Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[ilikecheese]

1. See below.
2. Unable to respond based on assumption of no conviction.
3. Impeaching a president and not getting a conviction is a waste of time.
EC. I would guess that Mueller is going down the money laundering and obstruction of justice rabbit holes. Collusion is a pretty broad term. I also think that if Mueller is doing his job that there are other avenues he's going down that aren't being reported...ie Saudi Arabia. To answer #1 properly it will all depend on how the investigation plays out in the coming months. If more charges are brought against the likes of Kushner or others in the inner circle then who knows.

I would like to ammend #3:

IF they were to bring legit articles of impeachement, and voted to do so, but did not achieve a conviction in the Senate maybe it isn't a waste of time for a 1st term president. Could an impeached president win a second term? Clinton was impeached during his second term so it's not an apples to apples scenario.

 

[LinekersLegs]

I think the TT meeting is probably evidence that the campaign would have been willing to collude with Russian actors to get oppo on Hillary. Of course, at this stage, it looks like Hillary engaged an oppo firm that may well have gotten information from Russia.

Is going to a meeting to get dirt from people who are probably tied to the Kremlin, but instead getting an anti-Magnitsky act pitch, evidence of collusion? I'd say no. It's evidence of stupidity. The fact that the campaign listened to an anti-Magnitsky pitch at all is embarrassing. It may show that the campaign was reckless enough that they would have colluded, but I think the evidence of the TT meeting makes it less likely any real collusion ever took place.

No argument there

Not quite sure I follow your reasoning on the last bit. Given that the Trump's said they had never met with Russians, then when this meeting was discovered they did multiple lies about what was discussed how you can be reasonably confident that another meeting didn't take place where the dirt was brought that we just don't know about? They hardly slammed the door in the face of the thinly disguised offer so seems reasonable to suppose that the Russians would have a least tried again, if only so they had the leverage card of threatening to release the meeting details.

 

[Pettifogger]

No argument there

Not quite sure I follow your reasoning on the last bit. Given that the Trump's said they had never met with Russians, then when this meeting was discovered they did multiple lies about what was discussed how you can be reasonably confident that another meeting didn't take place where the dirt was brought that we just don't know about? They hardly slammed the door in the face of the thinly disguised offer so seems reasonable to suppose that the Russians would have a least tried again, if only so they had the leverage card of threatening to release the meeting details.

I mean, if the question is should you trust this WH, that's up to you. I don't think we're dealing with a cast of nefarious, evil characters. I think we're dealing with an amateuristic operation that couldn't be bothered to figure out where the lines of propriety are. My personal belief is that the administration probably didn't collude with Russia in any real sense, and I think Mueller will conclude the same. If Mueller is going to ring someone up for something, I think it'll likely be a weak obstruction charge or the previous false statement allegations. I don't think the obstruction allegations are going to hold up, much less some substantive (non-procedural) crime based on collusion.

Of course, there is also the question of whether requesting and gaining oppo on a political opponent from people who are probably (but not conclusively) connected to a foreign power is problematic or criminal in the first place. When Schiff got pranked last year and had a staffer email the pranker to try and get dirt on Trump, is that problematic?

 

[mezzrow]

I would like to ammend #3:

IF they were to bring legit articles of impeachement, and voted to do so, but did not achieve a conviction in the Senate maybe it isn't a waste of time for a 1st term president. Could an impeached president win a second term? Clinton was impeached during his second term so it's not an apples to apples scenario.

The empirical test awaits. Will the party of Jefferson and Jackson do its duty?

edit: A lot of this is about who you run against the impeachee. If Big Dog had run against W., he'd have won. That was off the table. Same for Obama. Successful Dems are all about the charisma. W was charismatic as a saddle, but he got his two terms.

 

[LinekersLegs]

I mean, if the question is should you trust this WH, that's up to you. I don't think we're dealing with a cast of nefarious, evil characters. I think we're dealing with an amateuristic operation that couldn't be bothered to figure out where the lines of propriety are. My personal belief is that the administration probably didn't collude with Russia in any real sense, and I think Mueller will conclude the same. If Mueller is going to ring someone up for something, I think it'll likely be a weak obstruction charge or the previous false statement allegations. I don't think the obstruction allegations are going to hold up, much less some substantive (non-procedural) crime based on collusion.

Of course, there is also the question of whether requesting and gaining oppo on a political opponent from people who are probably (but not conclusively) connected to a foreign power is problematic or criminal in the first place. When Schiff got pranked last year and had a staffer email the pranker to try and get dirt on Trump, is that problematic?

I agree they are amateuristic but where we disagree is I believe they know full well where the line of propriety is and they just don't care if they cross it, as has been true in many of their business dealings.

If say Chelsea Clinton had been handed Trump's tax records from Chinese state actors and didn't go straight to the FBI with it I'd consider that criminal behavior in receiving stolen goods, probably multiple other laws dealing with foreign governments and also a huge exposure to blackmail even if there was no explicit trade in money/favours.

I have little faith that either Trump or Clinton campaigns would have behaved the same way as Gore did after receiving Bush debate prep and I do find that concerning.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-campaigns-hot-potato/?utm_term=.544bc6ecbb6c

 

[DanEFC92]

 

[DanEFC92]

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[DanEFC92]

 

[Pettifogger]

Good for Pence, good for Rippon for also downplaying this "feud" of late

 

[RAFUH]

Your last question will determine the answers to all the other questions.
I'm not sure there'll be obvious evidence of collusion but I do think there will be plenty of evidence of illegal business practices with Russians. There will also be clear evidence of obstruction of justice (with the aim of hiding these practices)
This will be enough to impeach if the Dems take the house. I'd imagine the impeachment proceedings will be pretty damning and any republican senators that stand by him will suffer in 2020.

My biggest fear is what he might do to distract the masses from impeachment proceedings

As I recall from the start of all this, collusion isn't a legal term...as in it is not a crime. It could potentially be grounds for impeachment as that is a political process not criminal.

As such, I don't know how much Mueller would look at collusion vs criminal activity - conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and business deals as you say.

Regardless of how the midterms go, I think we would need credible evidence of criminality to get impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.

 

[DanEFC92]

Good for Pence, good for Rippon for also downplaying this "feud" of late

His homophobia is 'distracting'? How condescending.

Dismissing his public ant-LGBT views and voting record as 'fake news'.

 

[RAFUH]

His homophobia is 'distracting'? How condescending.

Dismissing his public ant-LGBT views and voting record as 'fake news'.

Wonder if Pence would have to bring his wife to a meeting with Rippon

 

[LinekersLegs]

Dow closes over a 1000 points down again.

 

[Pettifogger]

His homophobia is 'distracting'? How condescending.

Dismissing his public ant-LGBT views and voting record as 'fake news'.

I mean, he's clearly talking about the allegation that Pence's office sought to meet with him and Rippon turned him down as "fake news" and "distracting," but I can see why that isn't an appealing enough hook when one is attempting to criticize the VP for wishing an athlete well and trying to refocus attention on the biggest moment of his life.