Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

circadian

Are they really that stupid to double down on this kind of thing? The whole Mueller fiasco had them under FBI investigation and now they have probably the most well known lawyer in the country on the list.

batgoat

circadian wrote: »

Are they really that stupid to double down on this kind of thing? The whole Mueller fiasco had them under FBI investigation and now they have probably the most well known lawyer in the country on the list.

Personally assuming accusations to be true until further comes out.

2 Scoops

After he very publicly tried to destroy Brett Kavanaugh with organized gang rape allegations from what are now discredited claims, I find it impossible to have any sympathy for him. He denied the same presumption of innocence to Kavanaugh that he's now asking for, karma. All that said, I'll wait for the facts to come out before passing any judgement.

Timberrrrrrrr

circadian wrote: »

Are they really that stupid to double down on this kind of thing? The whole Mueller fiasco had them under FBI investigation and now they have probably the most well known lawyer in the country on the list.

Some people will do anything for their 15 minutes of fame.

WinnyThePoo

Are they actually involved in this? We know they have no credibility.

Gbear

I wonder is a big problem with Trump cultists that they go so overboard with praise for people that when they are inevitably let down they can either have a massive climbdown or just ignore reality.

If Avenatti was a Republican circus act rather than a Dem one they would've been calling him Based Michael or whatever, and would have lionised him for owning the libs and showing up that slut Stormy Daniels, but if something like this came out (assuming it were true) they'd be left with a dilemma.

Poor impulse control, an addiction to outrage and vicarious righteous indignation, coupled with a very fragile ego is a dangerous combination.

And, I suspect, the more people you're willing to commit this sort of mental gymnastics for, the easier it gets.

2 Scoops

Gbear wrote: »

I wonder is a big problem with Trump cultists that they go so overboard with praise for people that when they are inevitably let down they can either have a massive climbdown or just ignore reality.

If Avenatti was a Republican circus act rather than a Dem one they would've been calling him Based Michael or whatever, and would have lionised him for owning the libs and showing up that slut Stormy Daniels, but if something like this came out (assuming it were true) they'd be left with a dilemma.

Poor impulse control, an addiction to outrage and vicarious righteous indignation, coupled with a very fragile ego is a dangerous combination.

And, I suspect, the more people you're willing to commit this sort of mental gymnastics for, the easier it gets.

The Fox news opinion shows, Tucker, Hannity, Ingraham spent a total of 4 minutes on this story combined tonight over 3 hours. Sean Hannity said he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty and Laura Ingraham said there isn't enough detail to comment on it, Tucker didn't mention it. Compare that to the wall to wall coverage people like Avenatti get on outlets like msbnc and CNN, he's appeared on those shows hundreds of times. Maybe it's not the Republicans who are entrapped with hysteria and faux outrage, perhaps try looking a little closer to home.

pixelburp

The optics are bad considering how much folks championed Avenetti during his public clashes with Trump lawyers & supporters on Network News - you can bet your bottom dollar there will be screams of hypocrisy if he's not abandoned quicksmart (if the accusations are credible) - but I think most thoughtful individuals would have had pause for Daniels' lawyer in the first place.

He was a grifter and showman, and in many respects was the perfect adversary for Trump in that regard; fighting fire with fire n' all that. Personally I couldn't get behind him, being as he was a fairly cut-throat but low rent professional. The rumours of a 2020 bid also seemed to confirm to me that he was as deep as a puddle. I hope the accusation are false - and if they're another bogus attempt by Surefire I hope the FBI truly have something on these morons - but more because one less sexual assault in the world is a Good Thing regardless, but I ain't going to go out and bat for the Avenetti.

Penn

pixelburp wrote: »

The optics are bad considering how much folks championed Avenetti during his public clashes with Trump lawyers & supporters on Network News - you can bet your bottom dollar there will be screams of hypocrisy if he's not abandoned quicksmart (if the accusations are credible) - but I think most thoughtful individuals would have had pause for Daniels' lawyer in the first place.

He was a grifter and showman, and in many respects was the perfect adversary for Trump in that regard; fighting fire with fire n' all that. Personally I couldn't get behind him, being as he was a fairly cut-throat but low rent professional. The rumours of a 2020 bid also seemed to confirm to me that he was as deep as a puddle. I hope the accusation are false - and if they're another bogus attempt by Surefire I hope the FBI truly have something on these morons - but more because one less sexual assault in the world is a Good Thing regardless, but I ain't going to go out and bat for the Avenetti.

Completely agree. When Avenetti started off, he showed he was well capable of representing his client against Trump's barbs and attacks. But then he became something different, and I think his ambition and ego outweighed his actual capabilities. I too hope the accusations are false (and I wish the Kavanaugh accusations had been false too, though I certainly believe Ford's to be true), but whether true or false I hope this puts the kibosh on Avenetti running for President, because like Trump he'll probably get a lot of the media attention and end up the nominee because the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and then Trump V Avenetti will be a sh*tshow in terms of political discourse.

To beat Trump, the Dems will need to put someone forward who is squeaky clean and presidential (using the meaning of that word as it was meant before Trump). Avenetti is not that person either before or after these allegations.

Leroy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

After he very publicly tried to destroy Brett Kavanaugh with organized gang rape allegations from what are now discredited claims, I find it impossible to have any sympathy for him. He denied the same presumption of innocence to Kavanaugh that he's now asking for, karma. All that said, I'll wait for the facts to come out before passing any judgement.

So we should wait and listen to both sides of the story rather than simply make a judgement based on what outcome we want.

I think we can all agree that he shouldn't be considered for any top jobs whilst this is investigated.

Leroy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

The Fox news opinion shows, Tucker, Hannity, Ingraham spent a total of 4 minutes on this story combined tonight over 3 hours. Sean Hannity said he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty and Laura Ingraham said there isn't enough detail to comment on it, Tucker didn't mention it. Compare that to the wall to wall coverage people like Avenatti get on outlets like msbnc and CNN, he's appeared on those shows hundreds of times. Maybe it's not the Republicans who are entrapped with hysteria and faux outrage, perhaps try looking a little closer to home.

You are being totally disingenuous there. Avenatti comes onto those shows to talk about Stormy Daniels etc, things that the POTUS was openly lying about.

They are not covering this story because, at the moment there is nothing to cover, and also they have very much backed themselves into a corner with there strong line on Kavaungh that, rightly, a person is persumed innocent. They an hardly start to run to Avenatti story now without people bring all that up again.

2 Scoops

Leroy42 wrote: »

So we should wait and listen to both sides of the story rather than simply make a judgement based on what outcome we want.

I think we can all agree that he shouldn't be considered for any top jobs whilst this is investigated.

Not the story no, Avenatti in my eyes isn't trustworthy. I'll wait for facts e.g. see if there's evidence someone was physically assaulted. There's reports a Woman was injured in his presence but they aren't confirmed.

Gbear

2 Scoops wrote: »

The Fox news opinion shows, Tucker, Hannity, Ingraham spent a total of 4 minutes on this story combined tonight over 3 hours. Sean Hannity said he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty and Laura Ingraham said there isn't enough detail to comment on it, Tucker didn't mention it. Compare that to the wall to wall coverage people like Avenatti get on outlets like msbnc and CNN, he's appeared on those shows hundreds of times. Maybe it's not the Republicans who are entrapped with hysteria and faux outrage, perhaps try looking a little closer to home.

But they're not the cultists. Unless he's as mad as Alex Jones, Hannity knows full well what he's about - cynical propaganda.

From what I gather of Carlson, he's cut from the same cloth.

They're not the ones whose interaction with the news cycle consists of memes and self-perpetuating outrage.

What sets the Republicans apart isn't necessarily more corruption, but rather how their base is largely ambivalent to it. Circular reasoning reigns supreme so while a fairly minor occurrence like Franken's shenanigans results in him resigning, the Republicans are free to be largely shameless.

Avenatti might've been amusing, but nobody really gave two ****s about him, and it's no skin off anyone's nose if it turns out he's a criminal.

2 Scoops

Gbear wrote: »

What sets the Republicans apart isn't necessarily more corruption, but rather how their base is largely ambivalent to it. Circular reasoning reigns supreme so while a fairly minor occurrence like Franken's shenanigans results in him resigning, the Republicans are free to be largely shameless.

How do you spin the abuse allegations against Keith Ellison then? And I would say it's pretty silly talking about being ambivalent to corruption when HRC was your last front-runner.

This back and fourth won't go anywhere productive, so I'll agree to disagree. I'm sure they'll be news about Avenatti one way or the other as the day progresses.

ECO_Mental

2 Scoops wrote: »

And I would say it's pretty silly talking about being ambivalent to corruption when HRC was your last front-runner.

What corruption has HRC been ACTUALLY convicted of??? beside all the conspiracy mumbo jumbo of Clinton foundation. uranium one (wheres that story now???), Pizza peodo ring, Benghazi (how many investigations do the GOP have on that???) The GOP had full control on both houses for the last 8 years and had multiple chances to actually investigate Clinton and put her in jail. How come she is not in jail.


Oh yeah deep state..:P:rolleyes::rolleyes::P yeah she is a criminal mastermind

Trent Houseboat

It goes to show the importance of dragging Trump's name through the mud at any chance.

The 25 year hate campaign against Clinton was effective.

amandstu

What to make of Melania Trump's asking for the head of a member of the administration?

Objectively it is brilliant copy but are there principles (not) at work here?

Is she (and her office) completely out of order going public with this? (she is unelected ,no?)

Putting principles aside ,what is going on? Does she not have access to the Stain in Chief that she has to pipe up like this?

How do these theatrics play out in public opinion ,I wonder?

Captain Obvious

I see we are back to Clinton again.

2 Scoops

ECO_Mental wrote: »

.:P:rolleyes::rolleyes::P

Yeah great, Pizzagate etc. You're trying to demean my point of Clinton being corrupt by lobbing in a bunch of things I didn't say. I can do that too.

Donald Trump corrupt? :P:rolleyes::rolleyes::P He's been a Russian asset since 1987!! Trump fúcked his daughter!! He purged the Climate change website!! Trump's invading Mexico!! etc.

What corruption has Trump been ACTUALLY convicted of? <- Your logic right there.

Show you what did she do as an example showing corruption? She signed a waiver when she entered the state department to disclose foreign donations to the Clinton foundation in a method to prevent lobbying and pay for play. She failed to disclose payments of 10's of millions from Morocco, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia and pretty much everywhere from here to timbuktu. She ran a private server for that reason and deleted public records.

You ask me why she was never convicted? Investigations have to be brought to the Justice department. Loretta Lynch was AG at that time, ya know the same Woman who met with Bill Clinton in an aeroplane while his wife was being investigated.

https://apnews.com/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625

"More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million."

Here's a good article from a Democrat and never Trumper which might explain why when I hear the cries of Trump being so corrupt I have to roll my eyes a little.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/bill-hillary-clinton-normalized-trump-2018-5?r=US&IR=T

"Why does Trump get away with corruption? Because Bill and Hillary Clinton normalized it."

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

....

We've been over this.

DJT campaigned on locking her up.

The reps control the house, the senate, the intelligence services are Reps, and yet 2 years later, she is walking around free.

So, either

1) The reps are negligent
or
2) She is not a criminal.

Trump, on the other hand, (and I can't believe you asked this) is an un-named co-conspirator in 2 felony charges, his businesses have lost multiple cases and paid out substantial damages, the Trump Foundation is under RICO investigation and there is the little matter of the Mueller probe. He may be innocent until proven guilty in the latter two, to suggest that this guy is not guilty on any front, or that Hilary is more culpable than he, is frankly ludicrous.

2 Scoops

everlast75 wrote: »

We've been over this.

Speak for yourself - just because you belong to an echo chamber where your views are never challenged doesn't give your post any more validity than mine. You should get back to writing your conspiracies on Jeff Sessions being a Russian agent.

DrumSteve

2 Scoops wrote: »

Speak for yourself - just because you belong to an echo chamber where your views are never challenged doesn't give your post any more validity than mine. You should get back to writing your conspiracies on Jeff Sessions being a Russian agent.

TBF, Jeff really didn't do himself any favours with his selective memory wrt to the Russians did he?

2 Scoops

DrumSteve wrote: »

TBF, Jeff really didn't do himself any favours with his selective memory wrt to the Russians did he?

If you read the question he was asked in context his answer didn't deserve the hysteria it received, coincidentally a day after Trump's state of the union address that was well received. Imo it was manufactured political outcry.

It wasn't my intention to bring up Clinton, when I read things saying the GOP is far more corrupt than the Democratic party it annoys me. I gave a one line retort and said "We can agree to disagree", before a poster wrote a long sarcastic reply with smileys. Both are as bad as each other for selling out, Feinstein is one of the worst examples with China and even the most moderate liberal knows Clinton is corrupt as they come. That's a big reason Trump won, Michael Moore said it best at the time. I'm not arguing that Trump and the people around him aren't corrupt at all, but for whatever reason two things don't seem to be able to be true at once on this forum with the majority of posters.

Done posting for now as I don't want to drag the thread off topic anymore.

pixelburp

2 Scoops wrote: »

Speak for yourself - just because you belong to an echo chamber where your views are never challenged doesn't give your post any more validity than mine. You should get back to writing your conspiracies on Jeff Sessions being a Russian agent.

Thing is, the facts do speak for themselves: the Republicans have controlled all Houses for, 8 years is it? Donald Trump explicitly promised to open a case against Clinton if elected - live on TV. The Benghazi hearings have been & gone yet Clinton remains. Say what you will about her own dirty laundry but like George Soros she was turned into a massive scapegoat & punching bag. She appears to be about as honest as Bertie Ahern yet with a more robust system for administrative investigations, the Republicans have nothing against Clinton.

Meanwhile, the Mueller Investigation can claim 8 convictions, and IIRC about 25+ indictments I believe. Several of these were / are individuals close to Donald Trump. Various family members such as Kushner & Trump Jr. appear to be circumstantially close to events, even if they have yet to join the above tally. There are a LOT of people within his orbit whose affairs appear to be pretty questionable. Even Nigel Farage has become a Person of Interest in the investigation.

No, there has been no smoking gun linking back to Trump, but between the stories of his post 2008 sources of credit, and the continuing he-said-she-said over Stormy, and so on, his paper-trail appears to be ... weak. The continuing refusal to release the tax returns - while claiming they are simply too complex for mere mortals and he's under audit anyway - doesn't engender a sense of an innocent man.

Hillary Clinton & Donald Trump were both spectacularly awful candidates, but the very best you can say about both individuals' respective affairs, is that Clinton possibly hides her dirt better than Trump; and if half the people under the microscope of Mueller turn out to be guilty in some way shape or form - that demonstrates an incredible lack of nous and judgement on the part of the President.

amandstu

Tittle tattle perhaps but is there a risk of the Pres' personal constitution taking a dive?

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/14/politics/donald-trump-mood-pissed-white-house-intrigue/index.html


"Some of his longtime confidants are worried for his health, believing he's gained weight and looks unwell."

2 Scoops

pixelburp wrote: »

Thing is, the facts do speak for themselves: the Republicans have controlled all Houses for, 8 years is it? Donald Trump explicitly promised to open a case against Clinton if elected - live on TV. The Benghazi hearings have been & gone yet Clinton remains. Say what you will about her own dirty laundry but like George Soros she was turned into a massive scapegoat & punching bag.

The day or days after the election Trump said in a 60 minutes interview he won't pursue any investigation into Clinton, it was a battle cry to get his support fired up, obviously he lied about hiring a special prosecutor once he got in. George Soros's influence around the world is massive, he was actively directing state department foreign policy while Clinton was Secretory of state. This is a man who was found guilty for insider trading in France and crashed the UK currency for profit, he's no angel.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/Clinton_Email_September_Release/C05778285.pdf

Meanwhile, the Mueller Investigation can claim 8 convictions, and IIRC about 25+ indictments I believe. Several of these were / are individuals close to Donald Trump. Various family members such as Kushner & Trump Jr. appear to be circumstantially close to events, even if they have yet to join the above tally. There are a LOT of people within his orbit whose affairs appear to be pretty questionable. Even Nigel Farage has become a Person of Interest in the investigation.

All that being true, not one American has a conviction thus far layed out for Russian collusion. This is obviously subject to change but forgive me for not giving two hoots what dodgy dealings Paul Manafort got up to 15 years ago.

No, there has been no smoking gun linking back to Trump, but between the stories of his post 2008 sources of credit, and the continuing he-said-she-said over Stormy, and so on, his paper-trail appears to be ... weak. The continuing refusal to release the tax returns - while claiming they are simply too complex for mere mortals and he's under audit anyway - doesn't engender a sense of an innocent man.

I agree, I said 2 years ago he should have released his tax returns because it's never going to away, he is hiding something. Whether that's not paying taxes or something more illustrious we don't know yet.

Hillary Clinton & Donald Trump were both spectacularly awful candidates, but the very best you can say about both individuals' respective affairs, is that Clinton possibly hides her dirt better than Trump; and if half the people under the microscope of Mueller turn out to be guilty in some way shape or form - that demonstrates an incredible lack of nous and judgement on the part of the President.

I totally agree. I'm not sure it's a commendable trait though.

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

Speak for yourself - just because you belong to an echo chamber

If its an echo chamber, its one with an exit. You can always use it if you wish.

2 Scoops wrote: »

where your views are never challenged doesn't give your post any more validity than mine.

My posts are challenged quite regularly, albeit rarely in a civil way.

2 Scoops wrote: »

You should get back to writing your conspiracies on Jeff Sessions being a Russian agent.

I never said he was a Russian Agent. Please highlight where I did. What I said was he lied/mislead (whatever way you put it) congress and in accordance with the recommendations of the ethics committee, recused himself. That's pretty clear, and its pretty clear why Trump fired him while we are at it - he wants an AG loyal to him, which is why he hired his latest one.

2 Scoops wrote: »

The day or days after the election Trump said in a 60 minutes interview he won't pursue any investigation into Clinton

lie number 1

2 Scoops wrote: »

it was a battle cry to get his support fired up, obviously he lied (lie number 2)about hiring a special prosecutor once he got in.

2 Scoops wrote: »

George Soros's influence around the world is massive, he was actively directing state department foreign policy while Clinton was Secretory of state. This is a man who was found guilty for insider trading in France and crashed the UK currency for profit, he's no angel.

Was he behind the caravan then? You know, the one that isn't mentioned anymore after the election.

2 Scoops wrote: »

All that being true, not one American has a conviction thus far layed out for Russian collusion. This is obviously subject to change

Absolutely.

2 Scoops wrote: »

I agree, I said 2 years ago he should have released his tax returns because it's never going to away, he is hiding something. Whether that's not paying taxes or something more illustrious we don't know yet.

Lie number 3 from Trump - he promised he would pre-election and hasn't.

As for what they contain, you are right, we don't know. However, at the very least, the recent spread in the NYT may give us a slight hint.

everlast75

This guy seems totally innocent, and not rattled or unhinged at all....


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1063042585802039296

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1063046973857718272





(Psst - amongst many other gaslights here, Robert Mueller did not work for Obama for 8 years. He ran the FBI under George W Bush for nearly 8 years. He remained FBI Director under Obama for 4 years, confirmed to extend his 10-year term by a Senate vote of 100-0.

amandstu

everlast75 wrote: »

This guy seems totally innocent, and not rattled or unhinged at all....


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1063042585802039296

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1063046973857718272





(Psst - amongst many other gaslights here, Mueller was a DOJ appointee during GOP Administrations & was selected to head the FBI by George W. Bush. The term runs for 10 years, so he carried over into Obama’s Administration for 5 years (not 8)

The new normal

Leroy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

"Why does Trump get away with corruption? Because Bill and Hillary Clinton normalized it."

No, Trump gets away with it because his supporters are hypocrites.

Clintons didn't normalise it, isn't corruption one of the main reasons cited by many Trump supporters of why they hated HC so much?