Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Leroy42

weisses wrote: »

Is/was it established the Trump campaign/organisation is a criminal organisation ? .... Dont think so, so what you are saying doesn't make any sense imo

So can informants/uncover only go in where crimes have already been committed? And at what level and do they need to have been adjudicated in court or is a certain level of evidence required.

Because there already is quite a lot of hoops to go through. A FISA warrant, for example, needs a judge to sign off. The FBI raid on Cohen also required.

Trump is very quick to call HC crooked, Comey a liar , Mexicans rapists etc. But they have been convicted of nothing so how can he say that.

Are you really trying to suggest that police and security forces can only gain knowledge of a possible threat based on either asking them directly or waiting for the threat to happen?

Captain Obvious

weisses wrote: »

Is/was it established the Trump campaign/organisation is a criminal organisation ? .... Dont think so, so what you are saying doesn't make any sense imo

Is that not a bit circular? You can't investigate someone until its established they committed a crime but you can't establish they have committed a crime until they are investigated? Seems there was plenty of evidence to give suspicion they were involved in criminal activity.

weisses

Leroy42 wrote: »

So can informants/uncover only go in where crimes have already been committed? And at what level and do they need to have been adjudicated in court or is a certain level of evidence required.

Because there already is quite a lot of hoops to go through. A FISA warrant, for example, needs a judge to sign off. The FBI raid on Cohen also required.

Trump is very quick to call HC crooked, Comey a liar , Mexicans rapists etc. But they have been convicted of nothing so how can he say that.

Are you really trying to suggest that police and security forces can only gain knowledge of a possible threat based on either asking them directly or waiting for the threat to happen?

No I am trying to establish if the Trump campaign/organisation can be labelled as a criminal organisation, as was suggested by that poster.

I believe if there was an informant in the organisation they must have had their reasons, and it was warranted. No point in doing illegal things when it needs to stick in court imo

jooksavage

weisses wrote: »

Is/was it established the Trump campaign/organisation is a criminal organisation ? .... Dont think so, so what you are saying doesn't make any sense imo

Dont forget that the Trumps were being investigated for fraud in 2012 and the case was dropped under controversial circumstances to say the least.

Professor Moriarty

weisses wrote: »

No I am trying to establish if the Trump campaign/organisation can be labelled as a criminal organisation, as was suggested by that poster.

I believe if there was an informant in the organisation they must have had their reasons, and it was warranted. No point in doing illegal things when it needs to stick in court imo

It can't be called a criminal organisation yet. However, there were criminals who were part of the organisation. It just remains to be seen how many there were. And who knew what about their activities.

weisses

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Is that not a bit circular? You can't investigate someone until its established they committed a crime but you can't establish they have committed a crime until they are investigated? Seems there was plenty of evidence to give suspicion they were involved in criminal activity.

No its not circular ..You cannot state the Trump campaign/organisation can be labelled as a criminal organisation without providing at least some court ruling stating it is

That's why I asked if it was established that the the Trump campaign/organisation is a criminal organisation, which I believe to this point its not

weisses

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It can't be called a criminal organisation yet. However, there were criminals who were part of the organisation. It just remains to be seen how many there were. And who knew what about their activities.

But until the above is clear you cannot state its a criminal organisation... I think we should not get ahead of ourselves

Captain Obvious

weisses wrote: »

No its not circular ..You cannot state the Trump campaign/organisation can be labelled as a criminal organisation without providing at least some court ruling stating it is

That's why I asked if it was established that the the Trump campaign/organisation is a criminal organisation, which I believe to this point its not

Ok, an organisation involved in criminality then.

Quin_Dub

weisses wrote: »

No I am trying to establish if the Trump campaign/organisation can be labelled as a criminal organisation, as was suggested by that poster.

I believe if there was an informant in the organisation they must have had their reasons, and it was warranted. No point in doing illegal things when it needs to stick in court imo

The scenario is hardly difficult to map out though..

• FBI get information that something potentially illegal is going on with the Trump campaign ; could be anything from an anonymous tip to a named individual providing evidence , it doesn't matter , it's incumbent on them to investigate.
  
• Next Step is for them to confirm the veracity of those claims. Logically they might ask themselves "How can we find out more on the QT?" as making a formal/public request would be politically damaging even if nothing was found ( e.g. the Huma Abedin emails)
  
• They then say to themselves - "Who do we have/know that could get close there to do a little digging?"
  
• This is clearly where the now named CI comes in - He's already worked for them (the FBI) , he has some form of "in" with the campaign(heavy GOP connections if the name is accurate) and so he's asked to ask around and see what shakes out.
• He reports back with sufficient corroboration to justify them moving forward with a more robust investigation.

I'm really not seeing a huge "Deep State" conspiracy here , even if the initial trigger to the FBI was totally politically motivated and maybe it was, the bottom line is that they needed to confirm it's accuracy and based on everything else that has come to light subsequently they did just that.

If the CI had gone in and asked around and come back with nothing , would we be where we are today?

weisses

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I'm really not seeing a huge "Deep State" conspiracy here , even if the initial trigger to the FBI was totally politically motivated and maybe it was, the bottom line is that they needed to confirm it's accuracy and based on everything else that has come to light subsequently they did just that.

If the CI had gone in and asked around and come back with nothing , would we be where we are today?

Me neither ... No point for the FBI to do it "illegal" if you want it to hold in court

everlast75

I'm not sure I am following Trump's "logic" here.

He has a problem with the FBI investigating possible (now probable or definite) influence by the Russians, but no problem with the Russians?

He has a problem with the FBI knowing something was rotten, and then keeping it to themselves so that he gets to win the election?

He has a problem with the FBI investigation comprising of "13 angry democrats etc etc" when Mueller is a republican, as is Jeff Sessions, as is Rod Rosenstein etc

Quin_Dub

everlast75 wrote: »

I'm not sure I am following Trump's "logic" here.

He has a problem with the FBI investigating possible (now probable or definite) influence by the Russians, but no problem with the Russians?

He has a problem with the FBI knowing something was rotten, and then keeping it to themselves so that he gets to win the election?

He has a problem with the FBI investigation comprising of "13 angry democrats etc etc" when Mueller is a republican, as is Jeff Sessions, as is Rod Rosenstein etc

There is no "logic" , it is purely about spinning a yarn to his uninformed Fox news watching base.

It's all a "Deep State , Democrat led Witch hunt and anything they say is a lie!"

I have to say I find the whole Deep state thing so utterly ridiculous..

There's this huge underground cabal that control the media and large swathes of the apparatus of the state that can get anything they want.. except for that one time when they all went on holiday and allowed Hilary Clinton to lose the Election.. But other than that , they are omnipotent.

weisses

Quin_Dub wrote: »

There's this huge underground cabal that control the media and large swathes of the apparatus of the state that can get anything they want.. except for that one time when they all went on holiday and allowed Hilary Clinton to lose the Election.. But other than that , they are omnipotent.

well when it comes to media control Sinclair looks pretty dangerous to me

The media on the left were to complaisant around the election ... Trump couldn't possibly win ...

Leroy42

weisses wrote: »

well when it comes to media control Sinclair looks pretty dangerous to me

The media on the left were to complaisant around the election ... Trump couldn't possibly win ...

Well by all known markers he couldn't. We have never witnessed anything like him before, therefor it is hardly surprising that the DNC et al didn't see it coming.

All other candidates would have been floored by one of his many scandals, never mind the numerous ones that hit him. Fraud case, pussygate, Campaign manager links to foreign governments. No experience, no policies, no team.

No record of any public service, one of the elite.

Everything about his run and win was unique. And yet despite all this, and the fact that HC wasn't liked, and the fact that DNC had had the POTUS for 8 years (historically very poor chance of getting another term) they came very close.

everlast75

What would be the general sense here as to whether there is enough material on Trump at this stage to form a compelling report from Mueller.
(I know it will depend on the politicians in power as to whether anything will be done about it).

The reason I ask is because recently, Trump allegedly (a number of witnesses have reported this) ordered the postal service to raise the cost of facilitating one of his foes, Jeff Bezos. One of the impeachable charges against Nixon was trying to use the Inland Revenue to go after his foes.

We now have him calling on the supposedly independent FBI to investigate Obama, one of his perceived political foes. Again, this would be grounds surely for impeachment.

Couple that with
1) the Trump tower meeting
2) the payment of €500m to Indonesia (where Trump has investment properties) by the Chinese and the subsequent endorsement by Trump of a company which posed an intelligence threat to the security of the US
3) His 180 on Qatar after they agree to invest in his son-in-law's doomed Manhattan building.

These are just off the top of my head. I don't rate the Stormy Daniels/McDougal stuff because whilst there may be campaign violation issues, I don't think these will be the smoking gun.

I don't rate Cohen yet as we don't know if he was kicking some of that money up to Trump (I will be astounded if he didn't).

I believe the Mueller investigation is like an iceberg, we only see a fraction of it.

At this point in time, just wondering what your views are.

Quin_Dub

everlast75 wrote: »

What would be the general sense here as to whether there is enough material on Trump at this stage to form a compelling report from Mueller.
(I know it will depend on the politicians in power as to whether anything will be done about it).

The reason I ask is because recently, Trump allegedly (a number of witnesses have reported this) ordered the postal service to raise the cost of facilitating one of his foes, Jeff Bezos. One of the impeachable charges against Nixon was trying to use the Inland Revenue to go after his foes.

We now have him calling on the supposedly independent FBI to investigate Obama, one of his perceived political foes. Again, this would be grounds surely for impeachment.

Couple that with
1) the Trump tower meeting
2) the payment of €500m to Indonesia (where Trump has investment properties) by the Chinese and the subsequent endorsement by Trump of a company which posed an intelligence threat to the security of the US
3) His 180 on Qatar after they agree to invest in his son-in-law's doomed Manhattan building.

These are just off the top of my head. I don't rate the Stormy Daniels/McDougal stuff because whilst there may be campaign violation issues, I don't think these will be the smoking gun.

I don't rate Cohen yet as we don't know if he was kicking some of that money up to Trump (I will be astounded if he didn't).

I believe the Mueller investigation is like an iceberg, we only see a fraction of it.

At this point in time, just wondering what your views are.

At any other time in history , most of those in isolation would be enough to bring down a POTUS but today as long as the GOP hold both houses, absent a video of him being handed cash by Putin himself with audio of Putin thanking him for being his stooge nothing will happen.

They'll bluster , they'll avoid , they'll "Whatabout this other thing" aided and abetted by Fox News and others on the right wing and hope that the base continues to swallow the story.

Until the GOP lose control of the legislature absolutely nothing will happen , no matter what evidence is found.

Zubeneschamali

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Until the GOP lose control of the legislature absolutely nothing will happen , no matter what evidence is found.

And if they do lose power, they will go straight back into the screaming opposition mode they were in for Obama's 8 years.

26000 Elephants

JRant wrote: »

The main question with this latest reveal is how comfortable are people with the idea of intelligence agencies spying on presidential candidates.

Ah, no, it isnt. It well down on the list of questions being raised about this clown car presidency. There are far more fundamental questions to be answered before this will hove into view.

But perhaps you should try rephrasing that question to better employ your discomfort:
"Why do my security services feel it necessary to keep an eye on my candidate?"

Christy42

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/pompeo-iran-speech/index.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/mike-pence-fox-news-north-korea/index.html

In the news from the isolationist regime. Pence threatens to invade North Korea (as an aside if Kim looks at how Libya actually went down he may well decide he is better with nukes).

Pompeo declares the US will use all measures required against Iran. Including the military (for clarity he did stop short of suggesting an invasion of Iran itself - more suggesting using it to stop Iranian influence in Syria etc.). This will require a lot of investment and this still contradicts Trump's statements about disengaging in Syria. Pompeo also restated the US desire to go after the EU if they stick to the deal that the US designed.

But Trump is totally isolationist in nature. Cos reasons.

Corkblowin

Elliot Broidy was subject of a daily beast article (retweeted by Seth Abramson) which notes that Broidy's company got $7,500 dollars in government contracts between 2011-2016, and $800 million since Trump got in.

While it fits in with the allegation floating around that he took a fall for Trump - is it really credible? Would the president have the power to push through a preferred bidder like that? Surely there are oversight committees etc?

Zubeneschamali

Corkblowin wrote: »

Would the president have the power to push through a preferred bidder like that? Surely there are oversight committees etc?

It is not just Trump. The Republicans have both houses, too, and are backing the White House all the way.

everlast75

Well, we have come a long way from "I'm going to build a wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it".

1) There is no wall being built (despite tweets lying that it is being built) and

2) Mexico isn't paying for it.. a republican suggests that a crowdfund account should be established.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/388661-people-can-donate-to-trumps-border-wall-trust-fund-under-tennessee-lawmakers

Zubeneschamali

everlast75 wrote: »

2) Mexico isn't paying for it.. a republican suggests that a crowdfund account should be established

Great idea! Take money off Republican backers and set fire to it in the desert. Prevents them spending it electing Republicans.

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

Well, we have come a long way from "I'm going to build a wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it".

1) There is no wall being built (despite tweets lying that it is being built) and

2) Mexico isn't paying for it.. a republican suggests that a crowdfund account should be established.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/388661-people-can-donate-to-trumps-border-wall-trust-fund-under-tennessee-lawmakers

Lol, that 2nd might work if it was tax-deductible.

Hande hoche!

Sure if people pay $75 for a guacamole bowl they might chip in for the wall.

aloyisious

It seem's that a large sinhole has appeared on the White House north lawn outside the press briefing room causing mirth and jokes. I'm waiting for the Don tweet to explain this away....

@HouseSinkhole: I’m happy and healthy and growing larger by the day!

Hande hoche!

Christ Christie must have been relegated to lawn mowing duty.

weisses

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's that a large sinhole has appeared on the White House north lawn outside the press briefing room causing mirth and jokes. I'm waiting for the Don tweet to explain this away....

@HouseSinkhole: I’m happy and healthy and growing larger by the day!

You forgot 1 letter ..... but that makes it even more appropriate

everlast75

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's that a large sinhole has appeared on the White House north lawn outside the press briefing room causing mirth and jokes. I'm waiting for the Don tweet to explain this away....

@HouseSinkhole: I’m happy and healthy and growing larger by the day!

It's Melania doing a Shawshank Redemption...

amandstu

Are its lips moving?