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

Water John

Laurence Tribe, Prof of Constitutional Law, Harvard, says, Trump should be impeached for obstruction, based on his private meeting with Comey on Flynn.

BabyCheeses

Really Interested wrote: »

There is allegations largely agreed to be true that Russia made attempts to interfere in the election.

There is some allegations no proof to best of my knowledge that Trump team members had involvement in above.

It seems to be accepted at this stage that Trump had no involvement in that but he may have interfered with investigation at two but that interference at present could be seen two ways one innocent to other view not so innocent.

An easy way to prove Trump had little to no involvement himself would be a 30 second clip of him talking. Him being a useful idiot would be most credit I could give him. We still have many members of the Trump campaign following the narcissist's prayer when it comes to Russia.

SeamusFX

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I'm still confused about what is supposed to be being investigated. There are ongoing investigations but everything about Russia was made up and confirmed by Comey according to Trump supporters because he said they were not investigating Trump personally. Why haven't the investigations been shut down in that case?

Maybe the investigations aren't real either and are just something the Soros run MSM has made up to make Trump look bad?

You've got to be joking? Comey never said all of the Russian stuff was made up and he only stated that Trump wasn't personally being investigated at the time, but we don't know if he is or isn't being investigated now. Comey also said he couldn’t go into the details in an “open setting,” because “it goes into the details of the investigation.” So there is an investigation, the investigation is real and hasn't been shut down, but we don't know all of the details as of yet.

JRant

Really Interested wrote: »

There is allegations largely agreed to be true that Russia made attempts to interfere in the election.

There is some allegations no proof to best of my knowledge that Trump team members had involvement in above.

It seems to be accepted at this stage that Trump had no involvement in that but he may have interfered with investigation at two but that interference at present could be seen two ways one innocent to other view not so innocent.

Do the allegations even stretch that far? From my understanding it seems to be centred around the fact that 1 or 2 of the Trump team had undisclosed contact with Russian counterparts. Imply they may have had access to useful information in the election build up but no real substantive claims that they had any hand whatsoever in the Russian interference.

To be honest the waters have been muddied so much that at this stage it's hard to keep track of who, why, what, where and when. Prety much an omnishambles.

JRant

SeamusFX wrote: »

You've got to be joking? Comey never said all of the Russian stuff was made up and he only stated that Trump wasn't personally being investigated at the time, but we don't know if he is or isn't being investigated now. Comey also said he couldn’t go into the details in an “open setting,” because “it goes into the details of the investigation.” So there is an investigation, the investigation is real and hasn't been shut down, but we don't know all of the details as of yet.

Considering the number of WH "sources" available to the press we can be pretty certain that if The Donald was now under investigation we would all know about it.

Really Interested

JRant wrote: »

Do the allegations even stretch that far? From my understanding it seems to be centred around the fact that 1 or 2 of the Trump team had undisclosed contact with Russian counterparts. Imply they may have had access to useful information in the election build up but no real substantive claims that they had any hand whatsoever in the Russian interference.

To be honest the waters have been muddied so much that at this stage it's hard to keep track of who, why, what, where and when. Prety much an omnishambles.

The fact that some members of the Teump team had meetings with Rissians and then lied about it raise questions.

JRant

Really Interested wrote: »

The fact that some members of the Teump team had meetings with Rissians and then lied about it raise questions.

Oh it absolutely does, no question there. Hopefully the investigation gets to the bottom of these matters but I fear these hearings are not much more than a mud slinging competition with both sides taking whatever they want out of them.

Water John

Well, the beauty of the public hearings is, you can listen yourself and form your own informed opinion.

BabyCheeses

SeamusFX wrote: »

You've got to be joking? Comey never said all of the Russian stuff was made up and he only stated that Trump wasn't personally being investigated at the time, but we don't know if he is or isn't being investigated now. Comey also said he couldn’t go into the details in an “open setting,” because “it goes into the details of the investigation.” So there is an investigation, the investigation is real and hasn't been shut down, but we don't know all of the details as of yet.

.

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I'm still confused about what is supposed to be being investigated. There are ongoing investigations but everything about Russia was made up and confirmed by Comey according to Trump supporters because he said they were not investigating Trump personally. Why haven't the investigations been shut down in that case?

Maybe the investigations aren't real either and are just something the Soros run MSM has made up to make Trump look bad?

CMOTDibbler

JRant wrote: »

Considering the number of WH "sources" available to the press we can be pretty certain that if The Donald was now under investigation we would all know about it.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but people being under investigation is very seldom known by the people themselves until the investigations reach a conclusion.

Comey was careful to limit his responses to that question to his time at the FBI. That's not to infer anything other than Comey either doesn't know or can't say.

Basically, we can't be too definitive at this point.

Water John

Comey has passed the ball onto Mueller. He has thus ensured that a full investigation will run its course into all these matters.
Surely, everyone wants to see the full truth? Full cooperation by everyone with the Special Prosecutor.

JRant

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you, but people being under investigation is very seldom known by the people themselves until the investigations reach a conclusion.

Comey was careful to limit his responses to that question to his time at the FBI. That's not to infer anything other than Comey either doesn't know or can't say.

Basically, we can't be too definitive at this point.

Under normal circumstances I would fully agree with you but we live in interesting times.

InTheTrees

JRant wrote: »

Considering the number of WH "sources" available to the press we can be pretty certain that if The Donald was now under investigation we would all know about it.

You understand the Donald and the white house are essentially the same body right? Its the "Executive Branch".
So the " WH sources available to the press" may not know whether they (trump's white house) are under investigation.
The FBI which is under the Justice Department is completely independent, which is why it is an impeachable offense for the president to try and influence their investigations.

InTheTrees

JRant wrote: »

Oh it absolutely does, no question there. Hopefully the investigation gets to the bottom of these matters but I fear these hearings are not much more than a mud slinging competition with both sides taking whatever they want out of them.

The reason the congressional committee hearings lack much depth now is that the special investigator Mueller has taken over. Its his investigation that has precedent over the others and it won't be holding any public hearings. And it probably won't be leaking either, he will be doing all he can to prevent that.

CMOTDibbler

InTheTrees wrote: »

The reason the congressional committee hearings lack much depth now is that the special investigator Mueller has taken over. Its his investigation that has precedent over the others and it won't be holding any public hearings. And it probably won't be leaking either, he will be doing all he can to prevent that.

Just a correction there, it's the Senate committee. There is a house investigation, but that's become a bad joke at this stage.

Water John

This is an unintended consequence of Trump's Presidency. What is considered the left/socialist wing of the Democartic Party is getting active.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/bernie-sanders-lambasts-absolute-failure-of-democratic-partys-strategy

Leroy42

So Trump has cancelled his state visit to the UK. Thats one problem removed from May's plate at least (another one of her own making!).

What kind of signal does it send out that Trump is now more comfortable going to Saudi rather than the UK!

Whether or not he would have faced protests to simply run away from them rather than try to rebuild is not a good sign for the future.

JRant

InTheTrees wrote: »

You understand the Donald and the white house are essentially the same body right? Its the "Executive Branch".
So the " WH sources available to the press" may not know whether they (trump's white house) are under investigation.
The FBI which is under the Justice Department is completely independent, which is why it is an impeachable offense for the president to try and influence their investigations.

Of course I understand that. I am merely using the the "WH source" as a catch all term that encompasses all the leaks. I thought I was being clear there but hope that clears it up.

It's also not as clear cut on the impeachment front either. Obstructing the FBI could lead to impeachment articles but it would be extremely difficult to prove and as we know the whole thing is more of a political process than legal one.

Water John

The mid terms become more important. The Special Prosecutor's Report may come before the next house.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Trump has cancelled his state visit to the UK. Thats one problem removed from May's plate at least (another one of her own making!).

What kind of signal does it send out that Trump is now more comfortable going to Saudi rather than the UK!

Whether or not he would have faced protests to simply run away from them rather than try to rebuild is not a good sign for the future.

It tells you that Saudi is bar more brutal at dealing with protests and repressing freedom of speech and Britian, if tey want Trump to visit, had better do likewise.

Question is, what does Trump being far more comfortable in a religiously-controlled Arabic state than in an English-native speaking western democracy tell you about Trump?

Ipse dixit

Water John wrote: »

The mid terms become more important. The Special Prosecutor's Report may come before the next house.

The mid terms will be important however the Dems are still only 4% ahead according to the Economist/YouGov latest poll. People aren't happy with US politicans at the moment. I think we have a lot more run offs due to third candidates but you would expect the Democrats to close the Republican majority significantly if they can change their campaign methods.

ThisRegard

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Trump has cancelled his state visit to the UK. Thats one problem removed from May's plate at least (another one of her own making!).

What kind of signal does it send out that Trump is now more comfortable going to Saudi rather than the UK!

Whether or not he would have faced protests to simply run away from them rather than try to rebuild is not a good sign for the future.

Apparently he said that when the public want him there he'll go, but he doesn't want to have to face protests. Seems like an ego thing, again.

Really Interested

ThisRegard wrote: »

Apparently he said that when the public want him there he'll go, but he doesn't want to have to face protests. Seems like an ego thing, again.

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.rte.ie/amp/881871/

The Orange man says yes!

"A spokesman said: "We aren't going to comment on speculation about the contents of private phone conversations. The Queen extended an invitation to President Trump to visit the UK and there is no change to those plans."

JRant

Ipse dixit wrote: »

The mid terms will be important however the Dems are still only 4% ahead according to the Economist/YouGov latest poll. People aren't happy with US politicans at the moment. I think we have a lot more run offs due to third candidates but you would expect the Democrats to close the Republican majority significantly if they can change their campaign methods.

A massive issue for the Dems is the gerrymandering of constituencies.

Really Interested

JRant wrote: »

A massive issue for the Dems is the gerrymandering of constituencies.

Which is why at national level politics, the presidential election the Dems have won the popular vote of 4 of the last 5 election to the best of my knowledge.

While at Senate elections the parties are very even with Dems currently on 46 plus 2 independents and the republicans on 52.

Yet the House is very biased towards the Republicans. I believe for two reasons 1 gerrymandering and 2 the system is weighted to less populated areas which largely vote republican.

Nody

And now Trump is being taken to court over taking bribes while being president due to not doing his job properly of disconnecting himself from his business as he was warned before becoming president.

Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland say they will sue President Trump on Monday, alleging that he has violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House.

The lawsuit, the first of its kind brought by government entities, centers on the fact that Trump chose to retain ownership of his company when he became president. Trump said in January that he was shifting his business assets into a trust managed by his sons to eliminate potential conflicts of interests.

...

This case is, at its core, about the right of Marylanders, residents of the District of Columbia and all Americans to have honest government,” Frosh said, referring to part of the Constitution known as the emoluments clause, which prohibits U.S. officials from taking gifts or other benefits from foreign governments. “The emoluments clauses command that . . . the president put the country first and not his own personal interest first.”

Full article is here.

Igotadose

JRant wrote: »

A massive issue for the Dems is the gerrymandering of constituencies.

And with Congress screwing with the Census Bureau, cutting their budget, getting an accurate Census in 2020 is at risk. This is a very sly way the gerrymandering ways of the states is going to continue. Plus it puts at risk the 2017 Economic census, which will mean stale data used to make predictions and legislation.

All bad, not a big news item but a big deal.

https://medium.com/advancing-justice-aajc/president-trumps-2018-skinny-budget-is-no-friend-to-the-census-cffcef19794e

Leroy42

Nody wrote: »

And now Trump is being taken to court over taking bribes while being president due to not doing his job properly of disconnecting himself from his business as he was warned before becoming president.

My understanding is that the POTUS, by dint of being POTUS, was actually outside of these laws. POTUS is not part of the administration, he sits above it and therefore is not subject to the laws.

Morally, yeah, but not legally. At least that was the line that was trotted out at the time.

Nixon famously said that it couldn't be wrong since once the president does it it becomes right.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

My understanding is that the POTUS, by dint of being POTUS, was actually outside of these laws. POTUS is not part of the administration, he sits above it and therefore is not subject to the laws.

The constitution states:

US Constitution wrote:

Section 9
8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Article II
Section 1

1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Honestly you'd be hard pressed to get around that one as it clearly calls out any office and clearly states that the President of the United States is an office in the constitution; but expect the Republicans to try to find excuses for why this would not actually be the case somehow. The bigger problem will be to prove the fact he took bribes than the fact it would be a breach if he did so.

Hank Scorpio

He should set up a non profit foundation to get around those minor annoyances.