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

Professor Moriarty

Christy42 wrote: »

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?

Have a look at the article here.

Christy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Have a look at the article here.

Thanks. As I said I will wait and see in that case. I so feel like there is something but feel is not enough for me.

I do agree on the Nunes issue. Absolutely inexplicable for him to go running to Trump with this stuff.

demfad

Very worthwhile article chronicling the political activity of Manafort and Stone.

Stone was one of the original Nixon 'Rat-F**kers':

"Dirty tricks came naturally to Stone. He assumed a pseudonym and made contributions on behalf of the Young Socialist Alliance to one of Nixon’s potential challengers. He hired spies to infiltrate the McGovern campaign."

You can see Stones handiwork in praising and pushing for first Bernie and then Jill Stein as alternatives to HRC to weaken and divide. When Bernie eventually rowed in behind HRC:

"Socialist douchebag Senator Bernie Sanders makes @HillaryClinton look like Barry Goldwater (Twitter)"

Manafort is more surgical:

"He studied under the future secretary of state, James A. Baker III, who wielded his knife with the discipline of a Marine and the polish of a Princetonian."

Manafort and Stone were instrumental in Reagan's 1980 victory. They maximised the hay from managing his transition team using the contacts/favours to set up a lobbying company.

"They stocked the administration, distributing jobs across the agencies and accumulating owed favors that would provide the basis for their new lobbying business. They opened their doors in 1981.

Manafort and Stone pioneered a new style of firm, what K Street would come to call a double-breasted operation. One wing of the shop managed campaigns, electing a generation of Republicans, from Phil Gramm to Arlen Spector. The other wing lobbied the officials they helped to victory on behalf of its corporate clients. Over the course of their early years, they amassed a raft of blue-chip benefactors, including Salomon Brothers and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp."

As well as the publiscised image makeover and tricks to get Yanukovych elected in Ukraine, Manafort/Stone also worked with:

"The client list included Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos (with a $900,000 yearly contract) and the despots of the Dominican Republic, Nigeria, Kenya, Equatorial Guinea, and Somalia."

Manafort started working with Ukranian Oligarchs Deripaska (to promote Global Russian interests) and Oil billionaire Firtash (awaiting extradition to US from Austria).

"He spent heavily on Yanukovych’s campaign against her in 2010. Fortunately for Firtash, Manafort was on the job. When the consultant first arrived in Kiev, Yanukovych was the subject of near universal derision. But his years of grooming Yanukovych, and perfecting his political machinery, carried him to victory—a narrow win rooted in the missteps of his opponents, but one that would have never happened without skilled reinvention. Marveling at this accomplishment, the Ukranian journalist Mustafa Nayeem wrote that Manafort was “the only person who really adapted to Ukrainian political reality.”

As soon as Yanukovych came to power, he restored Firtash’s business. Most important, the new government settled a lawsuit that Firtash had filed objecting to Tymoshenko’s seizure of his gas. As part of the settlement, the government handed $3 billion worth of natural gas to Firtash: his old stash plus an extra billion cubic meters of gas thrown into the deal as compensation for his troubles. Der Spiegel, which reviewed the text of the settlement, concluded, “Viktor Yanukovych, the president of Ukraine, served the commercial interests of an oligarch with whom he has close ties—at the expense of his own country. And, in doing so, he also did Moscow a favor.”

Manafort was particularly good at isolating nationalist groups. In Ukraine he was able to spin that the Russian language was under threat and secure that block for Yanukovych. When he started as Trump's campaign manager he would have known exactly how to exploit the divided electorate and fuel/hold nationalist and religious voters for Trump.

Interestingly, when Manafort started his Russia promotion work for Deripaska he moved into Trump tower and Trump started using Bayrock (owned by ex Soviet gansters Dater, Sapir, Arif) to build his towers.
There is a money laundering cloud around all these buildings the Trump Soho alone used to launder $250 million according to the filesuit.

Trump was already a client of Manafort/Stone at this point:

"Another early client was Donald J. Trump. What Trump wanted was help fending off potential rivals to his Atlantic City casino business. He especially feared the rise of Indian gaming. As the 2016 campaign has graphically illustrated, Trump doesn’t treat rivals gently."

Manafort and Stone's unique skills were used to Ratf**k and skewer the 'Indian' case.

Worth a read.

I dont see either flipping on Trump.
Stone is flamboyant and boastful. His flagrant communications with Guccifer 2.0, boasts about contact with Assange, (as well as meetings with Farage just before he met Assange) make him open.

Despite Manaforts more reserved style, he is in too much trouble after the Maidan revolution in Ukraine. Money was laundered to him as payment for helping: The Ukrainians and the US have this. The US has also tracked money to Cypriot banks (Ross, Rybolovlev). Those two are going down.

You'd imagine Page will be first however. If Jeff Sessions is indicted Trump himself will be also.

Professor Moriarty

Christy42 wrote: »

Thanks. As I said I will wait and see in that case. I so feel like there is something but feel is not enough for me.

I do agree on the Nunes issue. Absolutely inexplicable for him to go running to Trump with this stuff.

Yeah. It makes him seem a puppet of Trump and thus unfit to lead the investigation. The Dems are in a bind though. If they throw their toys out of the pram and walk away, then the investigation will be meaningless. So they're just going to have to accept Nunes's behaviour (for which he's apologised to be fair) so that they have input into proceedings.

jooksavage

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yeah. It makes him seem a puppet of Trump and thus unfit to lead the investigation. The Dems are in a bind though. If they throw their toys out of the pram and walk away, then the investigation will be meaningless. So they're just going to have to accept Nunes's behaviour (for which he's apologised to be fair) so that they have input into proceedings.

McCain says the current investigation has no credibility now. That fool Nunes has only strengthened the case for a select committee investigation.

Benjamin Wittes described the travel ban as "malevolence tempered by incompetence". You could say the same about everything the administration has done so far. If there has been collusion with Russia, I wouldn't expect it to be particularly well concealed.

demfad

Shortly after Nunes first press conference:

The Make America Great (Trump) superpac sent a fundraising email with this:

“Friends, we’ve been vindicated and there’s nothing the mainstream media can do about it now… And once again, our President was right.”

Later and disgracefully The National Republican Congressional Committee sent an email message following Nunes’ actions claiming Trumps transition team and maybe Trump himself were under surveillance during Obamas administration and to sign up to 'denounce the surveillance'.

Even though Trump didnt see the news conference that was happenned just as he was starting an interview with Time magazine he said:

“Devin Nunes had a news conference,” Trump said. “I mean I don’t know, I was unable to see it, because I am at meetings, but they just had a news conference talking about surveillance.
“This was new information. That was just got. Members, of, let’s see, were under surveillance during the Obama Administration following November’s election. Wow. This just came out.”

“I don’t know where these wiretaps came from. They came from someplace. That is what they should find out.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/23/donald-trump-nunes-proved-me-right/#ixzz4cFDDFFv2

Nunes claims that his decision to have TWO press conferences and visit the WH to tell the POTUS about information he hasnt even properly seen himself was the result of 'not getting all decisions right on a busy day' is BS.

This was premeditated and coordinated. He is clearly compromised. The NRCC later happy to play along with this lie.
I dont think the intelligence community will be sharing much with Nunes now.
As Schiff has said though they have to keep the investigation open. If not it just wont happen.

Water John

It simply looks like a pathetic attempt by Nunes to shut a stable door not by locking it, but dynamiting the lintel.

Looks like an attempt to shut his own investigation.
Nunes saw the ferocious damage done on the opening day. It could only get worse.

wonderfullife

Water John wrote: »

It simply looks like a pathetic attempt by Nunes to shut a stable door not by locking it, but dynamiting the lintel.

Looks like an attempt to shut his own investigation.
Nunes saw the ferocious damage done on the opening day. It could only get worse.

Worth noting James Clapper and Sally Yates were due before the Committee to testify on Monday.

I'm no maths expert but I'm gonna assume 2+2 = 4 this time.

Nunes better find himself a good lawyer.

Christy42

Has a time been set for the vote? Or is it just whenever Ryan and Trump feel they have enough votes.

It will be interesting to see if it fails will Trump truly walk away leaving one of his biggest campaign promises in tatters (and the others that have been attempted so far have also been failures). Bodes well for getting all those manufacturing jobs back eh?

demfad

wonderfullife wrote: »

Worth noting James Clapper and Sally Yates were due before the Committee to testify on Monday.

I'm no maths expert but I'm gonna assume 2+2 = 4 this time.

Nunes better find himself a good lawyer.

Just looking at Sally Yates: She will confirm the timeline of when she informed the administration about Flynn discussing sanctions with Kislyak.
As there is a big time gap between when she informed admin and when admin took action (after a leak) this could be crucial.

(Timeline below)

On January 26th Yates told the WH that Flynn had lied.
On February 10th Trump responds that he was not aware of the story but would look into it.
Yates on the record testimony will raise questions about Trump's lie on February 10th. It will also raise questions about his inaction for over 2 weeks upon learning from Sally Yates that sanctions had been discussed.

The spin about his actual resignation was erosion of trust for lying to Pence. But when did Pence know?
Either POTUS kept VPOTUS in the dark for 2 weeks or VPOTUS knew and was also concealing that Flynn had lied.

No good way out of this. Another thread or two in the big jumper will be pulled loose by these testimonies.

Clapper, I feel, may be a lot more forthcoming than his television interview about no evidence of collusion. He is under oath and cant be fired by Trump.

Jan. 12, 2017

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius first reports that Flynn had conversations with Kislyak.

Jan. 13, 2017

Trump press aide Sean Spicer acknowledges one call between Flynn and Kislyak but says it was for “logistical information.”

Jan. 22, 2017

Flynn is sworn in as national security adviser, a position that does not require Senate confirmation.

Michael Flynn arrives for a White House senior staff
Michael Flynn arrives for a White House senior staff swearing-in ceremony in the East Room of the White House on Jan. 22, 2017. (Photo: Andrew Harnik, AP)
Jan. 26, 2017

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates informs the White House counsel that Flynn lied about the nature of his calls with Kislyak and is vulnerable to blackmail.

Feb. 8, 2017

Flynn denies discussing sanctions with Russian officials in an interview with The Washington Post. A spokesman for Flynn later tries to amend Flynn’s comments, saying Flynn had “no recollection” of discussing sanctions.

Feb. 10, 2017

Trump says he’s not aware of the Post report that Flynn may have discussed sanctions but will look into it.

Feb. 13, 2017

White House adviser Kellyanne Conway tells MSNBC that Trump has “full confidence” in Flynn. Hours later, Flynn resigns, saying he had “inadvertently briefed the Vice President-Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian ambassador.”

Feb. 14, 2017

Spicer says Trump asked Flynn to resign because of an “erosion of trust.”

PopePalpatine

Christy42 wrote: »

Has a time been set for the vote? Or is it just whenever Ryan and Trump feel they have enough votes.

It will be interesting to see if it fails will Trump truly walk away leaving one of his biggest campaign promises in tatters (and the others that have been attempted so far have also been failures). Bodes well for getting all those manufacturing jobs back eh?

Now that you've mentioned them, guess who's going ahead with their job cuts?

Billy86

Christy42 wrote: »

Has a time been set for the vote? Or is it just whenever Ryan and Trump feel they have enough votes.

It will be interesting to see if it fails will Trump truly walk away leaving one of his biggest campaign promises in tatters (and the others that have been attempted so far have also been failures). Bodes well for getting all those manufacturing jobs back eh?

Yeah about that...

Donald Trump said Keystone XL pipeline would create 28,000 jobs. US State Department says 50.

I wonder how much of that has to do with them not using entirely American steel, another Trump lie.

demfad

demfad wrote: »

Just looking at Sally Yates: She will confirm the timeline of when she informed the administration about Flynn discussing sanctions with Kislyak.
As there is a big time gap between when she informed admin and when admin took action (after a leak) this could be crucial.

(Timeline below)
......

Nunes further showing himself as compromised.
He has just held another press conference:

Confirms no wiretapping of Trump tower,
Wants a closed meeting with Comey and Rodgers to discuss private information they couldn't answer publicly before the comittee. (what do they know)
After being asked several times he refuses to rule out that the WH was the source of his bizaare claims on Wednesday.
>>It was a feedback loop: Whitehouse gives him info about tapping. He makes big announcement and pretends he is feeding it back to whitehouse.

Adam Schiff has just announced that Nunes has ordered that Yates and Clappers testimony be non public.
This is an attempt to ;attempt to choke off public info.' According to Sciff.

Billy86

demfad wrote: »

Nunes further showing himself as compromised.
He has just held another press conference:

Confirms no wiretapping of Trump tower,
Wants a closed meeting with Comey and Rodgers to discuss private information they couldn't answer publicly before the comittee. (what do they know)
After being asked several times he refuses to rule out that the WH was the source of his bizaare claims on Wednesday.
>>It was a feedback loop: Whitehouse gives him info about tapping. He makes big announcement and pretends he is feeding it back to whitehouse.

Adam Schiff has just announced that Nunes has ordered that Yates and Clappers testimony be non public.
This is an attempt to ;attempt to choke off public info.' According to Sciff.

This has to be one of the most transparent, dodgy attempts to scupper a trial (on Nunes' part) that western democracy has seen in a long, long time.

Christy42

One democrat is missing today meaning the Republicans can have 22 rebels and still get it through the house of Congress (really expected the seat to be the issue not the house but anyway).

In fairness the democrat is at his wife's funeral but I am mentioning as it changes the math a bit.

Professor Moriarty

Christy42 wrote: »

One democrat is missing today meaning the Republicans can have 22 rebels and still get it through the house of Congress (really expected the seat to be the issue not the house but anyway).

In fairness the democrat is at his wife's funeral but I am mentioning as it changes the math a bit.

No pairing? That's pretty dirty politics.

Christy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No pairing? That's pretty dirty politics.

I had not realised I was making an accusation.

As such I will back it up http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/trump-health-care-latest/index.html

You have to scroll down the live feed a bit. All they say is a quite from the house minority leader said Bobby Rush won't be there because of his wife's funeral and as such the total votes required has reduced.

No mention of any vote pairing or if it was asked for (not sure of the done thing).

Professor Moriarty

Christy42 wrote: »

I had not realised I was making an accusation.

As such I will back it up http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/trump-health-care-latest/index.html

You have to scroll down the live feed a bit. All they say is a quite from the house minority leader said Bobby Rush won't be there because of his wife's funeral and as such the total votes required has reduced.

No mention of any vote pairing or if it was asked for (not sure of the done thing).

I was making the accusation. In Ireland and Britain, pairing would be normal in such circumstances. There seems to be precedence in the US too:

In the United States Senate and House of Representatives, pairing is referred to as a live pair, which is an informal voluntary agreement between members, not specifically authorized or recognized by House or Senate rules. Live pairs are agreements which members make to nullify the effect of absences on the outcome of recorded votes. If a member expects to be absent for a vote, he or she may "pair off" with another member who will be present and who would vote on the other side of the question, but who agrees not to vote. The member in attendance states that he or she has a live pair, announces how each of the paired members would have voted, and then votes "present." In this way, the other member can be absent without affecting the outcome of the vote. Because pairs are informal and unofficial arrangements, they are not counted in vote totals; however paired members' positions do appear in the Congressional Record.

It will be interesting to see if pairing happens in this case. If not, then it really is dirty politics!

Billy86

https://twitter.com/tomlobianco/status/845292709589999616

https://twitter.com/tomlobianco/status/845293119335747584

https://twitter.com/tomlobianco/status/845293721612685312

https://twitter.com/tomlobianco/status/845296712201748481

https://twitter.com/tomlobianco/status/845298846301343744

https://twitter.com/tomlobianco/status/845306341489098752

https://twitter.com/tomlobianco/status/845322600167419905

1.) Schiff gives chronology of week: Monday hearing (Comey confirms probe), Tues-Wed Nunes "dead of night excursion" gets docs & keeps private
2.) Schiff: Nunes' actions were "wholly inappropriate" and "cast grave doubts into the ability [of HPSCI] to run a credible investigation."
3.) Schiff says Dems "welcome at any time bringing" Comey and Rogers back for a closed session, but oppose public hearing cancellation.
4.) Schiff: Dems asked Repubs to have C+R brief in open session Tues and do closed hearing if necessary. Says Nunes rejected.
5.) Schiff: "We strongly object to the cancellation of this hearing. We would still urge the majority to reconsider."
6.) Schiff: "I don't know" if WH orchestrated Wednesday's events and leaked docs to Nunes. Says he's disturbed Nunes won't rule it out.
7.) Schiff: "We really do need an independent commission here." Public needs confidence someone has done thorough probe "untainted" by politics.
8.) Schiff: Best option is for us to keep working but set up that independent, 9/11-comission-style body.
9.) Schiff: Nunes doing presser outside WH "important in terms of understanding what's going on here." (Wow.)

And all of a sudden Stone, Manafort and Carter Page all agree to testify. Excuse me while I grab the tinfoil hat, but we're just around the corner from something dodgier than we might have seen before in a Western democracy.


By the way, how is it possible for one single person to just decide to shut the whole thing down?

PopePalpatine

Billy86 wrote: »

By the way, how is it possible for one single person to just decide to shut the whole thing down?

Just ask Trump's best buddy in Moscow.

Christy42

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/trump-health-care-latest/index.html

Bill is expected to fail but vote seems to be going ahead.

Strange but we will see. I would be curious if some freedom caucus reps decide to vote yes at the end because it is better for them than Obamacare and they seem to be the only options coming.

On the other hand if people feel there are too many rebels to punish they might feel emboldened to vote no so that they have it on their voting record. That could turn into a massacre.

I really can't believe this is struggling so badly at the first hurdle when they have both houses, they have the presidency. They even have a large advantage in the house and it is struggling there. If this fails the notion of Trump the negotiator is dead. He couldn't negotiate with his own party here never mind people against him.

BoatMad

Christy42 wrote: »

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/trump-health-care-latest/index.html

Bill is expected to fail but vote seems to be going ahead.

Strange but we will see. I would be curious if some freedom caucus reps decide to vote yes at the end because it is better for them than Obamacare and they seem to be the only options coming.

On the other hand if people feel there are too many rebels to punish they might feel emboldened to vote no so that they have it on their voting record. That could turn into a massacre.

I really can't believe this is struggling so badly at the first hurdle when they have both houses, they have the presidency. They even have a large advantage in the house and it is struggling there. If this fails the notion of Trump the negotiator is dead. He couldn't negotiate with his own party here never mind people against him.

A failed bill will be very bad for Trumps credibility

Leroy42

Trump is going with the all in approach. He is forcing a vote in the 'hope' that it works out.

It the usual for big business type people. They normally hold the cards over the 'normal' joes and can force through a lot based on that being pretty much the only offer. As he has shown in the past, when things fail he is happy to walk away and let others deal with the outcome. He is using the exact same tactics here.

Big business can walk away to next deal but the smaller guys can see it as the only option.

The problem with that approach is that at the moment Trump doesn't hold all the cards. Even his claim that 'this is it or nothing" is silly. The GOP can easily bring another version along in a few months. The other problem is that he while he can say he is moving on, the Press, DNC etc will not simply let him move on. This will be a rod for his back. Obama was cursed for Obamacare for 7 years but at least he got something done, Trump could realistically come out of the 1st 2 months with no working ban, no repeal and a big cloud hanging over Russia.

Faced with the possible consequences, I think the GOP will push this through. I really hope it doesn't go through, but I don not have the confidence that politicians anywhere will actually do whats right

BoatMad

Faced with the possible consequences, I think the GOP will push this through.

yes I think its dawning on them its the least worst option

20Cent

Looks like it won't be repealed today.
Live vid of the debate here interesting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/us/politics/health-care-affordable-care-act.html?_r=0


Anyone see the transcript of trumps interview with Time magazine.
Very strange it's barely readable.

http://time.com/4710456/donald-trump-time-interview-truth-falsehood/?xid=homepage

BoatMad

20Cent wrote: »

Looks like it won't be repealed today.
Live vid of the debate here interesting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/us/politics/health-care-affordable-care-act.html?_r=0


Anyone see the transcript of trumps interview with Time magazine.
Very strange it's barely readable.

http://time.com/4710456/donald-trump-time-interview-truth-falsehood/?xid=homepage

jeepers, it not even coherent , this is a guy locked in his own fantasy. Its like a stream of consciousness without the actual consciousness

Professor Moriarty

Trump sounds like Don King in that Time interview.

Professor Moriarty

Dems want to bring in a new act:

Making Access Records Available to Lead American Government Openness Act.

Very clever.

Water John

Trump has asked for the Bill to be pulled.
GOP lost votes for the Bill in the last 24 hours.

UsedToWait

BoatMad wrote: »

jeepers, it not even coherent , this is a guy locked in his own fantasy. Its like a stream of consciousness without the actual consciousness

Either exhaustion or medication I'd say...
He sounds like a bad comedian doing an impression of himself

Hey look, in the mean time, I guess, I can’t be doing so badly, because I’m president, and you’re not. You know. Say hello to everybody OK?