Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Nody

On a slightly different angle but let's assume that Trump gets voted back in 2020; Senate remains Republican by smallest margin and house goes slightly Democratic. We all know second term Presidents tend to become sitting ducks sooner or later as well as they will tend to go for more "legacy" decisions so to speak as well as last minute decisions. What kind of actual decisions would you expect Trump managed to get through (once again not what he wants but actually get through as seen in the Republican Senate implementing Russian limitations against his will, refusing to fund his wall etc.) and what pardons (beyond his directly family who I'm sure will be given presidential pardons as a precaution) would he go for?

Hidalgo

everlast75 wrote: »

as has been said here before, it could have been a blip at the start, if they played it right.

They could and should have come out at the start.


"We accept that taking the meeting was not the right thing to do. We hold our hands up. We were politically naive. The reason people voted for Trump was that he is not the usual politician type, however ignorance of the law is no excuse and we have to and do accept that.

Now, Joe 6 pack knows that getting dirt on a political opponent goes on in every state, and we thought albeit wrongly, that this was part of the process. We understand now that doing it on an international level makes it something more serious. We apologise to the American public, and will strive to do better as we go forward"

Something like that. It would have been a controversy for sure, but nothing like what's gone on here.

Ya had the nipped it in the bud it would have been far better for themselves.
Claiming political naivety would have been their best excuse, and someway believable.

Water John

Isn't Manafort's trial ATM a state trial and not a Federal one. Trump cannot pardon that. However I presume, at any time Manafort can cut a deal, with Mueller. As the Judge said to the Prosecutor, you really have no great interest in these issues.

mcmoustache

Water John wrote: »

Isn't Manafort's trial ATM a state trial and not a Federal one. Trump cannot pardon that. However I presume, at any time Manafort can cut a deal, with Mueller. As the Judge said to the Prosecutor, you really have no great interest in these issues.

It's federal as far as I can tell. The indictment is

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR.,
(Counts 1 through 5, 11 through 14, and
24 through 32)
and
RICHARD W. GATES III,
(Counts 6 through 10 and 15 through 32)
Defendants.

jooksavage

Penn wrote: »

To be honest, I reckon Mueller is just waiting for the right time, and making sure he has enough to make it bulletproof when he does it. Going after Trump's son will almost ensure Trump starts making moves to shut down the whole investigation. Mueller needs to have everything in place before before that happens, so that once Trump starts making his move, Mueller plays every card he has.

100% this. Once indictments drop for Don Jr and/or Kushner, all bets are off as to how Trump will react. More than likely he'll do something wholly unconstitutional like try to kill the investigation or premptively pardon himself and his family. Waiting until after the midterms and a sympathetic Dem majority in congress could be part of Muellers calculus here.

Franz Von Peppercorn

jooksavage wrote: »

100% this. Once indictments drop for Don Jr and/or Kushner, all bets are off as to how Trump will react. More than likely he'll do something wholly unconstitutional like try to kill the investigation or premptively pardon himself and his family. Waiting until after the midterms and a sympathetic Dem majority in congress could be part of Muellers calculus here.

Who knows what’s unconstitutional or not with regards to the special prosecutors. He can’t do the latter for sure. He can possibly legally kill any investigation he wants but that may lead to an impeachment.

Leroy42

I think Trump will look to move to end the investigation before the mid-terms (although the outcome of today's special election might be telling).

If he even bothers trying to pretend there is a justifiable reason, it will probably be along the lines of they tried to arrange an interview but Mueller is clearly out to get Trump and Trump is too busy to play these games.

Trump and Pence have both stated at rallies that the mid-terms are a vote on the impeachment of Trump. If they really fear that either both or one of the houses could be flipped, then my thinking would be that Trump will take the gamble that the GOP will continue to support him regardless of what he does so he will try to stop it before the threat of a DEM controlled house takes away any sense of control.

He has noticeably increased both the amount and the seriousness of this attacks in recent weeks. What would he have to lose by shutting Mueller down close to the mid-terms (say start of September). The GOP will have little option but to go with him, the fear of losing the Trump support will be too strong.

Itssoeasy

This special election in Ohio could work out badly for trump if a safe GOP seat goes to the democrats after trump seemed to insert himself into the campaign by going to Ohio and campaigning for a GOP canditate who apparently didn't ask him to.

If trumps input gives the seat of the democrats then I can see other GOP candidates for the midterms saying to trump to campaign on their behalf from afar and not in the state they are running in.

Outlaw Pete

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

On July 27th Trump openly called on Russia to hack and release Hillary's emails:

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,"

I believe it's called sarcasm.



https://twitter.com/th3j35t3r/status/1026843225200324608


Meanwhile, Bill Cosby's and Roman Polanski's stars are available to view anytime.

everlast75

Sarcasm. The last line of defence when things don't go well.

As for the other stars, I'm glad to see you're finally putting Donal Trump in with his peers in terms of sexual misconduct.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I believe it's called sarcasm.



https://twitter.com/th3j35t3r/status/1026843225200324608


Meanwhile, Bill Cosby's and Roman Polanski's stars are available to view anytime.

That's a shocking injustice to poor Donald! It's absolutely terrible. To treat such a nice man who never did nothin to nobody with such reckless abandon; it's just so inhumane. I hope Trump gets three scoops tonight and an extra hour of executive time to recover.

Quin_Dub

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I believe it's called sarcasm.



https://twitter.com/th3j35t3r/status/1026843225200324608


Meanwhile, Bill Cosby's and Roman Polanski's stars are available to view anytime.

Genuine question - Are they removing it because they don't like Trump or because every time they fix it it gets smashed again , this is the 3rd time it's been smashed I think ?

If it's because of the former , then I agree with you there are probably more than a few stars that could do with being taken away alright..

batgoat

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I believe it's called sarcasm.



https://twitter.com/th3j35t3r/status/1026843225200324608


Meanwhile, Bill Cosby's and Roman Polanski's stars are available to view anytime.

I favour Polanski and Cosby being removed as well. Polanski should have been expelled from Academy far earlier. So guessing removal is a matter of time now. I'm still glad to see Trump's star removed and think the reasons are justified. I know you think his pussy grabbing remarks are grand but it was tip of iceberg tbh. Reminds me of Weinstein in terms of his attitude actually.

Captain Obvious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I believe it's called sarcasm.



https://twitter.com/th3j35t3r/status/1026843225200324608


Meanwhile, Bill Cosby's and Roman Polanski's stars are available to view anytime.

Trump has hurt many more children than those two ever will.

Water John

Great to see the EU stand by its negotiated treaties.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/07/eu-foreign-policy-chief-calls-on-firms-to-defy-trump-over-iran

Great woman, call Trump out.

Leroy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I believe it's called sarcasm.

What is? That he asked Russia to produce the e-mails? Because he has stated it on other occasions.

Are we to believe that this man is so lacking of any ability to convey himself that he fails to get across sarcasm on multiple occasions?

But of course he does sarcasm. Wasn't that was he was doing when he was talking about the disabled reporter. Because the two don't look anything alike.

And of course the fact that he has never said that he was just being sarcastic.

everlast75

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Singing like a canary is mr gates.

And he was there "after" Manafort was let go, during the transition.

Itssoeasy

everlast75 wrote: »

And he was there "after" Manafort was let go, during the transition.

Was he ? Oh well I'm sure he has a bit of info to devulge to mueller on things related to the campaign itself and norm just his business dealings with manafort.

Itssoeasy

It seems rick gates is admitting to anything that they are asking him to. As someone who has had canaries they will sing like feckers almost to the point of choking themselves. Rick gates would want to be careful about that.

everlast75

Itssoeasy wrote: »

It seems rick gates is admitting to anything that they are asking him to. As someone who has had canaries they will sing like feckers almost to the point of choking themselves. Rick gates would want to be careful about that.

Gates knows that if he lies once, he's done.

Zero incentive to lie

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

Has it gotten to the stage when military personal are now okay with foreign powers meddling in your internal elections . because you know I'm sure it happens on the local level too.

It's a head scratcher that this is what you are peddling manic and even with your repeated claims of voting for Obama ( I've no doubt you did btw) I really don't think you would let this fly or even start to defend it in any way if him and his reports tried the same thing with a foreign government.

You'd be livid.

If a soldier was contacted by a Russian looking to sell on state secrets the US government would expect that soldier/citizen to report that.

BLUF: We can't stop the influence, we refuse to stop the quid-pro-quo, so the only thing left is to look at the actions taken as a result of the influence or gifts.

TL version: Point missed, again, I'm afraid. I think you're trying to view my comments with an 'excusing Trump' lens. I'm not.

I am not a fan of rules unless the rules can be enforced. I am also not a fan of selective enforcement of the rules.

If a soldier was contacted by -anyone-, Russian, American, British, or German, looking to sell on state secrets, I would expect him to report that. The "Russian" bit has nothing to do with it and is irrelevant. Similarly, quid-pro-quos are strictly prohibited. "General, if you have the military buy our widget, made 100% in Alabama, we'll give you a lobbying job after you get out". The nationality of the other party is entirely irrelevant to the morality of the problem. The military is extremely strict on that sort of thing.

Yet that is exactly how US politicians operate. Quid pro quo is standard. It's very carefully structured to remain within the law, but "Help me get elected and I'll make you an ambassador" is standard practice. "Help me get elected and I'll ensure more money for your union members" is standard practice. "Help me get elected and I'll open this national park for oil drilling" is standard practice. And so on. Our politicians are bought and paid for. We help you get elected, you do something for us in return when you have the power to do it. At the national level, that's basically all of them, regardless of party. The only difference is who their benefactors are. (Local politicians I think are still generally honest enough: They don't have enough power to attract the attention of any power-brokers).

We don't enforce against this quid pro quo. At all. This leaves open the possibility of external powers getting involved even if we attempt to distinguish between foreign and domestic. We can't stop it, and here's a simple example why.

If the Russians are ballsy enough to say "Hi, we're the Russians, and we're going to help you win the election" to the candidate that they would prefer win (without a quid-pro-quo) is it legal? It's foreign involvement, sure, but illegal?
How about if the Russians didn't say it was the Russians, and pretended to be some concerned citizen in Tennessee, which is where I was going with the hypothetical, is it the same level of foreign involvement? Arguably, yes, because the effect is the same. Then we get into the whole 'troll factory', 'fake ID' business that Facebook is currently trying to fight. But is it as illegal?
If the Russians found an American member of the Illinois Republican Party and gave them the information (The 'useful idiot', let's say), and this 100% American person forwards it up in full honesty that he's trying to help his politician get elected, is this foreign involvement? I would argue just as much, yes, because it still gets out there and still has the same effect. Yet how on Earth can it be prohibited? You can't vet every source of information, and you can't stop even an Illinois Republican from helping his party. And if there is a quid-pro-quo which results from this, we pay no attention because it seems to be an American who is getting the quid or the quo, and that's the way US politics works (Even if that quid or quo actually benefits Russia in the long run).

The Russians, Chinese, whoever, are going to do what they can in every election to ensure that their preferred candidate gets a boost, even without the quid-pro-quo. They would be stupid not to. Attempting to prevent them from doing so is a fool's errand, and I submit that it has to be a given that they will achieve some level of influence on a result. Sure, it can be reduced, but we have to accept that there will be some regardless.

This is why I say we need to focus on the actions of the assisted party. If the above General selected the Alabama military widget in a neutral manner on its merits, and then got the lobbying gig after he retired, that's not illegal or immoral

I think we are missing the forest for the trees. Accepting Russian help (even if known) to get elected and neither promising or doing anything different in return is arguably better than accepting American help to get elected and actually promising or doing something which would not otherwise have been done as a result. The help is coming from one quarter or another because we can't stop it, so when are we going to start holding politicians to some form of ethical standard wherein they are not bought? Find me that politician, and he/she will get my vote in a heartbeat.

(Minor correction: I didn't vote for Obama. I did vote for Bernie in the primary, though. Not because of his policies as much as because I feel he was as close to an honest man as was on the ballot. I'd rather have an honest person with whom I disagree than one I didn't trust)

Outlaw Pete

everlast75 wrote: »

I'm glad to see you're finally putting Donal Trump in with his peers in terms of sexual misconduct.

I was doing no such thing, quite the opposite in fact.

Oh don't tell me, you were being sarcastic. Well, did you know that's the last line of defence when things don't go well.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Genuine question - Are they removing it because they don't like Trump or because every time they fix it it gets smashed again , this is the 3rd time it's been smashed I think ?

Seems to be a litany of things....

If it's because of the former , then I agree with you there are probably more than a few stars that could do with being taken away alright..

Sure are and in the case of Cosby, they have stated that his star will remain.

batgoat

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He sure has. Made a lot of babies cry since 2016



If it was only the tip of the iceberg, then why are you citing it and not the rest of the iceberg?

I think there's about 12 cases of sexual harassment against him at the moment. He was sleeping with a pornstar while his wife was pregnant. He payed off the pornstar and playboy star. In addition to this, examples of his attitude towards women, he behaves like a misogynist towards them, particularly when they make him uncomfortable. Eg that time he referred to Megyn Kelly's period during a debate. That's just one example, there are many. He treats women like **** if they don't lap up to him.

Nody

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He sure has. Made a lot of babies cry since 2016

Yes; the amount of butt hurt right wingers out there crying their heart about "but but Clinton" or "left wing media" every time someone points out the faults of Trump are staggering (I had hoped this would be a left wing thing as claimed but apparently the snowflakes are on all sides of the divide).

Have a look for example at the mails Cavuto, a Fox presenter, received for calling out Trump for praising Putin in Helsinki.

everlast75

Well if it makes you feel any better Pete, I'd be happier with all 3 gone.

I've no problem saying that.

Do you?

Whenever someone insults Trump, out comes the line "but.. but.. but.. look, someone else has done something as bad/worse! Why aren't you giving out to them?"

Why can we not look at what a complete an utter idiotic, misogynistic, racist bully he is without wheeling out somebody else to try and make us feel bad or insinuate false hypocrisy.

Trump is who he is. Cosby et al are who they are.

Why hasn't Cosby or anyone else's been destroyed? I don't know. It should be.

Trump is the president of the unites states. He's slightly higher profile and more powerful than Bill Cosby. Maybe that focuses people's minds more.

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think we are missing the forest for the trees. Accepting Russian help (even if known) to get elected and neither promising or doing anything different in return is arguably better than accepting American help to get elected and actually promising or doing something which would not otherwise have been done as a result. The help is coming from one quarter or another because we can't stop it, so when are we going to start holding politicians to some form of ethical standard wherein they are not bought? Find me that politician, and he/she will get my vote in a heartbeat.

Manic, not going to quote the full post, but I appreciate your input and am only including the above as a means to refer back to your post.

If want you are saying is true then it is a really depressing outlook on democracy in the US. Of course power and money play a large role in every democracy, but it seems you have given up any pretense that it can be, even should be, any different.

The main point that I would take from it, is if you really believe all of what you said, then I fail to understand the vitriol directed towards HC. How can the Americans be so accepting of such carry on yet seemingly have such dislike for a person, that it would appear, simply followed the rules of the game.

And tat is the bit that gets me. It's not that I don't know what is going on, its not that we all don't understand the power of big business and the dirty stuff that goes on, but like in most things Trump it is the hypocrisy that seemingly excuses him for everything but blasts others for far less.

Remember, Trump sold himself as draining the swamp. He didn't need big business and donations, like HC, because he was a billionaire and beholden to no one. He told it like it is because he was going to change things.

Yet 18 months in you have accepted that he is no different that any one else, save for the fact the rather than be beholden to US corporations he is now beholden to a foreign state.

Zubeneschamali

Itssoeasy wrote: »

It seems rick gates is admitting to anything that they are asking him to.

Those are the terms of any such plea deal - admit everything, the full truth or the deal is off and we use what you did admit to put you in jail until you die.

everlast75

Apparently the cross examination yesterday got quite personal, with details of Gates having an affair.

Gates fired back with words to the effect of "I'm admitting everything that I've done, and I've confessed and am willing to take the consequences of my actions. Something Paul Manafort isn't"

At the conclusion, I am sure the prosecution will remind the jury that you don't have to like the guy, you just have to believe him.

circadian

What's the chance of Gates going into protection with a new identity after this? I mean if he provides evidence against Trump surely he's going to be a target for someone.

Outlaw Pete

everlast75 wrote: »

Why can we not look at what a complete an utter idiotic, misogynistic, racist bully he is without wheeling out somebody else to try and make us feel bad or insinuate false hypocrisy.

Yeah, what a racist!!


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1026546879289425920

https://twitter.com/FOX2News/status/1027028952450125826