Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

I think what makes this Story more than just the Traffic Accident you can't look away from is the almost guaranteed surprise ending that's going to pop out of the cake when Mueller announces his findings. tick tick tick.

---

If Mueller is allowed to complete his investigation.
The one point of importance I ought to have made above, is the extent to which facts, and the truth are no longer driving decision making, as if they were irrelevant to the investigation. That the Nunes Memo is biased and does not tell the whole of the truth makes it a worthless document, legally, but politically it is now all about perception and news manipulation, the headline rather than the story. This may just be the way news is broadcast these days, and it has always been manipulated but I do think this is politics going to places it never used to before, and that is why I think citizens should be concerned. We have a different agenda in the UK, one marked by incompetence rather than lies, yet Brexit too could lead to the break-up of the UK. The only people who benefit from this are those who regard democracy as a mess, and that they should be free to pursue their interests without regard to accountability to the public, or the law.

When I was a Cub Scout, we went to tour the FBI building in DC, and at the end an agent came out with a Tommy Gun and blasted off a whole barrel clip, each kid got a bullet riddled silhouette target as a souvenir.
One time in the hall at Elementary school, Hank Dent was going up and down the halls with his eyes so wide open he couldn't tell me what was going on. These were the same halls we did Abomb Tests in, and that was the day JFK got shot, later, Hank's Dad was disgraced in the Watergate Hearings. I used to play in their house, his Dad gave me my nickname. In College, at a Student Demonstration, a Police Car blew up down the street, and the Police pushed the crowd so hard I thought my bicycle was going to literally crush me to death against a parked car. I was so shook I was running down a side street and some girl grabbed my arm and said "don't run" ...I calmed down immediately and we very surreally walked down the middle of the street while Cops on Horses were billyclubbing running Students. When I was in my car and flipped on Nixon saying "I am not a crook" on the radio,I thought it was a comic impersonator, Being President was a completely different thing back then. The Media was different, Woodward and Bernstein were quite controversial in their time.
Trump did something no other Republican dared do, a Rush Limbaugh Impersonation. They wouldn't do it because of what's happening right now, trying to deliver on the promises Conservative Media give their listeners is a recipe for failure. Just like giving Big Business everything they want is a sugar high that will eventually rot your teeth.
Of course the Russia Investigation has eclipsed all that, if Rush Limbaugh himself had run and won, it might have really altered American Politics when he failed miserably, because it's all about Trump and Trump only, yeah, we've never seen anything quite like this.
Trump isn't a Republican, or Politician, He's probably looking for the Love his Father never gave him as a child, or something. This has become as Psychological as much as Political, Hopefully, Trump's Aides that have any sense can corral him like that girl who grabbed my arm.
Sacking Mueller would be a trainwreck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Trump isn't a Republican, or Politician, He's probably looking for the Love his Father never gave him as a child, or something. This has become as Psychological as much as Political, Hopefully, Trump's Aides that have any sense can corral him like that girl who grabbed my arm.
Sacking Mueller would be a trainwreck.

---

When it comes to the Constitution and the Rule of Law, he doesn't care, it is as simple as that. Instincts set in, survival at all costs is all the matters. I wonder how many close to him have advised him to shut up about the Russia investigation but he cannot be controlled, which is why his aides are terrified of him being interviewed by Mueller, because he has no prepared script and cannot stop telling lies. There is now speculation that if the investigation continues, Hope Hicks could become a crucial witness, but as someone allegedly loyal to the Greatest President in the History of the USA it is not known if she will turn against him.

Meanwhile the Generals are planning an overhaul of defence materiel to produce 'tactical' nuclear weapons that can be used on the battlefield; they are dithering over Syria because they don't know if they should defend the Kurds from Turkey's attacks, or stand by as they are slaughtered. Looks like another long weekend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

When it comes to the Constitution and the Rule of Law, he doesn't care, it is as simple as that. Instincts set in, survival at all costs is all the matters. I wonder how many close to him have advised him to shut up about the Russia investigation but he cannot be controlled, which is why his aides are terrified of him being interviewed by Mueller, because he has no prepared script and cannot stop telling lies. There is now speculation that if the investigation continues, Hope Hicks could become a crucial witness, but as someone allegedly loyal to the Greatest President in the History of the USA it is not known if she will turn against him.

---

Unless there is something to hide, all of his maneuvers have definitely made things worse. If there's something to hide, maybe he has sowed enough confusion to de-legitimize the investigation among people who are hopelessly compromised and unable or unwilling to look at the facts. There are already people on the right who are pretending the memo means something and that it indicates there were surveillance abuses. It's a bit frightening because we don't know how far this bad faith goes. There is no conceivable basis for concluding what they've concluded.

It is a bit exhausting to recount the facts to swaths of people on the right who have no regard for them. But here is some of what we know: Page has been under surveillance since 2013, from before the dossier came into existence and before he was associated with Trump. The basis of his surveillance and the findings from it have not been revealed but are almost certainly substantive to withstand so many renewals. The people who were responsible for overseeing the most recent renewal of the fisa application were all Republicans. There is nothing to indicate his surveillance didn't meet standards for fisa applications or that there could have even possibly been a political motive, since his surveillance dates to long before his association with Trump. The Russia investigation apparently began with Papadopoulos as a focal point anyway.

As you say, they don't care about rule of law or the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

The basis of his surveillance and the findings from it have not been revealed but are almost certainly substantive to withstand so many renewals.

---

Someone I follow on twitter who runs a national security law blog made this further point but it is something to consider. In 2013, surveillance began on Carter Page because he was fraternizing with all sorts of Russian state actors. When they review the warrant for surveillance, the Judges at the FISC consider what the surveillance has revealed in order to renew it. If the Republicans really wanted to seriously scrutinize this issue because they were certain he should never have been under surveillance, they would have de-classified the entire basis for the renewal. They did not because a Judge would not renew multiple surveillance warrants that did not turn up actionable intelligence.

De-classifying snippets of information to pretend that must be all that exists and then blocking the release of the real basis for the issuance of the warrant is disgraceful. There has been a collective loss of reasoning ability and good faith on the right wing that is now almost epidemic.

[QUOTE=broncofan;1819429
De-classifying snippets of information to pretend that must be all that exists and then blocking the release of the real basis for the issuance of the warrant is disgraceful. There has been a collective loss of reasoning ability and good faith on the right wing that is now almost epidemic.[/QUOTE]

I appreciate your attention to the procedural aspects of this, and it may be that in the long term if the Investigation proceeds, rules and regulations may be an important part of the conclusion.
The fear must be that the whole purpose of this Presidency is based on the view that America is Broken, but broken beyond repair, and that what you need is a new arrangement of politics. The question asked: is this illegal? when it receives the reply No, is confirmation that the President can do something which may violate norms, but that is the point, to do things differently and to be an 'activist' President where in the past office holders have been cautious in their behaviour. Moreover, to the extent that this plays well with the core voters, it is because they support the idea that their interests have been betrayed by Washington DC and that it is just this kind of person who can shake things up and make a difference.

At its heart this may actually be more about one man's obsession with himself, while the rest of America can go whistle, and so far it appears the deep structural changes that are intended to replace the broken system have not even been assembled, but the President and his Republican cheerleaders can pump out the propaganda that this is something never seen before.

The end result could thus indeed be a broken system, but without any replacement. A Congress hopelessly divided, a breakdown of public trust in institutions like the DOJ and the FBI,and a deeper mistrust of politics and politicians. The US was in a similar crisis at the end of Watergate which involved not just the Presidency in disgrace, but the military withdrawal from Vietnam, the Congressional hearings into the CIA, the perceived weakness of Gerald Ford. On that occasion the US repaired itself, but that is because the players were committed to playing by the rules. It seems to me that among the leading players in this drama, there is not even a sentimental attachment to the roots of American democracy, so on this occasion you could end up with a system that is severely damaged or truly broken while the kleptocrat responsible retires to New York to count the millions he made from the Presidency, declaring himself innocent for the rest of his life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I appreciate your attention to the procedural aspects of this, and it may be that in the long term if the Investigation proceeds, rules and regulations may be an important part of the conclusion.
The fear must be that the whole purpose of this Presidency is based on the view that America is Broken, but broken beyond repair, and that what you need is a new arrangement of politics. The question asked: is this illegal? when it receives the reply No, is confirmation that the President can do something which may violate norms, but that is the point, to do things differently and to be an 'activist' President where in the past office holders have been cautious in their behaviour. Moreover, to the extent that this plays well with the core voters, it is because they support the idea that their interests have been betrayed by Washington DC and that it is just this kind of person who can shake things up and make a difference.

At its heart this may actually be more about one man's obsession with himself, while the rest of America can go whistle, and so far it appears the deep structural changes that are intended to replace the broken system have not even been assembled, but the President and his Republican cheerleaders can pump out the propaganda that this is something never seen before.

The end result could thus indeed be a broken system, but without any replacement. A Congress hopelessly divided, a breakdown of public trust in institutions like the DOJ and the FBI,and a deeper mistrust of politics and politicians. The US was in a similar crisis at the end of Watergate which involved not just the Presidency in disgrace, but the military withdrawal from Vietnam, the Congressional hearings into the CIA, the perceived weakness of Gerald Ford. On that occasion the US repaired itself, but that is because the players were committed to playing by the rules. It seems to me that among the leading players in this drama, there is not even a sentimental attachment to the roots of American democracy, so on this occasion you could end up with a system that is severely damaged or truly broken while the kleptocrat responsible retires to New York to count the millions he made from the Presidency, declaring himself innocent for the rest of his life.

---

Great points. I think in the end you're right though the types of laws one can expect a President to violate will not be the ordinary statutes that a private citizen does. His crimes should always expect to be a little bit fuzzier because they deal with abuses of power, self-aggrandizement, and obstruction. Ultimately what matters are the procedures and requirements of an impeachment process which I don't know very much about, except the number of votes and that they're looking into "high crimes and misdemeanors." But you portray the big picture accurately which is a breakdown of our system without much remedy.

This is the Democrats' rebuttal for those who are interested. It says some of the things I've been saying, but all in one place and with a lot of supporting evidence.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_...nes%20Memo.pdf

Trump wants a military parade...
http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/06/politi...ump/index.html
Attachment 1057065Attachment 1057066

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sukumvit boy

Trump wants a military parade...

---

I live outside DC, sometimes they have Military Shows at Andrews Air Force Base, they're actually pretty cool, you can crawl around inside a Tank or an old B-17.
But a Military Parade down Constitution Ave is as stupid as a big beautiful wall. Millions of dollars wasted to stroke Trump's ego. They haven't even found the leftover millions from the Inauguration yet.
D. C. in the summertime is pure heat and humidity.
Please don't tell me they're planning it on May Day......

I wouldn't be surprised if the Child in Chief has ordered the troops to learn the goosestep.

Jah, after Trump and Kelly murder Mueller and revoke certain Constitutional Regulations, we can invade Canada and cop those cheap pharmaceuticals they have up there. Then Invade south to the Panama Canal, so we could use the moat instead of the wall. We could then use the wall to build cheap washers and dryers, while Mexican Laborers toiled up Norte for rock bottom salaries.
It looks like in the Senate anyway, they're actually working together. I had an Asshole Boss once, after everybody figured out their voice meant nothing, things settled down to a low simmer and things actually rolled along pretty well. I did the books back then and didn't get mad, I got even. Seig Heil!!!
Actual Respect for Authority is hard work and very stressful. Phony Respect works just as well with less static.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sukumvit boy

Trump wants a military parade...
http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/06/politi...ump/index.html

---

'No women, no queers and definitely, definitely no Blacks, it's my parade and my army'.

Just like his Generals in 1919, which rich article I offer as part of Black History Month in the USA.

The U.S. Army banned black American troops from participating in the great victory parade staged by Allied soldiers in Paris on Bastille Day, 1919, even though black French and British troops took part. Several black GIs were executed without trial that year, prompting a congressional investigation. When soldiers of the 367th Regiment prepared to sail for home on the USS Virginia, the captain had them removed on the grounds that no blacks had ever traveled on an American battleship.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv.../parisnoir.htm

Blacks didn't fight side by side with whites until the Korean War, and only then because they simply didn't have enough white troops, everyone was sick of War.
When I was in College they had a lottery for the Draft, if you were into "takin' it to the streets" those were the Days. I remember in DC I looked beside me at a demonstration and Allen Ginsberg was standing there!

The Trump Goose Step :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/o...l_popns&wpmm=1

Attachment 1057602Attachment 1057603

Hey, wasn't this supposed to be INFRASTRUCTURE WEEK??
ATTN: USS Trump, Enemy sub surfacing on Starboard side!
Underseaboaten Mueller!
While the Olympics and Mass Shooting grab the attention of most Americans, Mueller has been interviewing Bannon, flipping Gates, and now releasing a "Statement Indictment" against Russian Interference in our Election. Russians with Names. Maybe if Democrats and Republicans can come up with a common enemy, we can get our groove back. Will Republicans cheer or squirm?
When I was a kid, the Russians were a bigger enemy than they are now, but I'd say we're not as well off now as we were then, our competitors have caught up. Our National Debt is killing us. Sucking all the air out of the room. Time for some good old fashioned American Pay-Back!!!!

Lost in the discussion of what happened during the last election is what the legal consequences are of interfering with an election. The indictments handed down by Mueller yesterday give us a sense of some of the crimes that were committed during the election though not all of them. The way an American would be connected to these crimes if we get that far is by conspirator liability. We keep hearing the word "collusion" and it might be a relevant word in some contexts but the way liability attaches in criminal law is by being a conspirator to some other crime. The definition of conspiracy is that two or more people agree to commit an illegal act and take one overt step towards its commission. It does not even require the act's completion in order for liability to attach. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy

Anyhow, for those who are interested, here are some of the crimes included in Mueller's indictments: https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimina...acy-defraud-us , https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1344 , https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028A , https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028

Here is the indictment which contains the facts it's based upon: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43091945

But it will be interesting to see who was involved in some way and knew of these aims. It you know of the plan and do anything to further it (even if your actions do not complete the crime) then you have conspirator liability. We haven't even gotten to the hacks yet, which will probably involve a bunch of other statutes, all with the potential for conspirator liability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

... it will be interesting to see...

---

Ya Think???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Lost in the discussion of what happened during the last election is what the legal consequences are of interfering with an election. The indictments handed down by Mueller yesterday give us a sense of some of the crimes that were committed during the election though not all of them. The way an American would be connected to these crimes if we get that far is by conspirator liability. We keep hearing the word "collusion" and it might be a relevant word in some contexts but the way liability attaches in criminal law is by being a conspirator to some other crime. The definition of conspiracy is that two or more people agree to commit an illegal act and take one overt step towards its commission. It does not even require the act's completion in order for liability to attach. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy

Anyhow, for those who are interested, here are some of the crimes included in Mueller's indictments: https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimina...acy-defraud-us , https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1344 , https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028A , https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028

Here is the indictment which contains the facts it's based upon: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43091945

But it will be interesting to see who was involved in some way and knew of these aims. It you know of the plan and do anything to further it (even if your actions do not complete the crime) then you have conspirator liability. We haven't even gotten to the hacks yet, which will probably involve a bunch of other statutes, all with the potential for conspirator liability.

---

An intriguing point about conspiracy in US law. If certain people related to the Presidential candidate were aware that the Russians has 'dirt' on Hillary Clinton and not only wanted to see it but may have used it -or not used it-, is this not a conspiracy to act with a foreign government against an American running for public office? I have always wondered how someone could twice in one day appeal to a foreign government for help to attack his American rival and get away with it. So far. And all this before we get to the money trail...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

An intriguing point about conspiracy in US law. If certain people related to the Presidential candidate were aware that the Russians has 'dirt' on Hillary Clinton and not only wanted to see it but may have used it -or not used it-, is this not a conspiracy to act with a foreign government against an American running for public office? I have always wondered how someone could twice in one day appeal to a foreign government for help to attack his American rival and get away with it. So far. And all this before we get to the money trail...

---

Assuming that what you say violates all sorts of election law statutes and even more serious national security law statutes the liability could definitely be imputed to anyone who knew the plan, agreed with it and offered assistance to the primary actors. From a criminal law standpoint I don't think mere knowledge of any such plot could move up the chain and be imputed to someone who did not act since most jurisdictions (and probably federal law as well) require one overt act to be part of the conspiracy and consequently have derivative liable to the full extent of the co-conspirators' actions. But as you and others have said a number of times, many of these things are political wrongs that are just as serious when it comes to his fitness for office.

As we saw in the indictments, various Russians tried to set up organizations where they impersonated minorities in order to suppress their vote. Assuming this violates a number of fraud related statutes what is the least an American can do and be guilty of conspiracy? First, the American has to know what they're doing. Second, in some way agree, either explicitly or more likely by implication. And finally, in most jurisdictions an overt step in furtherance is required. Maybe helping to get a permit. Offering a tiny bit of i.t. advice. This small step makes them guilty not just of conspiracy to commit the crime, but through derivative liability also of the completed crime if their co-conspirator completes it.

In your exact example it really depends when they found about the crime, whichever statute it is. The way it avoids the difficulty of trying to charge them with the predicate crime is that it is a crime where the mens rea predominates and only a little bit of action is required for a lot of liability. But you do have to know in advance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

But as you and others have said a number of times, many of these things are political wrongs that are just as serious when it comes to his fitness for office.

---

I suppose the point I'm making here is that criminal law makes it very difficult to punish failures to act, which is why conspiracy tends to require just slightly more than the mere agreement, which common sense might indicate is enough. But someone who holds an office has or should have all sorts of affirmative responsibilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

As we saw in the indictments, various Russians tried to set up organizations where they impersonated minorities in order to suppress their vote. Assuming this violates a number of fraud related statutes what is the least an American can do and be guilty of conspiracy? First, the American has to know what they're doing. Second, in some way agree, either explicitly or more likely by implication. And finally, in most jurisdictions an overt step in furtherance is required. Maybe helping to get a permit. Offering a tiny bit of i.t. advice. This small step makes them guilty not just of conspiracy to commit the crime, but through derivative liability also of the completed crime if their co-conspirator completes it.
In your exact example it really depends when they found about the crime, whichever statute it is. The way it avoids the difficulty of trying to charge them with the predicate crime is that it is a crime where the mens rea predominates and only a little bit of action is required for a lot of liability. But you do have to know in advance.

---

Apparently the President welcomed the indictments claiming they exonerated him of 'collusion' but then on reflection and noting that other views were that it did not exonerate him and his team, spent the weekend firing off tweets that blamed everyone else for everything from gun laws to Russian meddling.

What strikes me about this man is that wherever he goes, there is a lawyer behind him, I doubt he goes to the toilet without first getting advice from the lawyer. Not only were there lawyers all over this team, the Republican establishment knows election law as well as any academic expert, so arguments about 'political amateurs' blundering through an election campaign won't work. The simple truth is that at one level from the start the aim was to break with tradition, to take a militant stance on everything: ridicule and abuse your opponents in public debates, incite violence among crowds, tell lies, treat the press as if they were the enemies of democracy, publicly invite a foreign government to help your election campaign. It is even possible they knew they were breaking the law but took the view, so what? What are 'they' going to do about it? Elections are so rarely fiddled with in the US this is unprecedented territory for law enforcement, just as the grey area with Junior visiting India to sell the family brand to customers willing to part with millions of $$$. Then there is the money trail from Moscow to New York, the giant debt owed to Deutsche Bank and the possibility that the President is living on borrowed money because he has none of his own, which I think legally would have rendered him ineligible to run for public office. And so on.

From where I am and though the facts are not yet known, I think this is going to be a momentous year in American politics, it may even be a bigger story than Brexit, which I guess isn't much of a story in the US anyway.

:party::wiggle::banana:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFnKefiiLgE

https://www.justsecurity.org/52610/c...investigation/

A very good article by Bob Bauer that just came up on my twitter feed. It says that if Mueller's indictments were only intended to demonstrate Russian crimes it would have included a charge of illegal campaign contributions from foreign sources. He believes the exclusion of this charge despite sufficient facts to uphold it gives us a clue to what Mueller plans next. He must be planning to charge Americans with conspiracy to defraud the United States, which was one of the charges included in the indictment. He then talks about the types of acts by Americans that can be used to bring them into this charge as co-conspirators.

To me this would indicate that maybe Mueller does not have evidence of more significant crimes to charge, but it's possible as Bauer says that he is moving in phases, and this is the simplest, most provable phase, where you have both election law crimes by Russians with American co-conspirators.

The HORROR of this is that the same morons who elected Trump will still be running around after he's gone.

I'm going to shed my buttslinger character and be stone cold serious here- does anybody know ONE Democrat who would support a Democratic President with this much Putin Evidence hanging over his head?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

A very good article by Bob Bauer that just came up on my twitter feed. It says that if Mueller's indictments were only intended to demonstrate Russian crimes it would have included a charge of illegal campaign contributions from foreign sources. He believes the exclusion of this charge despite sufficient facts to uphold it gives us a clue to what Mueller plans next. He must be planning to charge Americans with conspiracy to defraud the United States, which was one of the charges included in the indictment. He then talks about the types of acts by Americans that can be used to bring them into this charge as co-conspirators.
To me this would indicate that maybe Mueller does not have evidence of more significant crimes to charge, but it's possible as Bauer says that he is moving in phases, and this is the simplest, most provable phase, where you have both election law crimes by Russians with American co-conspirators.

---

I think this is the key passage in Bauer's article:

On the face of it, the law prohibits a U.S. campaign or person from “soliciting” something “of value” from a foreign national, and it bars rendering “substantial assistance” to illegal foreign national spending. It seems clear that the facts known to date implicate these rules. It is also true that there is little precedent and arguably an increased risk of a defense grounded in the “vagueness” of these prohibitions.

Time and again it seems the lawyers have been at work and argued that if it is not explicitly illegal then it can be done even if it doesn't 'look good' because Presidential candidates or even Presidents are not supposed to do such things. Thus, if it is not explicit in law that it is illegal for the President to use his (or her) office to make money, make money they will. And while it might seem obvious what 'something of value' from a foreign national might be, they may even have analysed this to conclude that it might be a risk, but might not lead to criminal proceedings. What seems obvious to the public might not be to a court of law.

Similarly Junior is at one and the same time promoting the family business in India and giving a 'foreign policy speech' while apparently selling meetings with the man at $38,000 a pop. I wonder if that includes a pot of Assam?

In anticipation of his visit, Indian newspapers have been running full-page ads to get the public interested in the latest Trump Tower project, with headlines that say “Trump is here — Are You Invited?”

Those ads also invite home buyers to drop about $38,000 to “join Mr Donald Trump Jr for a conversation and dinner”.

Mr Trump Jr will take a break from that promotional tour to give the foreign policy speech, and the whole affair has been criticised by ethics experts for potential conflicts of interest.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8218776.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Apparently the President welcomed the indictments claiming they exonerated him of 'collusion' but then on reflection and noting that other views were that it did not exonerate him and his team, spent the weekend firing off tweets that blamed everyone else for everything from gun laws to Russian meddling.

What strikes me about this man is that wherever he goes, there is a lawyer behind him, I doubt he goes to the toilet without first getting advice from the lawyer. Not only were there lawyers all over this team, the Republican establishment knows election law as well as any academic expert, so arguments about 'political amateurs' blundering through an election campaign won't work. The simple truth is that at one level from the start the aim was to break with tradition, to take a militant stance on everything: ridicule and abuse your opponents in public debates, incite violence among crowds, tell lies, treat the press as if they were the enemies of democracy, publicly invite a foreign government to help your election campaign. It is even possible they knew they were breaking the law but took the view, so what? What are 'they' going to do about it? Elections are so rarely fiddled with in the US this is unprecedented territory for law enforcement, just as the grey area with Junior visiting India to sell the family brand to customers willing to part with millions of $$$. Then there is the money trail from Moscow to New York, the giant debt owed to Deutsche Bank and the possibility that the President is living on borrowed money because he has none of his own, which I think legally would have rendered him ineligible to run for public office. And so on.

From where I am and though the facts are not yet known, I think this is going to be a momentous year in American politics, it may even be a bigger story than Brexit, which I guess isn't much of a story in the US anyway.

---

No he doesn't ask his lawyers advise BEFORE going to the toilet , he calls his lawyers in AFTER the whole place is covered in shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sukumvit boy

No he doesn't ask his lawyers advise BEFORE going to the toilet , he calls his lawyers in AFTER the whole place is covered in shit.

---

Sounds like another smear story....
..but has anyone noticed the trend where the people caught up in the investigations are not just lawyers but liars too, they even confess to being liars. Is this because they hold the law in contempt? I don't think I can recall so many people 'in the loop' on this who have admitted to lying and who seem to regard the law as a set of options rather than obligations. And is this not one of the ingredients that can lead, unchallenged, to a decline in the law and order regime that does so much to bind a democracy together?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

..but has anyone noticed the trend where the people caught up in the investigations are not just lawyers but liars too, they even confess to being liars. Is this because they hold the law in contempt? And is this not one of the ingredients that can lead, unchallenged, to a decline in the law and order regime that does so much to bind a democracy together?

---

heck no, Stavros (is that your real name?) Lying means you're living, especially in a murder case, or a collusion with Russia case. Trump's lawyers probably make ten times what Mueller makes, because Mueller is armed only with the truth, Trump's team has the power. Even Jesus used to tell witnesses to his miracles not to tell anybody about this, but of course they all ran and told everyone they met. That's what got him crucified. In American Law, plead not guilty, and keep your mouth shut. If every American Congressman had a lie detector permanently implanted into his body, you'd find out quick Democracy depends on law and order as guidelines, rather than actual law and order. True Law and Order is the lie, that's why Police carry guns.
I'm thinking what John Book told Rachel Lapp after he dropped her off at the farm "there isn't going to be a trial"
Trump is duly elected to the office of President, and Commander-in-Chief, but it's just a temporary position. At least our Forefathers got that part right. Trump can fire Mueller, will the lying Republican Congress then fire Trump????????
Picasso said "art is the lie that tells the truth," if you tell a lie well enough, it's a work of art. I'd say on some level, almost everyone is living a lie, even the Evangelicals.
To make a long story short, when your boss asks you "is that your beer can?"
YES is always the wrong answer. Not because you have contempt for the Law, because you have contempt for your Boss.

There was a time when Conservatism was an idea for Intellectual Academics, then it turned into the Reagan Revolution, now it is just a RACKET.
William F Buckley has turned into Sean Hannity, and Eisenhower has turned into Trump.
The Republican Party, who trashed Trump two years ago, has now firmly attached it's cart to his star, do they know something we don't know? If Trump goes down, will they proclaim bewildered shock? Or do they have airplanes fueled and ready to fly Gates, Flynn, and Manafort out of the Country after DOJ shake-ups and mass pardons? Trump isn't afraid of the shade from Democrats, he's afraid of Jail. There's no telling how far he'd go to save The Trump Brand or maybe, his own orange head.
I'm guessing Mueller knows everything, is working on the paperwork, but is missing the non-hearsay witness who was INSIDE THE ROOM enough he actually heard Kushner offer dropping sanctions in exchange for a HUGE Russian Hack network that had no pesky rules. Part of the weakness of the original Trump team was feuding and secrecy amongst themselves, most of the people Trump began with have been axed by Trump, not Mueller. But I think the actual number of people who knew about Trump's direct Russian Connection was pretty small.
If Trump does go down in flames like no other President, what becomes of the Republican Party and the Trump faithful?
Maybe all this has just been a test of American Democracy, strengthening it's genetic code to fight off naturally occurring internal infections and mutating cancer cells. If there is a President and Constituency that can sink lower than this, my imagination might suffer a lethal heart attack.

https://preview.ibb.co/c7E3kx/33.jpg

These really are incredible days, you won't ever see anything like this again, most likely.
If only Trump could have used his genius for good instead of evil.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

These really are incredible days, you won't ever see anything like this again, most likely...

---

I wish that were true. But I fear 45's reign sets a dangerous precedent for a presidential scale of inflammatory fakery and flim-flam in the service of wannabe oligarchs. By the end of his term the damage done to many immigrants, citizens and the nation may not be reversible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I wish that were true. But I fear 45's reign sets a dangerous precedent for a presidential scale of inflammatory fakery and flim-flam in the service of wannabe oligarchs. By the end of his term the damage done to many immigrants, citizens and the nation may not be reversible.

---

Listen, irreversible damage from eight years of Dum-Dum are still having their effect, and after Trump you will still have Trump Voters. But we've never seen a President convicted of TREASON!!
No other Americans but us will ever see them slap the cuffs on the blubbering crying POTUS!!!
That's a new one!

I love my American cousins, I wish only the best for you and pray for the day your country returns to some semblence of sanity. You gave this guy power (not all of you ofc, I understand democracy) but he is your elected head. Use this time, learn from it, be the better superpower I know you can be. I look to your citizens to weather this nonsense and when the time comes for you to vote again and give yourselves (and me) a man/woman that you deserve. My country's imperial past shames me, I charge you to do better, Obama was a step in the right direction, take some more please. GBA.

The line For fools rush in where angels fear to tread was first written by Alexander Pope in his 1711 poem An Essay on Criticism. The phrase alludes to inexperienced or rash people attempting things that more experienced people avoid.

“Twenty years of schooling and they put you on the day shift - look out out kid, they keep it all hid” -Bob Dylan

I suppose what's going on is exactly what's supposed to be going on, I guess it's good that people are pissed off. It's all wrong, but it's alright. Women are entering Politics in record numbers, and schoolkids are getting gun stores to stop selling certain guns.
Mueller quit a really good job to lead this investigation, maybe the sleeping giant will wake up again. I guess it's good Americans are more like sheep than wolves. I hope so, anyway.

Meanwhile, in Panama...

Two members of Congress have asked the Trump Organisation to reveal if it knew about allegations that real estate agents and investors linked to a project bearing the President’s name in Panama, had ties to money laundering and drugs.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8235111.html

Can't blame Noriega for that one...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/msn/ru...ets/ar-BBJIgls

Just when you thought t couldn't get any weirder.

I just looked at my twitter feed and it's lighting up with something about interviews with a guy named Sam Nunberg. I once saw him on Joy Reid and he was so incoherent I thought he was drunk. He was a former campaign adviser and so far I can gather is that his emails were subpoenaed by Mueller and he ripped up the subpoena. During his rambling interviews he may have said Carter Page colluded with the Russians...he maybe said he thinks Trump colluded with the Russians but it's no big deal. I can't imagine where Trump finds these people.

If anyone can shed some light on what he's said, please do so. He apparently did interviews with at least Jake Tapper and Katy Tur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I just looked at my twitter feed and it's lighting up with something about interviews with a guy named Sam Nunberg. I once saw him on Joy Reid and he was so incoherent I thought he was drunk. He was a former campaign adviser and so far I can gather is that his emails were subpoenaed by Mueller and he ripped up the subpoena. During his rambling interviews he may have said Carter Page colluded with the Russians...he maybe said he thinks Trump colluded with the Russians but it's no big deal. I can't imagine where Trump finds these people.
If anyone can shed some light on what he's said, please do so. He apparently did interviews with at least Jake Tapper and Katy Tur.

---

Like many people I had not heard of him before, as he is another one of the 'little guys' that were glued to the campaign in its earliest stages. What strikes me about the man is not just the bitterness with which he attacks his former colleagues, but the repudiation of the rule of law. Apparently he is going to rip up his subpoena and refuse to hand over emails or testify or whatever. Has there ever been a group of people, however loosely connected, with such open contempt for the law seeking to occupy the principal law making bodies of the USA? The only thing Nunberg doesn't seem to have done that the others have, is lie under oath. And I wouldn't be surprised if his contempt for the law enables him to do just that.