Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Christy42

Noel82 wrote: »

What was said was there was questions to be asked as to why the DNC denied access to their server to the FBI and DHS. ( They are currently in a buzzfeed lawsuit and still won't hand it over ). That isn't a "nothingburger". I never said there was no fake facebook pages or whatever, that crap is everywhere. The CIA interfered in dozens if not hundreds of foreign elections, where was the out cry then? How can one know if the DNC wasn't hacked by multiple entities?

If you applied the same scrutiny to pro DNC / Hillary whoever messages you'd find similar groups promoting them who aren't legitimate.

The only reason it's relevant now is a) because Trump won and b) because there was allegedly dumps sent to Wikileaks from a cut out

https://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-history-of-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections

What's been said here over the last 16 months is that Trump colluded with the Russians akin to Wikileaks and the email dumps, still waiting for any evidence of that.

Todays news is a massive blow to those who said Trump's campaign colluded. The words non-wittingly are there for all to see.

At best, if true, non wittingly means the Trump campaign was used and abused by a foreign power. Great at best the current POTUS is a complete idiot who didn't realise he was being used for the benefit of an entirely different country.

At what point is that defense meant engender support or trust in the current administration or those who support him?

Noel82

Christy42 wrote: »

At best, if true, non wittingly means the Trump campaign was used and abused by a foreign power. Great at best the current POTUS is a complete idiot who didn't realise he was being used for the benefit of an entirely different country.

At what point is that defense meant engender support or trust in the current administration or those who support him?

Until Trumps name is mentioned it doesn't mean anything. I could sign up tomorrow and be campaigning for some candidate, it doesn't mean i have any power and it doesn't mean that candidate has any influence over me.

Page is innocent is any wrongdoing, of that I'm sure.

Peregrinus

Noel82 wrote: »

Until Trumps name is mentioned it doesn't mean anything. I could sign up tomorrow and be campaigning for some candidate, it doesn't mean i have any power and it doesn't mean that candidate has any influence over me.

I don't think the question is whether the candidate has any influence over you; it's more whether you have any influence over the candidate. If the candidate benefits from your campaigning work, does that put you in some kind of a position to seek recognition, reward or a quid pro quo? And, separately, is your support/assistgance/contribution something the candidate was required to report? And did he?

Noel82 wrote: »

Page is innocent is any wrongdoing, of that I'm sure.

The Trump camp seems less sure, given how desperately they have tried to distance themselves from him.

Leroy42

And the meeting in Trump Tower in 2016, which Trump Jr admitted he held to get info on HC from Russia, that was just a coincidence was it?

And nobody questioned where all this intel was coming from?

That is what we are supposed to believe.

And that knowing all this, when he was presented with the FBI intelligence claiming clear election interference he opted to instead believe Putin and dismiss it all as fake news.

You have to ask why? Why would a POTUS be so seemingly against accepting, and acting on, this threat. Why is it seemingly more important to derail any investigation and deflect if they had done nothing? Surely they would want to protect America first?

recedite

vetinari wrote: »

In a country with no serious appetite for gun control, it's a bit rich to now all of a sudden be mad at the FBI for not preventing the attack.
America doesn't care about dead children in schools. There'll be some more shot in a few weeks. Any moaning about the FBI is probably from people looking to deflect from the Russia investigation.

Look at the results of this extremely time consuming and expensive FBI investigation. A few Russian citizens have been indicted for visa violations, because they entered the USA for the purposes of setting up US based social media accounts instead of for tourist or "personal reasons" as per their visas.
It seems they didn't even need a whole lot of financing, because according to count number 95 in the indictment, US businesses and individuals jumped at the chance to pay US dollars for advertising on the websites that these people set up. So almost self financing.

They were operating from 2014, well before Trump had even considered running for president. There is no suggestion in the indictment that Trump colluded with them. They were always going to support whichever of the two main candidates they judged might be least harmful to Russian interests, and that's exactly what they did.

We can assume that US agencies are similarly providing some degree of covert support in Russia for whoever opposes Putin. Because a strong and united Russia is not beneficial to US interests.

In a world where free speech is a thing, having some foreigners ranting away on twitter is not the end of the world.

However it is unforgivable that the FBI could not find the time to investigate a guy who was boasting that he would become "a professional school shooter", especially when concerned citizens had gone to the trouble of reporting his eccentric behaviour to them. His guns and his gun licence should have been taken away from him, at the very least.

B0jangles

recedite wrote: »

Look at the results of this extremely time consuming and expensive FBI investigation. A few Russian citizens have been indicted for visa violations, because they entered the USA for the purposes of setting up US based social media accounts instead of for tourist or "personal reasons" as per their visas.
It seems they didn't even need a whole lot of financing, because according to count number 95 in the indictment, US businesses and individuals jumped at the chance to pay US dollars for advertising on the websites that these people set up. So almost self financing.

They were operating from 2014, well before Trump had even considered running for president. There is no suggestion in the indictment that Trump colluded with them. They were always going to support whichever of the two main candidates they judged might be least harmful to Russian interests, and that's exactly what they did.

We can assume that US agencies are similarly providing some degree of covert support in Russia for whoever opposes Putin. Because a strong and united Russia is not beneficial to US interests.

In a world where free speech is a thing, having some foreigners ranting away on twitter is not the end of the world.

However it is unforgivable that the FBI could not find the time to investigate a guy who was boasting that he would become "a professional school shooter", especially when concerned citizens had gone to the trouble of reporting his eccentric behaviour to them. His guns and his gun licence should have been taken away from him, at the very least.

Goodness, now you know more about what constitutes a crime than the FBI! Correction: Of course, how could I forget, it's not even an FBI investigation, is it?!

It's quite a step up from you knowing that Manafort failing to declare income earned in Ukraine was also not a crime because according to you, income earned outside the U.S. by U.S. citizens is not subject to U.S. income tax.

(It absolutely is by the way - it's about the most basic, distinctive thing about U.S. tax law)

everlast75

recedite wrote: »

Look at the results of this extremely time consuming and expensive FBI investigation. A few Russian citizens have been indicted for visa violations, because they entered the USA for the purposes of setting up US based social media accounts instead of for tourist or "personal reasons" as per their visas.
It seems they didn't even need a whole lot of financing, because according to count number 95 in the indictment, US businesses and individuals jumped at the chance to pay US dollars for advertising on the websites that these people set up. So almost self financing.

They were operating from 2014, well before Trump had even considered running for president. There is no suggestion in the indictment that Trump colluded with them. They were always going to support whichever of the two main candidates they judged might be least harmful to Russian interests, and that's exactly what they did.

We can assume that US agencies are similarly providing some degree of covert support in Russia for whoever opposes Putin. Because a strong and united Russia is not beneficial to US interests.

In a world where free speech is a thing, having some foreigners ranting away on twitter is not the end of the world.

However it is unforgivable that the FBI could not find the time to investigate a guy who was boasting that he would become "a professional school shooter", especially when concerned citizens had gone to the trouble of reporting his eccentric behaviour to them. His guns and his gun licence should have been taken away from him, at the very least.

Deflection deflection deflection

pitifulgod

recedite wrote: »

Look at the results of this extremely time consuming and expensive FBI investigation. A few Russian citizens have been indicted for visa violations, because they entered the USA for the purposes of setting up US based social media accounts instead of for tourist or "personal reasons" as per their visas.
It seems they didn't even need a whole lot of financing, because according to count number 95 in the indictment, US businesses and individuals jumped at the chance to pay US dollars for advertising on the websites that these people set up. So almost self financing.

They were operating from 2014, well before Trump had even considered running for president. There is no suggestion in the indictment that Trump colluded with them. They were always going to support whichever of the two main candidates they judged might be least harmful to Russian interests, and that's exactly what they did.

We can assume that US agencies are similarly providing some degree of covert support in Russia for whoever opposes Putin. Because a strong and united Russia is not beneficial to US interests.

In a world where free speech is a thing, having some foreigners ranting away on twitter is not the end of the world.

However it is unforgivable that the FBI could not find the time to investigate a guy who was boasting that he would become "a professional school shooter", especially when concerned citizens had gone to the trouble of reporting his eccentric behaviour to them. His guns and his gun licence should have been taken away from him, at the very least.

The investigation is not being run by the FBI so you are diverting from the issue at hand. Interference in an election by a foreign state is very much so worthy of an investigation. Worrying trends such as Jared Kushner and Don Jr meeting Russian spies to get dirt on Clinton does indicate a possibility of collusion so it has to play out.

Cost wise, it's cheaper than his holidays over the last year.

VonZan

B0jangles wrote: »

Goodness, now you know more about what constitutes a crime than the FBI! Correction: Of course, how could I forget, it's not even an FBI investigation, is it?!

It's quite a step up from you knowing that Manafort failing to declare income earned in Ukraine was also not a crime because according to you, income earned outside the U.S. by U.S. citizens is not subject to U.S. income tax.

(It absolutely is by the way - it's about the most basic, distinctive thing about U.S. tax law)

The FBI have already admitted gross incompetence when it comes to their handling of intel on the Florida school shooter. You’re living in a bubble if you think there was nothing the FBI could have done here.

Nice strawman arguement too btw.

B0jangles

VonZan wrote: »

The FBI have already admitted gross incompetence when it comes to their handling of intel on the Florida school shooter. You’re living in a bubble if you think there was nothing the FBI could have done here.

Nice strawman arguement too btw.

If you note the correction, I was talking about the Mueller investigation, not what the FBI could or should have done to prevent the Florida shooting.

I was also observing for the benefit of other readers that poster Recedite has a history of making definitive statements about complex issues when he/she is apparently unfamiliar with even the most basic facts about the issue under discussion. If their understanding of US criminal law is as extremely limited as their understanding of US tax law, then any statements they make on either subject should be treated as essentially meaningless.

pitifulgod

VonZan wrote: »

The FBI have already admitted gross incompetence when it comes to their handling of intel on the Florida school shooter. You’re living in a bubble if you think there was nothing the FBI could have done here.

Nice strawman arguement too btw.

It's not a strawman, The Trump investigation has nothing to do with the FBI.... So bringing the FBI into the discussion is diverting.

Leroy42

And it certainly true that Trump has tried to deflect and reduce this investigation at every turn, even going as far as firing the head of the FBI because he wouldn't drop it.

He has used both his twitter feed and his press dept to continually denigrate the investigation, and was involved in putting out a knowingly false statement regarding Trump Jr meeting with Russians.

As for this line that Trump has thrown out about his announcement to run for POTUS. Do people really believe he simply woke up one morning (or any candidate) as just decides to run? These things take years. You need backers, at least know that there is some support.

Trump visited Russia in 2013, Obama was into his 2nd term and so POTUS was going to be a straight fight.

Mitt Romney recently announced his intention to run for Senate. It was been pretty much a given for at least 6 months.

recedite

B0jangles wrote: »

Goodness, now you know more about what constitutes a crime than the FBI! Correction: Of course, how could I forget, it's not even an FBI investigation, is it?!

It's quite a step up from you knowing that Manafort failing to declare income earned in Ukraine was also not a crime because according to you, income earned outside the U.S. by U.S. citizens is not subject to U.S. income tax.

(It absolutely is by the way - it's about the most basic, distinctive thing about U.S. tax law)

Former FBI director Mueller's investigation subsumed several existing FBI investigations including those into Manafort, and you can be sure it has consumed a vast amount of FBI time and resources, via requests and demands for documentation assistance etc..

As for US tax law, I don't claim to be an expert. AFAIK a US citizen pays tax on foreign earned income unless there is a tax treaty with the country concerned. If the citizen in question is the beneficial owner of a company, then they don't "earn" anything at all until the company pays them a salary and/or a dividend. The company itself can declare its profits to be earned in one jurisdiction or another (or maybe none) depending on what it can get away with. Hence places like Cyprus and Cayman Islands attracting people like Manafort. And the odd Irish Taoiseach too.

Christy42

Noel82 wrote: »

Until Trumps name is mentioned it doesn't mean anything. I could sign up tomorrow and be campaigning for some candidate, it doesn't mean i have any power and it doesn't mean that candidate has any influence over me.

Page is innocent is any wrongdoing, of that I'm sure.

If you were a low level staffer that would be fair enough. Page and Manafort were anything but and so would have plenty of influence. Even then Trump should be interested in cleaning house if some of their staff did commit crimes and he should not have been attempting to remove Russian sanctions (I think we are past the point of thinking the Russians were up to nothing)?

Leroy42

Of course Trumps acceptance of Putin's word, despite the advice from his own agencies (now shown to be correct) makes him, at best, gullible.

Hardly a good look for POTUS.

He has found himself to be completely the wrong side of one of the biggest attacks on the US in history. And this isn't even about whether he should have seen it coming. He was told, repeatedly, after the event who had done it and refused to take action. Even going as far as claiming the FBI were corrupt.

So you need to ask yourself why would Trump do that? Why would he accept tge word of Putin over his own FBI, when he knew that Trump Jr had meet with Russians trying to sell him information?

He swore to protect Americans, yet has totally failed to protect the very democracy that defines them. Why?

The safest answer is that he was simply intimidated by Putin. Faced with having to put this to him he folded and accepted whatever Putin told him. Even this benign explanation should cause serious concern to all Americans about how weak their CiC is.

But Trump has never shown any inclination of being scared of a fight, so it hard to believe this. So what else? Was it simply to try to avoid damaging his brand in Russia, and thus access to much needed funds? Again, whilst not collusion territory it again paints the picture of a POTUS more worried about himself than the country. Not a good luck.

So even before we get into the realms of collusion these latest indictments are really bad for Trump.

The only thing is they are not as bad as some expected (yet), but nobody can claim that this latest increase in the seriousness of the investigation is anything but a major loss to the credibility and standing of Trump.

Professor Moriarty

Th arrest of these Russians has the added bonus of ensuring that there is no way The Donald can be seen to fire Mueller now.

mcmoustache

What's important here is that the indictment didn't say "And that's all I got". Some people are trying to spin this as though these are the only indictments that will come from the investigation.

everlast75

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Th arrest of these Russians has the added bonus of ensuring that there is no way The Donald can be seen to fire Mueller now.

I would never say never with DT. "Less likely" - I would agree

Leroy42

mcmoustache wrote: »

What's important here is that the indictment didn't say "And that's all I got". Some people are trying to spin this as though these are the only indictments that will come from the investigation.

Those same people have made the same claim everytime Mueller unveils something.

Papadopoulos was a mere coffee boy. Manafort was a temp. Flynn is a liar and Trump never trusted him. Trump Jr was just confused. Kushner is just forgetful. And each time they claim "is that it, well nothing to worry about", and then a few weeks later it goes again.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Those same people have made the same claim everytime Mueller unveils something.

Papadopoulos was a mere coffee boy. Manafort was a temp. Flynn is a liar and Trump never trusted him. Trump Jr was just confused. Kushner is just forgetful. And each time they claim "is that it, well nothing to worry about", and then a few weeks later it goes again.

Manafort is in deeper trouble now. Which will be further incentive to throw certain people under the bus in exchange for leniency. From the article :

The filing by Mueller’s office says Manafort obtained a mortgage using “doctored profit and loss statements” overstating “by millions of dollars” the income for his consulting company, DMP International. Prosecutors appear to be referring to a $9.5 million mortgage that Federal Savings Bank of Chicago extended in late 2016 to a Manafort-linked firm, Summerbreeze LLC.

And this intriguing paragraph:

Prosecutors’ references to “conspiracies” suggest that someone beyond Manafort was involved in the alleged fraud, but no further details were given.

Coincidentally:

A report in The Wall Street Journal last year said investigators from the office of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman were examining loans that Manafort obtained in connection with various real estate transactions, including mortgages issued by Federal Savings Bank. That and other articles also noted that the bank’s chairman, Stephen Calk, was an economic adviser to the Trump campaign.

Leroy42

And a further point, the indictment says it relates to Russians and unwitting Americans, it doesn't state that it covers everything.

More likely, it will be used to drag those unwitting Americans onto the prosecution side, as unwitting can be their only defence, and get them to give details of any other activities and who they informed. Refuse to cooperate will likely see them charged with obstruction at the least.

So, we now know that Mueller is certain Russia sought to, and succeeded in, interfere with the election. We know that Flynn was in contact with Russians illegally. We know Trump Jr held a meeting with Russian government contacts on the pretext of securing intel on HC. With know that Kushner and Manafort attended that meeting yet upon realising what was happening neither told the authorities or, apparently, Trump himself. We know that Trump was involved in trying to cover up the true nature of said meeting.

Only Mueller and his team know what else they know. And only Trump knows how serious this could get, but is aware enough not to want to give testimony to Mueller.

Trump is way behind the narrative on this, failing spectacularly to provide any semblance of control over it.

Professor Moriarty

mcmoustache wrote: »

What's important here is that the indictment didn't say "And that's all I got". Some people are trying to spin this as though these are the only indictments that will come from the investigation.

It will come as no surprise when I tell you that 'some people' are in fact The Donald and his staff. From the article:

Trump, who was briefed on the indictments, was “glad to see the Special Counsel’s investigation further indicates - that there was NO COLLUSION between the Trump campaign and Russia and that the outcome of the election was not changed or affected,” the White House said in a statement.

“It’s time we stop the outlandish partisan attacks, wild and false allegations, and far-fetched theories, which only serve to further the agendas of bad actors, like Russia, and do nothing to protect the principles of our institutions,” Trump said in the statement.

UsedToWait

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

“It’s time we stop the outlandish partisan attacks, wild and false allegations, and far-fetched theories, which only serve to further the agendas of bad actors, like Russia, and do nothing to protect the principles of our institutions,” Trump said in the statement.

I take it this means he's closing his Twitter account?

Water John

Prof, yes it looks like Special Prosecutor Mueller, has taken out an insurance policy. He will crank this up gradually.
Politically, this first finding will find acceptance by every side. In terms of safe guarding the democratic electoral process,, presenting the evidence that interference actually took place and could again, may be his greatest achievement.
DT is secondary.

Professor Moriarty

UsedToWait wrote: »

I take it this means he's closing his Twitter account?

Sadly no. He tweeted some hypocritical twaddle about the Florida shooting last night.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

Prof, yes it looks like Special Prosecutor Mueller, has taken out an insurance policy. He will crank this up gradually.
Politically, this first finding will find acceptance by every side. In terms of safe guarding the democratic electoral process,, presenting the evidence that interference actually took place and could again, may be his greatest achievement.
DT is secondary.

I take your point about protecting democracy as a priority but you could argue that taking The Donald out would equally protect democracy.

Water John

Really funny, where did Lavrov get the word 'blather'?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/02/sergey-lavrov-denies-allegations-vote-meddling-180217161700367.html

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

They were operating from 2014, well before Trump had even considered running for president. There is no suggestion in the indictment that Trump colluded with them.

I see the talking points have been circulated.

Unfortunately, they've already been debunked (thread).

robinph

recedite wrote: »

However it is unforgivable that the FBI could not find the time to investigate a guy who was boasting that he would become "a professional school shooter", especially when concerned citizens had gone to the trouble of reporting his eccentric behaviour to them. His guns and his gun licence should have been taken away from him, at the very least.

Which licence would that be then? There is no licence required to purchase or carry guns in Florida, unless it is concealed. It is also apparently illegal for anyone to keep a list of who even has a gun?!?!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

laugh

He also registered MAGA in 2012.