breitbart News, InfoWars and the Kremlin-backed RT News and Sputnik News, to see whether they worked with Russian-backed operatives to disseminate stories favouring Donald Trump during the presidential election. at times when his campaign appeared to be struggling.

Professor Moriarty

Billy86 wrote: »

An interesting side development (or not-so-side development in the case of Breitbart, re Bannon - both the implications for him and the decision/timing to make him campaign manager when things got too hot around Manafort).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-treason-donald-trump-russia-us-election-alt-right-websites-george-w-bush-ethics-lawyer-a7644966.html

It's fairly tenuous, but if Breibart is linked to this stuff then it's curtains for The Donald.

Billy86

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's fairly tenuous, but if Breibart is linked to this stuff then it's curtains for The Donald.

Ah yeah that's true, just found it all a bit interesting all the same. The dots are there on that particular one but unless there's more we don't know they don't necessarily connect.

Unlike, say, Trump's team repeatedly lying about Russia.

Nody

Looks like the Trumpcare bill vote is pushed forward as they could not get enough confirmed voters to get it through; I wonder how Trump will try to spin the failure to secure enough votes even from his own party.

Billy86

Nody wrote: »

Looks like the Trumpcare bill vote is pushed forward as they could not get enough confirmed voters to get it through; I wonder how Trump will try to spin the failure to secure enough votes even from his own party.

Going to be interesting to see how many attempts at backhanders are tried between now and whenever it is moved to, but this is going to be bad for their economy the longer it goes on.

"The Great Negotiator" Donald Trump appears to have no clothes.

Water John

Shy about 40 ATM. Scheduled for vote tomorrow morning probably.

DT will have a night's work to do.

His talking to the Truckers Associations was cringeworthy.

Leroy42

It will pass, the devil is the the detail on just what will be promised to get it through.

Too big a deal for Trump, and Ryan, to lose so it now is no longer about healthcare but that each Senator can get for themselves.

If Trump was back in corporate land he would have already walked away, but this won't cost him a penny so he can basically accept whatever.

The people who will be affected have no real voice anyway. There will be lots of arguments about just how many will lose out, 4 or 24 million. But therein lies the rub. Its millions of people are going to be worse off for no other reason than the GOP hates Obama and everything he did.

Billy86

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its millions of people are going to be worse off for no other reason than the GOP values their party far, far more than their country.

Did a quick edit there, and it applies to many of their voters too (including those who will lose out). I'm also on the side of thinking this will pass, the fallout will be interesting but will also down the line give an idea as to how many in the US would literally die before voting anything other than (R). Really hope 538 do a proper number crunch of that after the midterms if this does pass.

Water John

Its the House of Reps first. Whatever way a lot of them vote, they'll get it in the neck at town hall meetings, at the weekend.
Are they all up for election in 2018?

dudara

Nody wrote: »

Looks like the Trumpcare bill vote is pushed forward as they could not get enough confirmed voters to get it through; I wonder how Trump will try to spin the failure to secure enough votes even from his own party.

I suspect that this is the opening move from the GOP to see how far he will negotiate/concede to them to retain their support. I'm concerned that they'll ride him for the their own ends, gather than giving him the boot for the betterment of the country.

Billy86

Water John wrote: »

Its the House of Reps first. Whatever way a lot of them vote, they'll get it in the neck at town hall meetings, at the weekend.
Are they all up for election in 2018?

If I am correct, all of the house and about 1/3rd of the Senate (though mainly Democrat seats and only a small handful of Republican).

Christy42

Billy86 wrote: »

Did a quick edit there, and it applies to many of their voters too (including those who will lose out). I'm also on the side of thinking this will pass, the fallout will be interesting but will also down the line give an idea as to how many in the US would literally die before voting anything other than (R). Really hope 538 do a proper number crunch of that after the midterms if this does pass.

I do like that Obamacare has become more popular since the repeal threat came in seriously

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/this-health-care-bill-may-haunt-the-gop/

What people forget is that Obamacare was always judged in a vacuum and thus against people's preferances. Now that Republicans have to come up with something concrete to replace it with it brings into light how much of an achievement Obamacare was.

I really expected this to go through the house no bother though with the issues coming in the Senate.

Kitsunegari

Christy42 wrote: »

I do like that Obamacare has become more popular since the repeal threat came in seriously

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/this-health-care-bill-may-haunt-the-gop/

What people forget is that Obamacare was always judged in a vacuum and thus against people's preferances. Now that Republicans have to come up with something concrete to replace it with it brings into light how much of an achievement Obamacare was.

I really expected this to go through the house no bother though with the issues coming in the Senate.

Unfortunately, I think you're right. In an ideal world you wouldn't have to pander to corporate interests but the Democrats and Republicans have too many ties to insurance and pharmaceutical companies to pass a comprehensive act that benefits the majority of Americans.

I was heavily critical of Obamacare but you have to applaud Obama for being able to get something beneficial through Congress but it's still a highly flawed act.

If Trump had any brains he'd dump this bill on Ryan's lap. He knows this has no chance of passing so I'm not sure why he's being so vocal in supporting it.

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Unfortunately, I think you're right. In an ideal world you wouldn't have to pander to corporate interests but the Democrats and Republicans have too many ties to insurance and pharmaceutical companies to pass a comprehensive act that benefits the majority of Americans.

I was heavily critical of Obamacare but you have to applaud Obama for being able to get something beneficial through Congress but it's still a highly flawed act.

If Trump had any brains he'd dump this bill on Ryan's lap. He knows this has no chance of passing so I'm not sure why he's being so vocal in supporting it.

I agree Obamacare is flawed. As you say there are too many corporate interests in politics for a serious health Bill to pass for a long time. It is why I feel like Obamacare was such an achievement really.

Trump started supporting it before the public had read it and I feel like there is a serious chance he had not read it either. He got elected partially on a platform of repeal and replace so he needs some opinion on it. If he goes negative on this bill he needs to introduce his own.

He would then need to pass his own bill or look weak and like he can't do anything. A lot of work for someone who wants to spend the weekends playing golf.

Billy86

If I'm correct, lately Trump has been calling it Ryancare (his surrogate, Breitbart certainly has) while Ryan has been calling it Trumpcare and eagerly giving Donald praise for writing some of it. :pac:

Seven years these guys had, they just got too comfy being the party of 'no', and to be honest while it's just awful all round, the fact that it's going to typically hit red states worse is somewhat justified - this is what happens when you vote for something makes a lot of noise about what it's again but offers no alternative.

BabyCheeses

Trump sounded like he had an idea for a plan during one of the debates that would be cheaper and nobody would be worse off. Where did that plan go?

Billy86

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Trump sounded like he had an idea for a plan during one of the debates that would be cheaper and nobody would be worse off. Where did that plan go?

Was this in one of his "vote for me and I'll show you" moments? Not that that's the go to catchphrase for the majority of con artists out there or anything...

Professor Moriarty

Kitsunegari wrote:

If Trump had any brains he'd dump this bill on Ryan's lap. He knows this has no chance of passing so I'm not sure why he's being so vocal in supporting it.

The key to understanding Trump's behaviour is this: Trump is stupid. If he had not been born into a very wealthy family, he would be a nobody.

wonderfullife

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I think it would be extremely tough to prove that involvement by the Trump camp with the Russians would amount to treason?

You would think so. EXCEPT:

Team Trump all share one thing in common - they are absolute idiots. In the corporate world, they became successful due to a) daddy's millions b) threat of litigation c) bankruptcy protection.

Masterminds they are not.

Trump has been a friend of Roger Stone since the 1970's and Manafort became friends with Stone in the late 1970's. This whole 'I barely knew them' thing won't wash. Stone's involvements in business with Trump were predominantly in "advisory capacity" on things like Trump Steaks, Trump Casino etc. i.e. Most of everything he declared bankruptcy on.

Genius he isn't.

So, at the time of the Russian hacking, when even his inner circle felt he would lose...... IF Manafort and Page use their many Russian dodgy links to tell the Russians when to dump the emails through wikileaks and DCLeaks, it's likely they didn't cover their tracks too well. Why? They thought he'd lose and it'd never be a factor.

That might sound pretty difficult to prove other than the fact, again, Manafort and Page are not the sharpest tools and likely left a trail.

Even if the above supposition is true, you might ask so what? Well, If the Trump Campaign Manager was colluding with Russian Intelligence to co-ordinate the release of hacked emails etc then that meets the very definition of TREASON - which is to betray your own country in favour of another country.

Proving even Manafort and Page colluded would bring down Team Trump as there's no way they could survive the Indictments on those two.

Adam Schiff is getting increasingly cocky and confident in his PUBLIC statements lately. Diane Feinstein received the top secret briefing and was barely able to contain herself - "Trump will resign" she predicted. John McCain, well connected everywhere, keep smirking and promising shoes to drop off the centipede.

My point is, Schiff in particular - a talented prosecutor - has already said he has seen enough for a Grand Jury. ALREADY.

It's no coincidence the GOP is rushing through a train-wreck of a healthcare repeal, Muslim Bans, regulatory reform etc as they are on the clock to get their program through before the sh1t hits the fan - whether it's the 2018 election season or the Russia stuff bringing down Trump.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The key to understanding Trump's behaviour is this: Trump is stupid. If he had not been born into a very wealthy family, he would be a nobody.

What gave you that impression?

Peregrinus

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Trump sounded like he had an idea for a plan during one of the debates that would be cheaper and nobody would be worse off. Where did that plan go?

So far as I know, he never actually said he had a plan. He said he would have a plan, but that's not quite the same thing.

(When it actually came to putting a plan together, after the election, it turned out that healthcare is quite complicated. Even Trump's towering intellect and mastery of detail were challenged by the task. Well, goodness me!)

What he did have, during the campaign, was (a) stated objectives for his plan, and (b) stated elements of his plan.

His stated objectives included:

- "I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now."

- "Insurance for everybody.” Cover even for those who can't afford to pay for it - "“There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”

- "Much lower deductibles." (A deductible is what we in Ireland call an excess - i.e. the amount you have to pay yourself before your insurance cover kicks in.)

State elements of the plan included:

- a right to buy insurance across state lines (i.e. you don't have to buy from an insurer in your own state).

- making premiums tax-deductible (instead of giving a tax credit)

- no cuts to medicaid

- improved transparency in insurance costs, to make it easier for people to shop around for the best deal

To my not very great surprise, the Bill now before Congress doesn't achieve, or make progress towards, any of the policy objectives listed above, and doesn't include any of the components listed above.

I'm clearly not the only person unsurprised by this, because there has been, as you point out, relatively little fuss about it. Basically, nobody ever expected that Trump was going to do what he said he would do in regard to health. Or, at best, those who did expect it are the kind of people whose views just don't matter to the American political establishment, so their feelings about this plan are not noted or commented on.

Peregrinus

Just to add: Although there has been relatively little fuss about the fact, Trump's healthcare plan is unpopular. It is, in fact, more unpopular than Obamacare.

And this is what's scaring the Republicans in the house. History shows that when controversial healthcare plans are proposed by a new administration, the electorate punishes the administration party at the midterm elections. This is what happened with Obamacare in 2009, and with Hillarycare in 1993; in both cases, the controversy continued and the Democrats were creamed in the following year's elections. (And Hillarycare wasn't even passed!) Yet both Obamacare and Hillarycare were more popular, when first proposed, than Trumpcare is now. Is it any wonder the Republicans are taking fright? If they pass this Bill, they have every reason to expect that the electorate will punish them.

Trump seems to be shaping up to use the opportunity to walk away from his campaign utterances. If the House doesn't approve Trumpcare, he says, he'll walk away from the project and Obamacare will remain in place indefinitely. Since Trump usually walks away from projects that turn out to be difficult or demanding, this is a very plausible position for him to take; flouncing away in a huff is precisely the kind of thing he does. He'll be criticised, of course, that for all his months and months of bloviating and bluster about repealing and replacing Obamacare, his actual activity on the topic amounted to a half-baked Bill which he abandoned a bare fortnight after it was unveiled. But, as far as the Donald will be concerned, the failure of his efforts will be entirely due to the house Republicans, because not even the master of the Art of the Deal could do a deal with the likes of them, or something like that. Mutual recriminations all round.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

If they pass this Bill, they have every reason to expect that the electorate will punish them.

Many House districts are so gerrymandered that the Republicans are more concerned that if they don't pass it, they'll be primaried by the tea party.

And there are only 9 Republican Senate seats up for grabs next time.

Peregrinus

The Bill is currently before the House of Reps, not the Senate. And the entire House of Reps is up for re-election in November 2018 so, yeah, they're all concerned about the mid-terms.

I take your point about the fear of being primaried, but this works both ways. This Bill is opposed by the ideologue right, who object that it doesn't go far enough. So voting for it is no guarantee of avoiding criticism/challenges from the right. In fact it could be the worst of both worlds; vote for the Bill and then be criticised by tea-partiers for selling out, after which (if not primaried) you're gutted by the voters for having voted for this unpopular and controversial bill.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

In fact it could be the worst of both worlds; vote for the Bill and then be criticised by tea-partiers for selling out, after which (if not primaried) you're gutted by the voters for having voted for this unpopular and controversial bill.

Yes, the Republicans are finding it rather uncomfortable in that driving seat!

Professor Moriarty

Leading Democrat Schiff now saying that there is new and substantial evidence of Trump collusion with Russia. Enough to warrant a grand jury apparently.

Christy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Leading Democrat Schiff now saying that there is new and substantial evidence of Trump collusion with Russia. Enough to warrant a grand jury apparently.

I would prefer to see it really. I expected this evidence of Trump for the wiretapping claims which was not provided and I expect to see it here.

Or do you mean the grand jury is actively being called here which would be a bit different?