Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

Is that all?

the risk/reward is certainly worth it

Maybe he only lied once. I'd imagine the sentence is commensurate with the amount of lies?

Water John

Maybe he was more cooperative on a plea bargain, the second time around? Sort of, tell us everything you know and suspect, this time.

aloyisious

Does anyone know if the F/B page run under the title The Obama Family is actually run by the family of the former US president? The page has a photo of Michelle with the words "I Am Running for 2020" overhead.... It might, just might, help ignite a fire within the belly of the Dems, especially those who appreciate her and her family. The W/H occupants can continue to help her by throwing racial taunts at her hubby that'll resound around the US.

The words: yesterday at 6.28 Pm are captioned over and outside the photo BUT I assume that was when this was last posted/shared on F/B.

aloyisious

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Does the conviction mean he can no longer work practice law?

Assume a conviction for lying to the FBI etc. would exclude him in future..

Probably yes, if he is licenced to work as a lawyer in the US, AND the conviction is criminal not civil. Don't know if it'll apply to the EU, the UK or Holland.

pixelburp

I see the latest brainfart-for-cameras from Trump is a threat to send the military to patrol the border with Mexico. His initial tweets of outage over 'caravans' of people came a mere hour or two after a Fox report on the same, equally phrased, 'problem'.

Leaving aside the logistical headaches that'd surely cause to find the personnel and equipment - is he legally allowed to do that? Presumably it means military forces operating under mandate within US borders; it certainly feels like a legal minefield, one that at thw very least wouls require congressional approval. Not to mention the possibility of said forces accidentally (or otherwise) encroaching into Mexico.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

I see the latest brainfart-for-cameras from Trump is a threat to send the military to patrol the border with Mexico. His initial tweets of outage over 'caravans' of people came a mere hour or two after a Fox report on the same, equally phrased, 'problem'.

Leaving aside the logistical headaches that'd surely cause to find the personnel and equipment - is he legally allowed to do that? Presumably it means military forces operating under mandate within US borders; it certainly feels like a legal minefield, one that at thw very least wouls require congressional approval. Not to mention the possibility of said forces accidentally (or otherwise) encroaching into Mexico.

Would have to be done under request from the actual state in question I think

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

mcmoustache

aloyisious wrote: »

Does anyone know if the F/B page run under the title The Obama Family is actually run by the family of the former US president? The page has a photo of Michelle with the words "I Am Running for 2020" overhead.... It might, just might, help ignite a fire within the belly of the Dems, especially those who appreciate her and her family. The W/H occupants can continue to help her by throwing racial taunts at her hubby that'll resound around the US.

The words: yesterday at 6.28 Pm are captioned over and outside the photo BUT I assume that was when this was last posted/shared on F/B.

No idea.This year has made me believe nothing until I've checked it multiple times. Same as you, evidently.

everlast75

I just wanted to vent my disgust for this man.

There is plenty to give out about when it comes to him, but I'm tired of explaining why I do.

Just the series of tweets about Dems being responsible for the death of DACA, which is a complete and utter lie, to his gullible nature in believing anything that Fox blurts out, to his citation of a right wing opinion poll which put him at 50% while taking a cheap shot at "cheatin' Obama", when DJT cheated on all 3 of his wives... i'm just tired of him.

Sorry - just had to get that off my chest. The sooner the better Mueller catches up with him and his cronies..

Hande hoche!

pixelburp wrote: »

I see the latest brainfart-for-cameras from Trump is a threat to send the military to patrol the border with Mexico. His initial tweets of outage over 'caravans' of people came a mere hour or two after a Fox report on the same, equally phrased, 'problem'.

Leaving aside the logistical headaches that'd surely cause to find the personnel and equipment - is he legally allowed to do that? Presumably it means military forces operating under mandate within US borders; it certainly feels like a legal minefield, one that at thw very least wouls require congressional approval. Not to mention the possibility of said forces accidentally (or otherwise) encroaching into Mexico.

National guard has been placed on the border by the previous two administrations. Not sure about the US army.

aloyisious

pixelburp wrote: »

I see the latest brainfart-for-cameras from Trump is a threat to send the military to patrol the border with Mexico. His initial tweets of outage over 'caravans' of people came a mere hour or two after a Fox report on the same, equally phrased, 'problem'.

Leaving aside the logistical headaches that'd surely cause to find the personnel and equipment - is he legally allowed to do that? Presumably it means military forces operating under mandate within US borders; it certainly feels like a legal minefield, one that at thw very least wouls require congressional approval. Not to mention the possibility of said forces accidentally (or otherwise) encroaching into Mexico.

I've been wondering about the US Army Corp of Engineers and it's civil construction side and works history at home. All that's needed is security for the construction equipment as it should be on the US side of the border.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_Corps_of_Engineers_civil_works_controversies

Water John

Protester outside the Court at which the Dutch lawyer was sentenced, holding up a sign and calling out 'lock em up'.
Karma.

aloyisious

Kind of amusing and maybe bad for the business's, as "recommendations" go. WaPo running an analysis piece that Don only supports information that makes him look good, and he praises Rasmussen and Sinclair, two consistently favourable entities....... As I'm not a WaPo account holder, the lnk might not work, leaving you to look at the WaPo online yourself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/04/03/the-only-information-trump-supports-is-information-that-makes-him-look-good/

Manic Moran

The US Army Corps of Engineers is a little unusual as the domestic construction personnel are primarily civilians in the employ of the army and under the direction of army officers.

The National Guard on the border was basically a federal mission manned by Guard troops. The feds paid. For political reasons, the guard troops were purely in a supporting role, all interceptions and arrests were made by Border Patrol.

I'm not convinced that posse comitatus would be a prohibiting factor in this case. The courts have shown latitude with respect to law enforcement in border areas, permitting up to about 50 miles inland Border Patrol operations which would ordinarily be unconstitutional, and it can be very easily argued that as a mission of the army is to protect the country, manning the border would be doing exactly that.

This would not be to say that the Army would be happy to receive the mission and manning requirements.

2 Scoops

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mueller-told-trumps-attorneys-the-president-remains-under-investigation-but-is-not-currently-a-criminal-target/2018/04/03/d7832cf0-36c1-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html?utm_term=.a59c13cda300

"Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III informed President Trump’s attorneys last month that he is continuing to investigate the president but does not consider him a criminal target at this point, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

In private negotiations in early March about a possible presidential interview, Mueller described Trump as a subject of his investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Prosecutors view someone as a subject when that person has engaged in conduct that is under investigation but there is not sufficient evidence to bring charges."

Mumha

That, as much as anything else, explains much of Trump's more aggressive acts over the last few weeks.

As a subject, rather than a target, he can still be hauled to testify before a grand jury.

One extra item was a redacted court filing which was released yesterday, where Rosenstein gave Mueller extra written instructions. Included in it was an instruction that one of the assistant special counsel lawyers was to continue the financial investigation even if Mueller was fired.

2 Scoops wrote: »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mueller-told-trumps-attorneys-the-president-remains-under-investigation-but-is-not-currently-a-criminal-target/2018/04/03/d7832cf0-36c1-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html?utm_term=.a59c13cda300

"Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III informed President Trump’s attorneys last month that he is continuing to investigate the president but does not consider him a criminal target at this point, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

In private negotiations in early March about a possible presidential interview, Mueller described Trump as a subject of his investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Prosecutors view someone as a subject when that person has engaged in conduct that is under investigation but there is not sufficient evidence to bring charges."

2 Scoops

Mumha wrote: »

That, as much as anything else, explains much of Trump's more aggressive acts over the last few weeks.

Haven't really noticed that. It looks like the probe will continue for a while yet though and everything is open to change.

My take is that the focus on obstruction of justice, which I consider a copout, means there's a strong possibility that there's nothing there related to collusion at least with Trump.

Guess on ETA for the probes conclusion? I'd say 6 months at the most... There will be meltdowns one way or the other.

Christy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

Haven't really noticed that. It looks like the probe will continue for a while yet though and everything is open to change.

My take is that the focus on obstruction of justice, which I consider a copout, means there's a strong possibility that there's nothing there related to collusion at least with Trump.

Guess on ETA for the probes conclusion? I'd say 6 months at the most... There will be meltdowns one way or the other.

Not really. Why would Trump bother obstructing the investigation of he thought he was clean?

I reckon it is just easier to prove the cover up than the crime (this is what got Nixon in the end).

Leroy42

Obstruction of Justice would be the far easier thing to show. Collusion, it is very unlikely that there would be direct evidence that Trump himself did he. You simply have to look at the Trump Jr meeting to see how easy it is for Trump to distance himself. He would not have met with any of these people personally, leaving others to do it and report to him.

But we know that Trump is his own man, that the people around him are fiercely loyal to him (apparently his lawyer pays $130k out of his own pocket for something that never even happened!) and that Trump does what he wants and likes to control everything. So it is reasonable to think that meetings held as part of his campaign by his son, son-in-law and campaign manager were probably something he knew about.

But, there is that degree of separation.

Less so in terms of obstruction of justice.

You make it sound like Obstruction is in some way less of a big deal. POTUS, the person who by oath of office swears to protect the constitution, being charged with going out of his way to obstruct justice. If they do manage to get him on that, it will be huge.

Christy42

aloyisious wrote: »

Kind of amusing and maybe bad for the business's, as "recommendations" go. WaPo running an analysis piece that Don only supports information that makes him look good, and he praises Rasmussen and Sinclair, two consistently favourable entities....... As I'm not a WaPo account holder, the lnk might not work, leaving you to look at the WaPo online yourself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/04/03/the-only-information-trump-supports-is-information-that-makes-him-look-good/

Indeed. He has recently been heavily attacking Amazon as their owner also owns the Washington Post.

The man acts like a spoiled toddler. How anyone can support this type of carry on is beyond me. As others have said he wishes for the power of Putin. He can't go round killing journalists but he will try everything in his power to discredit any negative press about him and anyone who might have reported it. If they are not a brown noser they are on the attack list.

2 Scoops

Christy42 wrote: »

Not really. Why would Trump bother obstructing the investigation of he thought he was clean?

I reckon it is just easier to prove the cover up than the crime (this is what got Nixon in the end).

Negative publicity and the cloud hanging over his Presidency would be the main one, and perhaps opening old closets full of shady business deals.

Leroy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

Negative publicity and the cloud hanging over his Presidency would be the main one, and perhaps opening old closets full of shady business deals.

Negative publicity? This is the man that stated that he could shoot someone and not loose votes.

Not because he didn't want the justice to go through its course?

Really? When you hear of a drug dealer trying to intimate the jury to you think it because they just don't want the hassle of a trial?

And shady business deals. You mean ones that could open him up to corruption from outside bodies that knew of them? I would totally agree with you on that.

2 Scoops

Leroy42 wrote: »

You make it sound like Obstruction is in some way less of a big deal. POTUS, the person who by oath of office swears to protect the constitution, being charged with going out of his way to obstruct justice. If they do manage to get him on that, it will be huge.

Not saying you're right or wrong, but there will be uproar if that happens because of the double standard. Lest forget, it's not obstruction of justice when email servers and laptops are wiped, blackberry and ipads destroyed with hammers, sim and data cards taken from phones after subpoenas and a zillion other things which people have short memories of.

It might not matter to those wanting to nail Trump, but to the right it will provide a mountain of fire because politically and legally it would a complete double standard, borderline farcical. There will be an absolute storm if it happens, the onus is on Mueller to prove the allegation that is the core of the entire political landscape, Trump and his immediate campaign were involved in a consensual conspiracy during the election.

I thought at the time when the Don JR meeting came out they had found the golden nugget, and I still think if it's eventually proven they conspired it will come back to that meeting. I can't picture a scene where every Republican and most if not the majority of Trump voters would not accept his demise if it was proven, if they go for an obstruction angle without any proof of conspiracy none of them will. Like I said it will be a cop out.

Christy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

Not saying you're right or wrong, but there will be uproar if that happens because of the double standard. Lest forget, it's not obstruction of justice when email servers and laptops are wiped, blackberry and ipads destroyed with hammers, sim and data cards taken from phones after subpoenas and a zillion other things which people have short memories of.

It might not matter to those wanting to nail Trump, but to the right it will provide a mountain of fire because politically and legally it would a complete double standard, borderline farcical. There will be an absolute storm if it happens, the onus is on Mueller to prove the allegation that is the core of the entire political landscape, Trump and his immediate campaign were involved in a consensual conspiracy during the election.

I thought at the time when the Don JR meeting came out they had found the golden nugget, and I still think if it's eventually proven they conspired it will come back to that meeting. I can't picture a scene where every Republican and most if not the majority of Trump voters would not accept his demise if it was proven, if they go for an obstruction angle without any proof of conspiracy none of them will. Like I said it will be a cop out.

Should Trump committing a crime not be investigated? Obstruction is a crime and if it is proven then he should go.

I am pretty sure Hillary took a fair hammering over the emails and yet you want to Trump to get away scot free from a crime while he is the sitting president?

They will accept it. Might take a few years but Nixon is rather low on supporters these days. He was taken down via the cover up as opposed to the crime.

I sure they will try and shout double standard over Clinton's private email server and deleted emails for a while. Not sure they will remember the emails Bush deleted or the private email addresses used by the current administration.

Of an investigation proves something against Hillary in court I will happily see her to jail myself. It is not like she has never been investigated. But of course the generally republican heads of security organisations are all against the republicans right?

Even if he did not collude with the Russians but did obstruct the case for political reasons he should go. It is perverting justice and a complete abuse of power. It is enough of a crime that he should be removed from the presidency. If an investigation showed the same for anyone else I would agree.

2 Scoops

Leroy42 wrote: »

Negative publicity?

That his Presidency is illegitimate and that his victory wasn't earned. I can understand that seeing he was giving 6 or 7 speeches a day in the final weeks of the election. He doesn't care about the other stuff you mentioned.

2 Scoops

Christy42 wrote: »

Should Trump committing a crime not be investigated? Obstruction is a crime and if it is proven then he should go.

I am pretty sure Hillary took a fair hammering over the emails and yet you want to Trump to get away scot free from a crime while he is the sitting president?

They will accept it. Might take a few years but Nixon is rather low on supporters these days. He was taken down via the cover up as opposed to the crime.

I sure they will try and shout double standard over Clinton's private email server and deleted emails for a while. Not sure they will remember the emails Bush deleted or the private email addresses used by the current administration.

Of an investigation proves something against Hillary in court I will happily see her to jail myself. It is not like she has never been investigated. But of course the generally republican heads of security organisations are all against the republicans right?

Even if he did not collude with the Russians but did obstruct the case for political reasons he should go. It is perverting justice and a complete abuse of power. It is enough of a crime that he should be removed from the presidency. If an investigation showed the same for anyone else I would agree.

It's just flimsy, he said to Comey " I hope you can let Flynn go " where Comey later testified under oath that the investigation into Flynn wasn't impeded.

Second thing, Rosenstein wrote the letter recommending Comey be fired, you can question the motivation behind it but the fact is he did. Trump has the right to fire the head of any of those agencies regardless.

He thought about firing Mueller. Again what's the legal standard for thinking or hoping something.

This idea he'll be indicted under obstruction charges and that it's warranted is a nonsensical pipe dream. I'd like to see it in court because it's validity would fall faster than stormy Daniels knickers. All I see is they didn't find what they expected to after the FISA mess so now they need a plan B.

Igotadose

2 Scoops wrote: »

It's just flimsy, he said to Comey " I hope you can let Flynn go " where Comey later testified under oath that the investigation into Flynn wasn't impeded.

Second thing, Rosenstein wrote the letter recommending Comey be fired, you can question the motivation behind it but the fact is he did. Trump has the right to fire the head of any of those agencies regardless.

He thought about firing Mueller. Again what's the legal standard for thinking or hoping something.

This idea he'll be indicted under obstruction charges and that it's warranted is a nonsensical pipe dream. I'd like to see it in court because it's validity would fall faster than stormy Daniels knickers. All I see is they didn't find what they expected to after the FISA mess so now they need a plan B.

Now, as has been mentioned on this thread, what was said (as reported in the media) doesn't matter - it's what's proven in court. We're still a ways away from that. As for whether he'll be indicted, IANAL so not going to guess, someone with more experience here (CNN Commentator Jeffrey Toobin) had this gem the other day:
"“In between the two, there is something called the “subject.” That is someone who is under investigation but who may or may not be charged. Trump is a subject, and I don’t think that is particularly good news for him. It’s a big deal to be under criminal investigation by the FBI, particularly if you’re president of the United States.”"

Trump's currently a 'subject.' Time will tell if he's going to be indicted. Oh and yeah, the POTUS being a subject of criminal investigation while sitting in DC is pretty damn profound. Even Nixon didn't get that far as far as I can recall.

Christy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

It's just flimsy, he said to Comey " I hope you can let Flynn go " where Comey later testified under oath that the investigation into Flynn wasn't impeded.

Second thing, Rosenstein wrote the letter recommending Comey be fired, you can question the motivation behind it but the fact is he did. Trump has the right to fire the head of any of those agencies regardless.

He thought about firing Mueller. Again what's the legal standard for thinking or hoping something.

This idea he'll be indicted under obstruction charges and that it's warranted is a nonsensical pipe dream. I'd like to see it in court because it's validity would fall faster than stormy Daniels knickers. All I see is they didn't find what they expected to after the FISA mess so now they need a plan B.

Why? Is that all the investigation have? Are you certain? If they go after obstruction and don't have more people will want their money back:p.

If they show obstruction would you be happy to see him go on that?

You are very confident there is nothing else there. Which is weird as the motivation can come into it as conspiracy to cover up a crime is a thing. Even when doing things you could normally! (See deleted emails complaint you had earlier)

It also shows the president has far too much power. Being able to fire the person investigating you is dumb.

Quin_Dub

2 Scoops wrote: »

It's just flimsy, he said to Comey " I hope you can let Flynn go " where Comey later testified under oath that the investigation into Flynn wasn't impeded.

Second thing, Rosenstein wrote the letter recommending Comey be fired, you can question the motivation behind it but the fact is he did. Trump has the right to fire the head of any of those agencies regardless.

He thought about firing Mueller. Again what's the legal standard for thinking or hoping something.

This idea he'll be indicted under obstruction charges and that it's warranted is a nonsensical pipe dream. I'd like to see it in court because it's validity would fall faster than stormy Daniels knickers. All I see is they didn't find what they expected to after the FISA mess so now they need a plan B.

Trumps maneuvering to get Rosenstein to write that letter , or at least the use of that letter as justification for firing Comey may yet prove to be his undoing.

Rosenstein was NOT happy with the outcome and for being positioned as the justification for firing Comey - It might have been out of embarrassment at being played by Trump but whatever the reason , Rosenstein then went ahead and initiated the Mueller investigation.

As part of the Manafort case this week we learned that Rosenstein had given Mueller explicit permission to go after Manaforts historical Russian connections - But that only came out as part of the defence against Manaforts efforts to get the case dismissed.

We also now know that he gave instructions that were Mueller to be fired that the next in line was to continue the investigation.

What other as yet undisclosed explicit instructions did Rosenstein give to Mueller?

Has he provided Mueller with the cover for looking at Trumps historical financial transactions (Trumps Red Line Issue) for example.

I also think that the Stormy Daniels story has more to run - The actual affair isn't the issue (although Trump is clearly a slimeball for playing away while is wife was nursing their new-born child) , it's where the $130k came from is where the damage will be done I think.

listermint

2 Scoops wrote: »

He thought about firing Mueller. Again what's
This idea he'll be indicted under obstruction charges and that it's warranted is a nonsensical pipe dream. I'd like to see it in court because it's validity would fall faster than stormy Daniels knickers. All I see is they didn't find what they expected to after the FISA mess so now they need a plan B.

I've yet to see an investigation that releases all of its information and it's charges before the investigation is complete.

I don't actually understand why you think you have the inside track on this.

?

2 Scoops

listermint wrote: »

I've yet to see an investigation that releases all of its information and it's charges before the investigation is complete.

I don't actually understand why you think you have the inside track on this.

?

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.