Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

[buttslinger]

Edit: please don't respond to the last rhetorical question by reminding me of the Republican Congress...I very much appreciated the optimistic tone of this article.

Me too.

Remember, just like Putin has tons of incriminating information on Americans they think they can use, we have tons of info on no-good-niks in Europe also. We don't advertise it, but we play as dirty as they do in some areas. They said the wires overseas lit up the night Trump was elected. Gossip City. And we heard most all of it through wiretaps. So I think MAYBE Mueller and his buddies in the FBI and CIA have known everything already, it's just a question of if they want to start a Political WWIII here and abroad. Taking down the President of the United States and maybe some Russians also would give anybody pause, it's going to create vast ripples and ramifications way past our little understandings. There's going to be pushbacks for years. They have to weigh and measure everything out before they act. But it looks like it's going down, if Trump goes nuts and starts talking real crazy shit.....I'm thinking more and more Republicans go to PLAN B and save what's left of their chickenshit asses. I'm pretty sure Mueller and his team have story-boarded everything that might happen, we do have some pretty capable people in this country, it takes a pretty big crisis to draw them out. By all accounts, the Mueller Team are the best and brightest, quite a contrast from Trump, Jared, Granny, and Jethro.
The one charge they decided to hit Flynn with was his involvement with Russia.

[Stavros]

They said the wires overseas lit up the night Trump was elected. Gossip City..

Yes indeed, but the investigations now under way are not about gossip, but concrete allegations that the Republican candidate during the election campaign, and the Transition Team of the President-Elect between November 2016 and January 2017 violated the 'Logan Act' of 1799 -a federal law (1 Stat. 613;18 U.S.C. §953) aimed at preventing private citizens from conducting foreign affairs without the permission or involvement of the US government.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38973965

There are also allegations of an obstruction of justice in relation to the above.

The issue related to Michael Flynn touches on the Logan Act with regard to the claim that the President-Elect's Transition Team had communications with the Russians which were intended to affect politics, thus:

Mr Flynn, a former army general, admitted that during telephone conversations with Mr Kislyak, he asked for Russia to try and delay a UN resolution criticising Israeli settlements and not to respond in kind to the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats by Barack Obama in response to Moscow’s alleged interference in the 2016 election. A day after the second request to Mr Kislyak, Vladimir Putin announced he was not going to expel US diplomats, a move that was subsequently praised by Mr Trump.

The point of interest here is who was senior to Flynn in the Transition Team, and that would appear to be the President-Elect, the Vice-President Elect, and Jared Kushner. Whether not the President's son was also on the team and considered senior I do not know, but the devil in this detail are two dates, the 22nd and the 29th of December. Thus:

The documents say that on December 22 2016, a "very senior member" of the team contacted him [Flynn] and asked him to speak with the Russian envoy about the UN vote on Israel as well as a number of other countries

and

Court documents show that Mr Flynn told investigators that on December 29, he called "a senior transition official", who was with other members of the team at Mr Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida “to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian ambassador about the US sanctions”.

But, Jared Kushner was not at Mar-a-Lago on the 29th, he was in Hawaii.

My rusty maths reckons that leaves two people in the frame for the 29th, unless there are others who have not been identified.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8087936.html

[buttslinger]

buttslinger's wetdream is that Flynn is going to raise one hand, put the other on a Bible and say
"Yeah, the Russians told Trump they would give him Hillary secret-emails and Hillary fake-news-internet-sites in exchange for relaxed sanctions from a Trump White House"
Then we'll see witness after witness to prove that happened.

Either that or one of them Honda Civic R cars.
C'mon Santa, I've been good this year.

image upload html

[broncofan]

Trump just admitted on twitter that he obstructed justice. He didn't do it in so many words but he supplied the last piece of evidence that could be controverted. In order to obstruct justice one needs to corruptly interfere with the due administration of justice.

This means that Trump would not be guilty if he asked Comey not to prosecute Flynn because he had a sincere belief that Flynn was innocent. It would be inappropriate and against ordinary procedure for him to direct the fbi in its investigations but he would be issuing an inappropriate directive for what he believed was a legitimate law enforcement purpose.

Today, Trump tweeted that he had to fire Flynn because he knew Flynn had lied to Pence and to the FBI. If he knew that, then his request to Comey could not have been made in the good faith belief that Flynn was innocent. His statement to Comey, "Flynn is a good guy" is ambiguous enough that it might be construed as a plea not to pursue a man who acted without the requisite intent, but his tweet today demonstrates that his dismissal of Flynn was because he knew Flynn committed a crime.

I honestly believe the tweet will be evidence, and goes to the "corruptly" element. But we'll see...The Logan Act stuff is interesting as well...it's not a statute that has been used very much I recall reading, but it's been on the books for over two hundred years. Violating it is a federal crime even if there are only a couple of instances of it being used.

[broncofan]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/u...?smid=tw-share

Read about what KT Mcfarland said in an email at the bottom of paragraph 4. The qualification of what she might have meant is at the top of paragraph 5. Is this an admission that sanctions talk was the result of gratitude for Russia's help...or does context explain? Clear now that the administration was coordinating response to Obama's actions against Russia including expulsion of their diplomats.

[Stavros]

Read about what KT Mcfarland said in an email at the bottom of paragraph 4. The qualification of what she might have meant is at the top of paragraph 5. Is this an admission that sanctions talk was the result of gratitude for Russia's help...or does context explain? Clear now that the administration was coordinating response to Obama's actions against Russia including expulsion of their diplomats.

The legal defence has been made thus:
One of Trump’s lawyers, Ty Cobb, said the Logan Act “certainly does not apply” to transition teams and told the Times “it would have been political malpractice not to discuss sanctions”. “The presidential transition guide specifically encourages contact with and outreach to foreign dignitaries,” the newspaper quoted Cobb as saying.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...on-were-lawful
I can't believe this. On the one hand a Transition Team may have the legal right to 'talk to' domestic and foreign policy with people in the USA and abroad, but it doesn't give them the legal right to interfere in political decision-making before the President has taken the Oath of Office on inauguration day, which is what happened. This is sophistry on Cobb's part.

But what it also reveals is a President who has never had to face a court of law, having slick and probably brilliant lawyers who were able to negotiate plea bargains, or simply pay their way out of justice through 'out of court settlements' probably with non-disclosure agreements. But this is not a fake university or a casino going broke, or a blonde with a grudge, it is politics at the highest level, the government of the USA. And yet he still doesn't 'get it'. One day soon he may indeed 'get it' -or he may just decide to fire Mueller and play the ensuing rage with diabolical delight.

[buttslinger]

In his heart of hearts Trump is and will always be a spoiled little rich brat.
He's been through tons of court cases. They think the Russian connection started because that's the only place he could borrow enough money to leverage real estate deals. From the Russian Mafia.
He is a totally different animal. Has he ever had a "conversation" with any of his wives???
It's all a game.
The Day to Day of this administration has been unlike any other.

[buttslinger]

I have always had the theory that Trump doesn't represent the Republican Party, he represents Fox News and Conservative Talk Media...... Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh.....they never have to balance a budget or find donors, all they have to do is hypnotize their listeners. Feed them candy. Find a rhythm with a beat that is easy to dance to. They are spiritual Mediums, not legislators.

What could go wrong???

[buttslinger]

One last rant while I'm amped up.
It used to be that AMERICA was 80% white, and 20% black.
Now, it seems like the Nation is 3% white, and 97% black.
You can still buy a good hammer, but it costs 50 bucks.
To whittle a long sad story to a short one, politicians have been forced to paint a happy face on a picture that just isn't as rosy as it used to be, it's been getting harder and harder for ANYBODY to get a really good job unless you're connected to a rich fat cat somehow. Stock tips and corner offices, The rest of the world has caught up from the post WWII American dominance of everything. Our slice of the pie is thinner.
I remember I wrote that Hillary Clinton was going to eliminate the national debt like Bill did in the 19990s, and one of the guys here laughed loudly at me. I investigated, and he was totally right, I don't think anyone in charge even has a plan to decrease the deficit.
Congress has a worse approval rate than Trump, the only thing I can figure is that Republican voters turned on Jeb and Marco and Establishment Republicans because nothing they promised ever cane true anymore.
I worry that this tax bill might be the FAT CATs grabbing up as much as they can before everything falls apart, so they can leave the bankrupt polluted USA for a nice Valley in Switzerland somewhere .
Part of my angst is the very real fact that a chunk of my retirement money is going to my Mom's retirement home that is costing about 100K/year now. And a modest home in Northern Virginia cost half a million dollars. And I've got it better than most.

[broncofan]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politi...ce1053AMVODtop

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...ustice-n826231

If they really believed that the President cannot commit obstruction why did they spend so much effort denying that he did? If you look at either article look at the nbc article.

What I don't understand about Dershowitz' view is the fact that there is no limiting principle. If a President cannot be charged with obstruction for exercising his constitutional authority to tell the fbi who to investigate, then would he be able to direct the fbi to investigate one of his real estate competitors? What about a political enemy? If the President cannot be held accountable as long as he is acting within the scope of his constitutional power, then the rule of law does not apply to him as long as he acts under the color of his authority. This would be like saying a police officer cannot be charged with assault as long as he's wearing a uniform and using unlawful force while on duty.

I am closer to agreeing with the brilliant Preet Bharara, but I am not sure that charging a president should be a very high bar, or any higher than for anyone else. Sure, there is the task of determining how his conduct differs from what he's obligated to do, but the obstruction statute does not proscribe appropriate conduct for any individual. There is no overlap between corruptly interfering with the due administration of justice and duly administering justice. So I am not sure why the President even deserves deference if it's proved he did the former. He should be treated like any other citizen.

I know I've said this before, but this was once a potential argument. Now Trump's lawyer is trotting it out.