Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Christy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

All any of us can do is make assumptions based on publicly available information such as the latest Wash Post story which stakes the President isn't a criminal target. You tell me what's going on, since genius's like yourself have been paying far more attention than I have.

Or wait till charges have been brought before assuming we have all the evidence. You said it would laughed out of court but you have no idea and are admitting as much.

You are also not know something and simply not make assumptions and declarations based on nothing.

2 Scoops

Christy42 wrote: »

Or wait till charges have been brought before assuming we have all the evidence. You said it would laughed out of court but you have no idea and are admitting as much.

You are also not know something and simply not make assumptions and declarations based on nothing.

There's certainly a strong inclination to wait before assuming a verdict in this thread. How very pompous and undemocratic of me.

Water John

'I hope you can let Flynn go' is enough. He as POTUS was requesting the Head of the FBI to, ignore the law.

2 Scoops

Water John wrote: »

'I hope you can let Flynn go' is enough. He as POTUS was requesting the Head of the FBI to, ignore the law.

Clutching at straws, context matters.

Leroy42

But Trump said in a TV interview that he fired Comey because of the Russia thing.

In his own words he fired Comey for continuing with the investigation.

No context needed, he said it himself. Flynn was a problem, that he tried to deal with and created a bigger problem. Then he jumped straight into it on his own.

Christy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

There's certainly a strong inclination to wait before assuming a verdict in this thread. How very pompous and undemocratic of me.

If you had backed up your assumptions at all or pointed to why you feel that way sure.

As is you went the court case will fail for lack of evidence.
How do you know there is not more evidence?
I made an assumption.

Did I miss something? I cut off the start where you said the right would feel aggrieved if this was how he was taken down as that feels like a separate stream of conversation.

Why is anyone meant to listen to that? There is no substance to it and seems indicative of many series on this thread saying Trump is great/innocent whatever. Why? It is my opinion and you don't have proof I am wrong.

(Edit: not saying it is a multi account in any way but just saying when you see the same flow of conversation you get tired of it- multiple people can have similar styles given the one I have described is incredibly vague and generic)

If I missed something in a post feel free to ignore the above.

I mean you are entitled to it but you are not entitled to not get called on it. If someone comes in with what they feel justifies their opinion I will pay a bit more attention.

Personally I feel like there is more because Trump has attempted to discredit this investigation at every turn on twitter and has attempted to make it seem unfair. It looks like a prelude to killing it. It seems unlikely to me he has not matched these actions with more behind the scenes. Indeed asking the FBI to drop an investigation is a big deal. Are we to expect this was the only occasion.

Obviously not proof but it gives me reason to suspect there is more.

Leroy42

Being a Subject of an FBI investigation would surely mean that you are being looked into, Your conduct, business dealings etc.

The Target of an investigation, would be the person that they have sufficient reason to believe is at the core of what happened. They use the subjects to either add to that target or to increase their ability to get the target.

So we know that Mueller is actively looking at Trump within the realms of the investigation. Trump has claimed that there is nothing, it is all made up. Yet 14 months into the investigation, Trump has not be cleared. That is pretty telling. The pressure on Mueller to clear Trump must be enormous (not just from Trump but from GOP and others).

The question needs to be asked of why he is even still a subject, given that SHS has repeatedly said that he WH has been totally transparent and upfront with Mueller. If that were true, and Trump had done nothing, then surely by now Mueller would have removed him?

The second question is when is Trump going to talk with Mueller directly in order to clear himself, as this would appear to be the only thing holding it up *since he has provided everything else according to SHS).

2 Scoops

Leroy42 wrote: »

But Trump said in a TV interview that he fired Comey because of the Russia thing.

In his own words he fired Comey for continuing with the investigation.

No context needed, he said it himself. Flynn was a problem, that he tried to deal with and created a bigger problem. Then he jumped straight into it on his own.

From what I remember from that interview, the context was that he was referring to Comey not publicly saying he wasn't under investigation like he had said in private. He never said he fired Comey for continuing the investigation.

2 Scoops

Christy42 wrote: »

I mean you are entitled to it but you are not entitled to not get called on it. If someone comes in with what they feel justifies their opinion I will pay a bit more attention.

Be real, there is no morality on this thread. 99% of the posts are implying Trumps guilt, you're applying a double standard which is something I've become accustomed to. I obviously meant the obstruction evidence that's public which is why I went to the bother of listing it. I stand by what I said of it not holding up against an ounce of scrutiny in a courtroom. Assuming hypothetical evidence or possibilities is ridiculous when making an assumption, your argument is nonsensical and highly hypocritical.

Leroy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

From what I remember from that interview, the context was that he was referring to Comey not publicly saying he wasn't under investigation like he had said in private. He never said he fired Comey for continuing the investigation.

Here are the quotes

DONALD TRUMP: Oh I was gonna fire regardless of recommendation-
LESTER HOLT: So there was-- [OVER TALK]
DONALD TRUMP: He made-- he made a recommendation, he's highly
respected, very good guy, very smart guy, uh the Democrats like him, the
Republicans like him, uh he made a recommendation but regardless of
recommendation I was going to fire Comey knowing, there was no good time
to do it. And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said you
know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it's an
excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have
won.

He says he just decided to do it and then immediately mentions the Russia thing. Not sure how else one can read that. The only other option is that he was answering a question about firing the FBI director, and that mid way through he segwayed off to talk about Russia. Now if you believe that you need to accept that Trump has no ability to follow a thought process or understand the implications of what he is saying at any point in time.

How that can be squared with the notion that "he tells it like it is" is a mystery to me.

And therein lies the problem with those that try to defend Trump. To do so you need to go against everything else we know about him, everything you claim to like.

2 Scoops

Leroy42 wrote: »

Here are the quotes



He says he just decided to do it and then immediately mentions the Russia thing. Not sure how else one can read that. The only other option is that he was answering a question about firing the FBI director, and that mid way through he segwayed off to talk about Russia. Now if you believe that you need to accept that Trump has no ability to follow a thought process or understand the implications of what he is saying at any point in time.

How that can be squared with the notion that "he tells it like it is" is a mystery to me.

And therein lies the problem with those that try to defend Trump. To do so you need to go against everything else we know about him, everything you claim to like.

Cherry picking imo and given how Trump talks the context is relative. He was directly asked the question in the same interview @1.30 and before the part you quoted they were talking about Comey refusing to say publicly he wasn't under investigation. Just to be clear everyone knows why be fired Comey, but picking pieces of interviews and claiming it's admittance of obstruction is weak sauce.

Leroy42

Ah, so your point is that we shouldn't actually take anything Trump says as true, we need to take account of the context and maybe what he said beforehand. Am I taking your position correctly?

That we shouldn't take a direct quote from the POTUS during an interview because what he says might not actually be what he meant to say? That's your position?

So how do you know anything he says is true on that basis?

were talking about Comey refusing to say publicly he wasn't under investigation

And I know you are using this as some sort of justification but think about this for a second. The head of the FBI refuses to follow what the POTUS wants and so he fired him. Not because of anything to do with corruption or malpractice, simply because he wouldn't state the Trump wasn't under investigation.

Given that Mueller told him in March 18 that he was still the subject of an investigation, then it must be the case that Comey was right not be lie on behalf of the POTUS. So he was fired for not lying for Trump.

As I said earlier, every time people try to defend Trump they end up twisting into a new problem

Christy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

Be real, there is no morality on this thread. 99% of the posts are implying Trumps guilt, you're applying a double standard which is something I've become accustomed to. I obviously meant the obstruction evidence that's public which is why I went to the bother of listing it. I stand by what I said of it not holding up against an ounce of scrutiny in a courtroom. Assuming hypothetical evidence or possibilities is ridiculous when making an assumption, your argument is nonsensical and highly hypocritical.

Nice switcheroo there. Why would the evidence that is public be relevant to a courtroom? They are allowed forward further evidence. Seriously what is the point your argument then? It is utter nonsense. Also it contradicts your post. When called on it first you said no further evidence was an assumption you made. Now you "clearly" meant only the public evidence

I assumed nothing. I specifically said I suspect and gave reasons as to why I feel this way which is well beyond what you have supplied in your favour. This is exactly what I asked of you and what you will not provide. It was not hypocritical.

Sure most posts here are anti Trump bit even searching Trump favourable sites I have yet to see serious arguments defending him. Just nonsense saying he is great that does not stand up to any scrutiny. If facts have an anti Trump bias then so be it. Places will end up painting Trump in a bad light.

2 Scoops

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ah, so your point is that we shouldn't actually take anything Trump says as true, we need to take account of the context and maybe what he said beforehand. Am I taking your position correctly?

That we shouldn't take a direct quote from the POTUS during an interview because what he says might not actually be what he meant to say? That's your position?

So how do you know anything he says is true on that basis?

He also said another 3 or 4 reasons for firing him. The point is those quotes are subjective as it could be easily argued he was referring to Comey's refusal to publicly say he wasn't under investigation or that the FBI was incompetent under Comey's leadership. When he was directly asked the question he denied it and the reality is that's the only thing that matters.

I don't think for a second that he wasn't fired because Trump wanted to alleviate pressure he was under, the point is Trump mumbling to himself in a TV interview isn't admissible as evidence of anything. The dog on street knows why he did it.

Christy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

He also said another 3 or 4 reasons for firing him. The point is those quotes are subjective as it could be easily argued he was referring to Comey's refusal to publicly say he wasn't under investigation or that the FBI was incompetent under Comey's leadership. When he was directly asked the question he denied it and the reality is that's the only thing that matters.

I don't think for a second that he wasn't fired because Trump wanted to alleviate pressure he was under, the point is Trump mumbling to himself in a TV interview isn't admissible as evidence of anything. The dog on street knows why he did it.

That should still be enough to see him go. It is still obstructing justice. He wanted to alleviate the pressure of the investigation into him. Obstruction.

Why only when fed the easy to answer line is it important?

Leroy42

The quotes are only subjective if you want to paint them to mean something they don't on the face of them.

You are making them subjective, you are putting a spin on them. If Trump had meant to say something else then why not say it?

How can you have such little faith in the POTUS being able to answer, what should have been, a fairly straightforward question. He is not being asked about a solution to the ME, or how to end world hunger. Why did you fire the guy you just fired? In the space of 10 minutes he gives numerous different answers.

If anybody else answered like that you would call them out as lying and at best trying to hide something? Why are you taking a different set of rules for Trump?

And again, why should he fire Comey for failing to tell a lie about Trump being under investigation? This is as big an issue as firing him over the Russia thing. So he asks Comey to state publicly that Trump is not under investigation. Comey, as head of the FBI, knows (as we all do from Mueller as late as March 18) that this is untrue and so refuses to accede to the request. Trump fires him for that.

Which reason are you going with? Take you pick, because as far as I can see Trump is under pretty big trouble whichever one you choose to go with

2 Scoops

Christy42 wrote: »

Why would the evidence that is public be relevant to a courtroom?

Why wouldn't it? Why wouldn't anything that's in the public domain be relevant? If a newspaper published a story tomorrow that Trump threatened a member of Mueller's council or deleted emails that information is now public, you're trying to suggest it wouldn't be relevant?

You're trying to make some physiological argument that me speculating on an outcome based on available information is somehow not the norm, when it's what every one in the history of the world has ever done whilst predicting an outcome. It's desperately childlike, you are essentially saying its OK to say Trump should be indicted for obstruction charges because there's potentially more evidence we don't know know about, but basing a prediction based on the known information is somehow breaking logic?

My head hurts and I'm confused so I'm out, you must be a bookermakers wet dream.

Christy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

Why wouldn't it? Why wouldn't anything that's in the public domain be relevant? If a newspaper published a story tomorrow that Trump threatened a member of Mueller's council that information is now public, you're trying to suggest it's wouldn't be relevant?

You're trying to make some physiological argument that me speculating on an outcome based on available information is somehow not the norm, when it's what every one in the history of the world has ever done whilst predicting an outcome. It's desperately childlike, you are essentially saying its OK to say Trump should be indicted for obstruction charges because there's potentially more evidence we don't know know about, but basing a prediction based on the known information in somehow breaking logic?

My head hurts and I'm confused so I'm out, you must be a bookermakers wet dream.

^^^ things I did not say and insults.

I did mistype in that quote. I meant why would only be public evidence which is what you you were going on about earlier.

I did not say he should be indicted on that alone or potential evidence. That is a flat out lie about what I said and I don't appreciate it. I said I suspect there to be more evidence and if found he should be indicted on it. Nothing I said implied he should brought to court on evidence not yet found. The fact that you have to make up stuff to argue against speaks volumes about the strength of your argument.

And yeah I don't assume that what is public is every piece of information available which is what you have done. I attempt to infer from that what else there is to know and recognise the uncertainty.

The issue is not basing an assumption on known information. It is the assumption that there is no unknown information here strains credibility beyond belief. Stop trying to repaint the argument. It is transparent.

Have fun at the bookies. As a quick analogy if a player was seen limping I would see it that they may have something underlying that the press don't know about and not just take their word that that they were doing it for the craic. I would take their claim at face value and go all in on them to score a hat trick. Similarly I judge from Trump's actions that there may be something more there.

2 Scoops

Christy42 wrote: »

And yeah I don't assume that what is public is every piece of information available which is what you have done. I attempt to infer from that what else there is to know and recognise the uncertainty.

Doesn't make any logical sense to me. My argument was that based on the current cries about obstruction, the evidence we know is extremely flimsy and would crumble under scrutiny in a courtroom. That's the statement I made and attacking it because I didn't include hypothetical evidence is ridiculous.

Just to be super clear, it's OK to make statements like the one below without proof right? I'm sure there's hundreds more. Now I'm even more confused with your logic, after all we shouldn't throw around statements without knowing the facts first.

Christy42 wrote: »

He is one of the better appointments. Low bar though and we absolutely know he was OK with lying with regards to Donald's health assessment.

everlast75

This is an interesting summary of who currently are facing charges and what the possible sentences for them are from axios.com

"Tuesday afternoon, Alex van der Zwaan became the first person to receive sentencing in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe, receiving 30 days in prison and $20,000 in fines.

Why it matters: There four other subjects who have pleaded guilty and have yet to receive their sentence. Meanwhile, Paul Manafort has stuck with his "not guilty" plea and will go to trial in September.

Michael Flynn
Charge: Lying to the FBI
Plea: Guilty
Potential sentence: 0 to 6 months, sentencing hearing date is expected to be announced on May 1.

Paul Manafort
Charge: Bank fraud, conspiracy, lying on taxes, money laundering, failing to register as foreign agent.
Plea: Not guilty
Potential sentence: TBD, trial begins Sept. 17

Rick Gates
Charge: Failing to register as foreign agent, bank fraud, conspiracy, lying on taxes, lying to the F.B.I.
Plea: Guilty to one count of conspiracy and lying to the F.B.I.
Potential sentence: 57 to 71 months

George Papadopoulos
Charge: Lying to the FBI
Plea: Guilty
Potential sentence: 0-6 months

Richard Pinedo
Charge: Identity fraud
Plea: Guilty
Potential sentence: Up to 15 years

13 Russians, 3 Russian entities
Charge: Conspiracy, bank fraud, identity theft, meddling in U.S. election
Plea: TBD
Potential sentence: Forfeiture, financial charges

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

Doesn't make any logical sense to me. My argument was that based on the current cries about obstruction, the evidence we know is extremely flimsy and would crumble under scrutiny in a courtroom. That's the statement I made and attacking it because I didn't include hypothetical evidence is ridiculous.

Just to be super clear, it's OK to make statements like the one below without proof right? I'm sure there's hundreds more. Now I'm even more confused with your logic, after all we shouldn't throw around statements without knowing the facts first.

yes - because he said that if DJT ate better, he would live to be 200 years old ffs!

That is Kim Jong Un type nonsense right there

Christy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

Doesn't make any logical sense to me. My argument was that based on the current cries about obstruction, the evidence we know is extremely flimsy and would crumble under scrutiny in a courtroom. That's the statement I made and attacking it because I didn't include hypothetical evidence is ridiculous.

Just to be super clear, it's OK to make statements like the one below without proof right? I'm sure there's hundreds more. Now I'm even more confused with your logic, after all we shouldn't throw around statements without knowing the facts first.

. Definitely the wrong tack to take mate.

Aside from the statement above he said Donald will be the healthiest individual ever elected president. Do you think I went too far assuming that he did not examine every single president right before they were elected?

That was really not my understanding of the conversation. You were disappointed that the investigation went in the direction of obstruction of justice, I said it was still a crime worthy of impeachment if they proved it. You said there was not enough evidence. I feel like I .missed a post. If I did imply there was enough proof in the public domain I apologise but I am pretty sure I did not.

Captain Obvious

2 Scoops wrote: »

Doesn't make any logical sense to me. My argument was that based on the current cries about obstruction, the evidence we know is extremely flimsy and would crumble under scrutiny in a courtroom. That's the statement I made and attacking it because I didn't include hypothetical evidence is ridiculous.

Just to be super clear, it's OK to make statements like the one below without proof right? I'm sure there's hundreds more. Now I'm even more confused with your logic, after all we shouldn't throw around statements without knowing the facts first.

We do know the facts. His public comments were not truthful. At the very least he used ridiculous hyperbole but there has been plenty of analysis of the ridiculous claim of Trump's weight to show it was very unlikely to be true.

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

yes - because he said that if DJT ate better, he would live to be 200 years old ffs!

That is Kim Jong Un type nonsense right there

Oh - and he was also asked how could DJT could be in "such good shape" when he regularly ate McDonalds and didn't exercise. His answer - "he has good genes"!!!!

One quick look at Don Jr and Eric blows that particular theory out of the water...

2 Scoops

Christy42 wrote: »

. Definitely the wrong tack to take mate.

Don't worry I won't go digging for more posts, I'm not that much of a lamer.

We'll see who was right and wrong when the time comes, no point bickering and if I was rude I apologise too.

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

Don't worry I won't go digging for more posts, I'm not that much of a lamer.

We'll see who was right and wrong when the time comes, no point bickering and if I was rude I apologise too.

People happy to hear a dissenting opinion mate- feel free to post. No point in having an echo chamber here

aloyisious

2 Scoops wrote: »

Doesn't make any logical sense to me. My argument was that based on the current cries about obstruction, the evidence we know is extremely flimsy and would crumble under scrutiny in a courtroom. That's the statement I made and attacking it because I didn't include hypothetical evidence is ridiculous.

Just to be super clear, it's OK to make statements like the one below without proof right? I'm sure there's hundreds more. Now I'm even more confused with your logic, after all we shouldn't throw around statements without knowing the facts first.

We would be better off if Don only applied logic before making statements which turn out to be flimsy in the extreme. He seem's to enjoy floating test-balloons regularly. From what he's said/released to the public via the media, Don and facts don't go well together. I gather from your posts that you do apply a credibility test to Don's statements in a doubting-thomas way, and are not simply a devil's advocate.

Itssoeasy

2 Scoops wrote: »

Doesn't make any logical sense to me. My argument was that based on the current cries about obstruction, the evidence we know is extremely flimsy and would crumble under scrutiny in a courtroom. That's the statement I made and attacking it because I didn't include hypothetical evidence is ridiculous.

Just to be super clear, it's OK to make statements like the one below without proof right? I'm sure there's hundreds more. Now I'm even more confused with your logic, after all we shouldn't throw around statements without knowing the facts first.

yes I agree.

Itssoeasy

everlast75 wrote: »

Oh - and he was also asked how could DJT could be in "such good shape" when he regularly ate McDonalds and didn't exercise. His answer - "he has good genes"!!!!

One quick look at Don Jr and Eric blows that particular theory out of the water...

And don jr is the brains of the outfit.

Mumha

I think it is worth pointing out that Obstruction is just one area of investigation by Mueller, but it's far from the only one. We know that he is also investigating, at the very least

- Collusion with the Russians to interfere with the 2016 Elections
- Money laundering by Manafort and Gates
- Money laundering by the Trump and the Trump Corporation

It's also worth pointing out that we only see what Mueller wants us to see. The clear strategy for Mueller is to go for all the peripheral indictments, and then move in towards the center. Many former FBI agents have said that Mueller is treating this investigation as an organised crime investigation and his moves are consistent with that.