Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Quin_Dub

Quin_Dub wrote: »

##Mod Note##

Let's move on from the Maddow/Jones comparisons please.

Not really adding to the conversation nor is anyone going to have their minds changed by it.

Thanks.

Gentle Reminder before the cards come out of the pocket...

Ultros

Surprised to see you back demfad although not surprised to see you still speculating wildly. Accountability is a good personal trait to harbor.

Ultros

TomOnBoard wrote: »

It is so sad that a great nation should find itself torn down the middle between folks who think any collusion with the Russkies is wrong as they are the greatest threat to the USA, and those who are being forced to think that a bit of colluding (for example to be allowed to build a hotel in Moscow) is ok.

This is misleading conflation, building a hotel in Russia isn't collusion or a conspiracy of any kind. If there was a political agreement in place for building such a hotel that would be conspiracy. If Cohen can't cough that up, then nobody can, including Mueller.

WinnyThePoo

Ultros wrote: »

Surprised to see you back demfad although not surprised to see you still speculating wildly. Accountability is a good personal trait to harbor.

Demfad has been one of the best posters on this thread if not the politics forum.

While... Who are you?

TomOnBoard

Ultros wrote: »

This is misleading conflation, building a hotel in Russia isn't collusion or a conspiracy of any kind. If there was a political agreement in place for building such a hotel that would be conspiracy. If Cohen can't cough that up, then nobody can, including Mueller.

I suppose this post proves my point really: that some folks think 'a bit' of collusion is ok.

I will remind you that

a)Trump was trying to get a Trump hotel approved in Moscow right up to Election Day;
b) By definition he and/or his consortium would have had to deal with the Kremlin, as NOTHING gets done in Moscow without Kremlin involvement/approval;
c) This was being done in secret, and any such dealings were repeatedly denied by Trump both before and well after the election, which is the very epitome of collusion;
d) Trump was running for US President while simultaneously courting the Kremlin, a major enemy of the USA for personal enrichment reasons;
Etc.

In what universe can that be considered OK?

Anyway, hopefully SDNY and others will deal with the notion that 'a bit' of collusion is ok. Sadly, it appears that for some people, skirting the edges of legality is an art-form, so that 'a bit' of collusion may turn out not to be illlegal. But by God, its so wrong!

Penn

Ultros wrote: »

This is misleading conflation, building a hotel in Russia isn't collusion or a conspiracy of any kind. If there was a political agreement in place for building such a hotel that would be conspiracy. If Cohen can't cough that up, then nobody can, including Mueller.

Strange then that Trump, his family and his team repeatedly and strongly denied anything of the sort, only admitting to it piece by piece as more details of it kept coming out. Same as they did with the Stormy Daniels payments.

demfad

Ultros wrote: »

Surprised to see you back demfad although not surprised to see you still speculating wildly. Accountability is a good personal trait to harbor.

I quoted from the ACTUAL Sentencing Memo of Cohen (SDNY) which states that Donald Trump coordinated with him and directed him to pay for two women's silence in order to affect the Presidential election.

You will note that in the sentencing and indictment of Stone that he communicated with Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0 to coordinate the dumps. Manafort's sentencing memo revealed he gave detailed polling data to suspected GRU agent Kimlikim.

But Barr has stated that the Mueller inquiry did not find any member of or associated with the Trump campaign coordinate or conspire with the Russian Government. This is technically true. They colluded with cutouts and agents removed from the actual Russian Government.

The letter also notes that some of the report would have to be redacted because of ongoing Grand Jury cases and that also might affect "ongoing matters" some of which he has referred to other offices.

In the strict sense of coordinating with the Russian Government in the IRA disinfo or the hack and leak, neither Trump or his campaign including CM Manafort or Ratf%cker Stone could be indicted.

Any other potential crimes including fraud, campaign fraud, moneylaundering, FBI felonies, and the quid pro quo collusion for which much evidence exists etc have been given to "other offices" that did not meet strict/narrow remit of the SC.

There is also a countreintelligence FBI investigation into whether the US president is compromised by a foreign power, a dozen other federal and State investigations that we know of, 6 House committee and one Senate investigation.

Barrs words were technically true. They dont say as much as you think they say.

Ivan2019

Penn wrote: »

Strange then that Trump, his family and his team repeatedly and strongly denied anything of the sort, only admitting to it piece by piece as more details of it kept coming out. Same as they did with the Stormy Daniels payments.

Lol mate when your using adult entertainers as part of your arguement

Penn

Ivan2019 wrote: »

Lol mate when your using adult entertainers as part of your arguement

Possible illegal campaign finance violations to pay off an adult entertainer for which Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator is something I would consider a valid argument to make. It comes back to the same point; if there was nothing wrong with it or the plans for Trump Tower Moscow, why not admit to it rather than deny deny deny... well we thought about it but never proceeded with anything... okay so we had some meetings about it but nothing more... we may have signed a letter of intent for it... etc.

everlast75

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I suppose this post proves my point really: that some folks think 'a bit' of collusion is ok.

I will remind you that

a)Trump was trying to get a Trump hotel approved in Moscow right up to Election Day;
b) By definition he and/or his consortium would have had to deal with the Kremlin, as NOTHING gets done in Moscow without Kremlin involvement/approval;
c) This was being done in secret, and any such dealings were repeatedly denied by Trump both before and well after the election, which is the very epitome of collusion;
d) Trump was running for US President while simultaneously courting the Kremlin, a major enemy of the USA for personal enrichment reasons;
Etc.

In what universe can that be considered OK?

Anyway, hopefully SDNY and others will deal with the notion that 'a bit' of collusion is ok. Sadly, it appears that for some people, skirting the edges of legality is an art-form, so that 'a bit' of collusion may turn out not to be illlegal. But by God, its so wrong!

I've made a similar point multiple times on here.

Sally Yates ran like a woman with her hair on fire to congress TWICE to highlight the difficulties Flynn put himself in, by expressing one story publicly but the facts as known by Russia to be different. As AG she believed strongly that as a direct result of those set of facts, that placed him at risk of leverage and he should go.

Now, as Tom set out above, Trump as candidate and into his presidency was in a similar but more worrying position.

If Flynn had to go because he was compromised, why on earth should Trump not be considered compromised or at least open to it.

The counter-intelligence investigation opened by McCabe remains a mystery. Rod Rosenstein was so concerned about it he twice proposed wearing a wire. Has that vanished into the ether?

There are so many unanswered questions. The release of the report is the only way forward.

everlast75

Ivan2019 wrote: »

Lol mate when your using adult entertainers as part of your arguement

Exactly what is so funny about the current president of the United states being named "Individual 1" in a criminal charge, and for him being open to be charged and found guilty if not for the fact that he is the president?

TomOnBoard

Ivan2019 wrote: »

Lol mate when your using adult entertainers as part of your arguement

Actually, I think Trump 'used' that adult entertainer more than anyone on here.

hotmail.com

Igotadose wrote:

America is broken, Trump's just the symptom though. Disenfranchisement, real or perceived, led to Trump and will lead to others smoother than he is, but just as bad.

But he received what any Republican would have got in 2016. And the funny electoral system ensured he was the victor.

The minority of swing voters switched to Republican because America had 8 years of Democrats.

They'll switch back after two Trump terms.

This is how American politics works and most western democracies.

So the moral panic over Trump is frankly exhausting.

Igotadose

hotmail.com wrote: »

But he received what any Republican would have got in 2016. And the funny electoral system ensured he was the victor.

The minority of swing voters switched to Republican because America had 8 years of Democrats.

They'll switch back after two Trump terms.

This is how American politics works and most western democracies.

So the moral panic over Trump is frankly exhausting.

Agreed Trump's exhausting. It'd be better if he'd focus on being President and running the country, and stop stirring everyone up via twitter and ridiculous pronouncements. Be good if he curtailed the lying, too.

Presidents don't automatically get reeelected. Carter, Ford, Bush Senior. It could happen to Trump. Hopefully it will.

KyussB

I've said it regularly over the years, here and elsewhere, that ever since the runup to Trump being elected, the signal to noise ratio in US politics dropped into the toilet - and the new McCarthyite era of 'reds under the bed' Russia scaremongering, which extended from the US to this side of the Atlantic, dropped the standards of political discussion to the level of bare propaganda.

Taibbi made an accurate comparison, that it's like a supercharged version of the WMD propaganda leading up the the Iraq war - news media and public discourse completely dropped all standards, and ran with whatever fictionalized stories fit with Russia hysteria - to the point that all major mainstream news sources (regardless of whether people view them as left/right/'enlightened-centrist'-leaning) have smeared themselves in shit, by pushing this brand of propaganda.

The Mueller report fairly belatedly lays this bare. It's been obvious to see for years - pretty much right from the beginning - but the report has finally removed peoples ability to keep on deluding themselves and others, with the same hysteria/propaganda.

everlast75

KyussB wrote: »

I've said it regularly over the years, here and elsewhere, that ever since the runup to Trump being elected, the signal to noise ratio in US politics dropped into the toilet - and the new McCarthyite era of 'reds under the bed' Russia scaremongering, which extended from the US to this side of the Atlantic, dropped the standards of political discussion to the level of bare propaganda.

Taibbi made an accurate comparison, that it's like a supercharged version of the WMD propaganda leading up the the Iraq war - news media and public discourse completely dropped all standards, and ran with whatever fictionalized stories fit with Russia hysteria - to the point that all major mainstream news sources (regardless of whether people view them as left/right/'enlightened-centrist'-leaning) have smeared themselves in shit, by pushing this brand of propaganda.

The Mueller report fairly belatedly lays this bare. It's been obvious to see for years - pretty much right from the beginning - but the report has finally removed peoples ability to keep on deluding themselves and others, with the same hysteria/propaganda.

You are basing your opinion on a report you have not seen.

Therefore your premise is flawed.

Let us see what the report says.

hotmail.com

Igotadose wrote:

Presidents don't automatically get reeelected. Carter, Ford, Bush Senior. It could happen to Trump. Hopefully it will.

The economy was the main reason why the minority of swing voters switched sides for Carter and Bush Sr.

Ford fought the 76 election after America had two full Republican terms. So he doesn't really count.

So with a strong or even lukewarm economy, Trump is the favourite, as the minority of swing voters won't risk a change.

Chips Lovell

It's important to note that the Mueller investigation wasn't into whether Russia attempted to influence the U.S. election. That's already been proven.

Instead, it was into whether Trump or members of his campaign colluded with the Russian government in its interference.

hill16bhoy

KyussB wrote: »

I've said it regularly over the years, here and elsewhere, that ever since the runup to Trump being elected, the signal to noise ratio in US politics dropped into the toilet - and the new McCarthyite era of 'reds under the bed' Russia scaremongering, which extended from the US to this side of the Atlantic, dropped the standards of political discussion to the level of bare propaganda.

Taibbi made an accurate comparison, that it's like a supercharged version of the WMD propaganda leading up the the Iraq war - news media and public discourse completely dropped all standards, and ran with whatever fictionalized stories fit with Russia hysteria - to the point that all major mainstream news sources (regardless of whether people view them as left/right/'enlightened-centrist'-leaning) have smeared themselves in shit, by pushing this brand of propaganda.

The Mueller report fairly belatedly lays this bare. It's been obvious to see for years - pretty much right from the beginning - but the report has finally removed peoples ability to keep on deluding themselves and others, with the same hysteria/propaganda.

In Taibbi's article, he says this:

To be clear, I don’t necessarily disbelieve the idea that there were “illicit” contacts between Trump and Russians in early 2015 or before.

Given that the title of the article is "It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD", it pretty much completely demolishes the premise of the article - given that he himself admits to being at least open to the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

And as has been said, we haven't even seen the Mueller report, we don't know how long it is, what the scope of it was, and what investigations may come out of it.

What we do know is that Republicans have called for it to be burned, never mind buried.

That doesn't sound like a party who are confident that it will clear "their guy".

Ultros

demfad wrote: »

Barrs words were technically true. They dont say as much as you think they say.

No, pending the release of the full report, Mueller's words say exactly what I believed and what you ridiculed me and others for all along, solely for wanting to see the evidence before finding people guilty of treason.



Your aggressive stance and disdain for those who were objective was solely misplaced. You were wrong.



I've been wrong on plenty of things but I'll own up to them if I am. I wanted to see evidence that Russia hacked the DNC but I'll now admit that happened as fact.

I'm not trying to blow my own whistle at all, my only point is next time don't be so insulting or aggressive towards those who want evidence of wrongdoing before condemnation, it makes worthwhile discussion impossible.

Lusocu

everlast75 wrote: »

You are basing your opinion on a report you have not seen.

Therefore your premise is flawed.

Let us see what the report says.

You are never going to see the full report. Once the report comes out you are going to say, it's just an outline. It would breach the 4th amendment to disclose personal information about people that weren't indicted. The indictments that did happen have nothing to do with Russian collusion anyway. The only significant charges made were against Manafort for 10 year old money laundering charges. There was no collusion, he's totally exonerated of that. Now we can move to switching tactics and pinning obstruction on him, obstruction is the new thing now, but it has been found that there is insufficient evidence due to difficult issues of law and fact regarding Trumps action and intent. Probably his mean tweets he sent out that legal experts theorized could be obstruction of justice by witness tampering.

At least after this devastation people can keep hope going for another few years with the prospect of hoping that the SDNY a la all powerful Captain Marvel might fly in and save the day.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

hotmail.com wrote: »

The economy was the main reason why the minority of swing voters switched sides for Carter and Bush Sr.

Ford fought the 76 election after America had two full Republican terms. So he doesn't really count.

So with a strong or even lukewarm economy, Trump is the favourite, as the minority of swing voters won't risk a change.

Odds-on for recession in Q4 2019 or H1 2020, which could be a major player in the election.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2019/02/24/the-odds-for-a-trump-recession-are-inching-higher/#393176a25ee0

spacecoyote

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Odds-on for recession in Q4 2019 or H1 2020, which could be a major player in the election.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2019/02/24/the-odds-for-a-trump-recession-are-inching-higher/#393176a25ee0

Well I think that in general, the inverted yield curve is an indicator for a recession, but on average it has taken 18 months - 2 years for that following recession to kick in, which could mean that things might still look rosy by the time the election rolls around, but drop shortly afterwards, at which point Trump wont care either way (purely speculating though in terms of the timelines)

Dytalus

https://www.businessinsider.com/barr-mueller-report-white-house-executive-privilege-2019-3

This more than a little unsettling. The White House is going to be allowed to redact the report before the public sees it.

Not at all suspicious.

20Cent

Dytalus wrote: »

https://www.businessinsider.com/barr-mueller-report-white-house-executive-privilege-2019-3

This more than a little unsettling. The White House is going to be allowed to redact the report before the public sees it.

Not at all suspicious.

If it "exonerates" him like claimed surely they would be eager to publish the whole thing.

jobbridge4life

hotmail.com wrote: »

But he received what any Republican would have got in 2016. And the funny electoral system ensured he was the victor.

The minority of swing voters switched to Republican because America had 8 years of Democrats.

They'll switch back after two Trump terms.

This is how American politics works and most western democracies.

So the moral panic over Trump is frankly exhausting.

Not nearly as exhausting as being lectured endlessly on why we are all stupid to care

A moral panic requires the issue to be exaggerated. Trump has not been found to have engaged in collusion in order to sway the election in 2016. That is it.

All other criticism, all other damage, remains valid and true. So no moral panic here.

JRant

Dytalus wrote: »

https://www.businessinsider.com/barr-mueller-report-white-house-executive-privilege-2019-3

This more than a little unsettling. The White House is going to be allowed to redact the report before the public sees it.

Not at all suspicious.

Of course parts of it are going to be redacted. Why on Earth would anyone think the full unredacted report was going to be published.
The fact that there are ongoing cases in other courts alone would mean some of it would have to be.

Dytalus

JRant wrote: »

Of course parts of it are going to be redacted. Why on Earth would anyone think the full unredacted report was going to be published.
The fact that there are ongoing cases in other courts alone would mean some of it would have to be.

I understand that parts need to be redacted. I don't agree that the White House (read: Trump) should be the party doing the redacting. The report is the result of an investigation into Trump and those associated with him.

He shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it in a situation where he can alter it. It's a fundamental conflict of interest.

everlast75

The way I interpret the report at this stage is that it has served a purpose and I'm happy for oversight to continue as normal.

The idea that it clears Trump is countered by the reluctance to release it, so there is the counterpoint.

The fact that the WH sent out that statement to the TV stations shows that they wanted to maximise the "hoax" line, but are worried about the rest of it coming out.

It confirmed Russian interference which means Trump has to acknowledge it if he says the report is valid, and lets see if he steps up to do something about it. If he doesn't, there's another mark in the negative column for him from the report.

Lets crack on with the intel committees. Pressure can be put on Trump that way.

Couple that with the SDNY, various AGs etc. and the heat can be kept on DJT.

MadYaker

Dytalus wrote: »

I understand that parts need to be redacted. I don't agree that the White House (read: Trump) should be the party doing the redacting. The report is the result of an investigation into Trump and those associated with him.

He shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it in a situation where he can alter it. It's a fundamental conflict of interest.

It wasn't an investigation into Trump (although it would appear it spawned a few of those) It was an investigation into whether or not his campaign colluded with the russian government to influence the election. He's the president you can be full sure he has either read it or was extensively briefed by Barr. I doubt he's that fussed about it. I always thought the reason he was so vocal in condemning the investigation was not because he was in cahoots with the russians but because he has numerous other skeletons in his enormous Trump Tower closet that he doesn't want seeing the light of day. If I was him id be more concerned with what the SDNY are investigating.