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

Igotadose

One of Trump's house-ghouls, Steven Miller, is crafting the 'don't allow anyone to immigrate to the US unless they're from Norway or buy Trump merchandise' immigration plan, which includes hosing otherwise legal immigrants (including those with green cards), should they have availed themselves, legally, of Federal government benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, ...) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/now-trump-administration-wants-limit-citizenship-legal-immigrants-n897931.

PropJoe10

everlast75 wrote: »

I know you weren't saying this Joe, but it reminds me of a Trump defender line about why he won't sit to talk with Mueller.

Rudy has been belting out this concept that there is a perjury trap being set by the Counsel. His version of reality is that if DJT says one thing, and someone else says something else, then Mueller can charge DJT with perjury, even if DJT is telling the truth.

It is nonsense.

If Trump has one version of events, and if another person has something else, if and only if the other person has sufficient corroborating evidence to prove the what Trump is saying is a lie, then there is a possibility of perjury.

I just wanted to nuke that BS line once and for all.

You're right, it is absolute nonsense. You can see why they're playing it like this, though. Their only way out is to play this to Trump's base, because they know they'll support him regardless of whether he's telling the truth or not. It's sad, but it's not the worst strategy on their part. Make his base the judge and jury rather than Mueller or a court of law.

pixelburp

It's no different to way, way back at the relative start of the Mueller investigation when every Trump supporter, acolyte or media mouthpiece was parroting the term 'Nothingburger'. Little had transpired at this stage, still mostly here-say and so you got these confident, glib putdowns by way of a media-friendly quotable.

Now here we are in August 2018 and the phrase has disappeared, mostly because the burger is turning out a lot fatter than initially anticipated. So now the avenue has changed, even if the overall tactic & goal remains the same: dissemble and discredit, Giuliani admitted as much that the real battle is in the court of popular opinion. If they sling enough doubt and mud into the eyes of the easily swayed public there's a chance they can nuke the investigation by way of support.

and if the Republicans somehow retain control of both Houses in November, that's it. The Mueller investigation will be closed, the party confident that there'll be no repercussions thanks to the groundwork of false information.

UsedToWait

He's clearly unhinged today on Twitter.

"Disgraced and discredited Bob Mueller and his whole group of Angry Democrat Thugs spent over 30 hours with the White House Councel*, only with my approval, for purposes of transparency. Anybody needing that much time when they know there is no Russian Collusion is just someone....
..looking for trouble. They are enjoying ruining people’s lives and REFUSE to look at the real corruption on the Democrat side - the lies, the firings, the deleted Emails and soooo much more! Mueller’s Angry Dems are looking to impact the election. They are a National Disgrace!"

"Where’s the Collusion? They made up a phony crime called Collusion, and when there was no Collusion they say there was Obstruction (of a phony crime that never existed). If you FIGHT BACK or say anything bad about the Rigged Witch Hunt, they scream Obstruction!"

*It's Counsel, by the way.
One would have thought a very stable genius would know that.


Edit: Just finished Michael Isikoff and David Corn's Russian Roulette.
The best account I've read so far of the whole putrid affair.

Eric Cartman

everlast75 wrote: »

Spotted this this morning. The normalisation in advance is in full swing.


Anyone else now doubt that there is a tape?


https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1031118856734089216?s=19

there is 0 evidence of a tape, none at all, if there was a tape they would have played it, simple.

WinnyThePoo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

there is 0 evidence of a tape, none at all, if there was a tape they would have played it, simple.

Well I suppose we will see. Weird Sanders didn't deny the tape existing.

Water John

In fairness, one cannot deny the unknown. The most she could do is ask the President. He says there isn't. Then she tells the Press that the POTUS has said, there's no tape or there couldn't be as he never used the word.

amandstu

UsedToWait wrote: »

He's clearly unhinged today on Twitter.

"Disgraced and discredited Bob Mueller and his whole group of Angry Democrat Thugs spent over 30 hours with the White House Councel*, only with my approval, for purposes of transparency. Anybody needing that much time when they know there is no Russian Collusion is just someone....
..looking for trouble. They are enjoying ruining people’s lives and REFUSE to look at the real corruption on the Democrat side - the lies, the firings, the deleted Emails and soooo much more! Mueller’s Angry Dems are looking to impact the election. They are a National Disgrace!"

"Where’s the Collusion? They made up a phony crime called Collusion, and when there was no Collusion they say there was Obstruction (of a phony crime that never existed). If you FIGHT BACK or say anything bad about the Rigged Witch Hunt, they scream Obstruction!"

*It's Counsel, by the way.
One would have thought a very stable genius would know that.


Edit: Just finished Michael Isikoff and David Corn's Russian Roulette.
The best account I've read so far of the whole putrid affair.

Seems to have notched up (down,sideways?)a fair bit.

Is that looking like clinical paranoia?

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

I need another Omarosa tape today.


Edit. Look, i want a guilty Manafort verdict or a sentencing of Popadopolous, but realising I won't get either of them, I'd settle for some small kick in the **** for Trump

I saw that Omarosa took her dispute with Don a stage further yesterday with a claim that Don would remove Melanie's US citizenship and have her expelled from the US should she divorce him. I was thinking now that would get his back no small way and provide ammo for his supporters to slam Omarosa for making fake news.

aloyisious

StringerBell wrote: »

As usual when Trumpus was asked directly would he pardon manafort he won't give a straight answer, so you know he is going to, he says he doesn't talk about that now. But that Paul is a good man, what's happening to him is a disgrace and very sad for the country. Yes, a tax cheat being brought to court for the millions he has stolen is a disgrace and very sad in Trump's world cause of......drain the swamp or some other nonsense....

I wonder where this is going......

I love it in some ways how much he is fighting to stay afloat, a desperate man. Lashing out in all directions because he knows nothing else. This is a watershed moment in history, could go very bay but could be a catalyst for good too.

I'm wondering if it would be a federal offence for a president to quietly offer a pardon to some-one who's before a court on criminal charges to keep quiet on any knowledge that said president was involved in the same or similar criminal offences, or had the person before the court carry out criminal acts on his behalf. It certainly seems to be something outside the allowable bounds of the pardoning power granted by the constitution, in that it would undermine the raison d'etre of both the power and the constitution.

amandstu

aloyisious wrote: »

I saw that Omarosa took her dispute with Don a stage further yesterday with a claim that Don would remove Melanie's US citizenship and have her expelled from the US should she divorce him. I was thinking now that would get his back no small way and provide ammo for his supporters to slam Omarosa for making fake news.

That was just her mouthing off,wasn't it? No evidence at all ;just trashing him ,even if perhaps deservedly so.

amandstu

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm wondering if it would be a federal offence for a president to quietly offer a pardon to some-one who's before a court on criminal charges to keep quiet on any knowledge that said president was involved in the same or similar criminal offences, or had the person before the court carry out criminal acts on his behalf. It certainly seems to be something outside the allowable bounds of the pardoning power granted by the constitution, in that it would undermine the raison d'etre of both the power and the constitution.

Certainly seems like driving a horse and cart through the process if the President has any interest in the case at all.That can't be why Presidential pardons were set up surely.

aloyisious

amandstu wrote: »

That was just her mouthing off,wasn't it? No evidence at all ;just trashing him ,even if perhaps deservedly so.

I actually wondered if she was trying to get him support because of what she said, then thought "No" she wouldn't do that because it would be completely against the run of play she was making re Don and would give him a right to claim his family was under attack again and it would wreck any standing her other quotes had earned from publication, wouldn't it?

Like, what if this was another incident like Don's COS resigning after the gent who was hired as WH media chief attacked him verbally, which IMO, was a whole set-up to let the COS retire as a victim, with his detractor then surprisingly taking an exit from the stage without any reason, after being in the media job for only a few days.

We all know Don is an expert in BS and keeping people chasing his tail by doing the unexpected. It would merely be another of his TV show scenes, faked for a public audience.

amandstu

aloyisious wrote: »

I actually wondered if she was trying to get him support because of what she said, then thought "No" she wouldn't do that because it would be completely against the run of play she was making re Don and would give him a right to claim his family was under attack again and it would wreck any standing her other quotes had earned from publication, wouldn't it?

Like, what if this was another incident like Don's COS resigning after the gent who was hired as WH media chief attacked him verbally, which IMO, was a whole set-up to let the COS retire as a victim, with his detractor then surprisingly taking an exit from the stage without any reason, after being in the media job for only a few days.

We all know Don is an expert in BS and keeping people chasing his tail by doing the unexpected. It would merely be another of his TV show scenes, faked for a public audience.

Don't know,but on another forum someone said he would not be the least surprised to see her return to the fold.

Penn

Eric Cartman wrote: »

there is 0 evidence of a tape, none at all, if there was a tape they would have played it, simple.

Yeah I think Omarosa has said it happened during the filming of The Apprentice, which means she doesn't have the tape. It's possible the producers have the tape (think it was even alleged during the election but never surfaced). Likely it'll never come out if it does exist, at least not in the foreseeable future.

everlast75

Jury going into 3rd day. Ugh

Water John

I think it's 18 separate charges to consider. They would not have been allowed discuss the case with each other prior to retiring. A few Yes charges in there will do fine and I'll wait another few days.

Wildlife Actor

With evidence as overwhelming as what was presented, 3 days and no verdict can only mean a hold out by some trumper. Hung jury, though I hope I'll be eating those words.

StringerBell

everlast75 wrote: »

Jury going into 3rd day. Ugh

Never good for the prosecution, which given what we saw in court is nothing short of incredible. Then this is the land where OJ walked.

Water John

Would one bolter do it or would the Judge allow 10/2?
Possibility of one bolter would be troubling.

everlast75

If Manafort walks, Trump will say he is the best judge in the world.

If he is convicted, Trump will say he is a disgrace.

Quin_Dub

Love nor Money wrote: »

With evidence as overwhelming as what was presented, 3 days and no verdict can only mean a hold out by some trumper. Hung jury, though I hope I'll be eating those words.

StringerBell wrote: »

Never good for the prosecution, which given what we saw in court is nothing short of incredible. Then this is the land where OJ walked.

I was watching the news earlier and they mentioned that the jury have not actually seen or read most of the documents relating the the charges.

One of their questions to the Judge the other day was "Can you tell us which document relates to which charge please?" to which the Judge replied "No , work it out for yourself", which is kind of stupid really..

In short , they reckoned that the time taken deliberating was likely not a bad thing, but a sign that they were steadily working through the mountain of paper work relating to the 18 charges that the judge wouldn't allow the prosecution to actually read out in open court..

StringerBell

Seems an odd thing for a judge to say

spacecoyote

More foot-in-mouth disease from Trump

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/20/17761426/trump-speaks-perfect-english-cbc-cbp

Speaking to border patrol agents, he repeatedly called the CBP the CBC, then calls up a Latino border agent & as he's approaching the stage days to the crowd "Speaks perfect english"

The stupid, casual racism just leaks out all the time

circadian

spacecoyote wrote: »

More foot-in-mouth disease from Trump

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/20/17761426/trump-speaks-perfect-english-cbc-cbp

Speaking to border patrol agents, he repeatedly called the CBP the CBC, then calls up a Latino border agent & as he's approaching the stage days to the crowd "Speaks perfect english"

The stupid, casual racism just leaks out all the time

Complete ignorance and lack of self awareness. It's astounding.

On the Manafort trial, it's 18 charges with mountains of evidence. The jury has to go through this to deliberate which charges they find him guilty of and not guilty of. It's far from unusual that 18 charges would take this long to work through for them, if we have a verdict by the end of the week that'll be quick considering.

Hande hoche!

Even if Manafort somehow manages to get out of this month's trial he should go down next month. Mueller's team apparently have thrice the evidence for the next one.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/16/app-politics-section/mueller-manafort-evidence-next-trial/

Eric Cartman

The manafort trial is all to do with money laundering and activities in the Ukraine years before the election, nothing to do with trump , but sure its the US, if Hillary could get away with everything she did to interfere in an election then im damn sure manafort can get away with this non election based criminality.

Christy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The manafort trial is all to do with money laundering and activities in the Ukraine years before the election, nothing to do with trump , but sure its the US, if Hillary could get away with everything she did to interfere in an election then im damn sure manafort can get away with this non election based criminality.

I wonder if Manafort's lawyer attempted the "But Hillary!" defense.

Seriously is the tactic just to assume Hillary is guilty of everything and this then justifies "our" guys doing whatever they like?

StringerBell

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The manafort trial is all to do with money laundering and activities in the Ukraine years before the election, nothing to do with trump , but sure its the US, if Hillary could get away with everything she did to interfere in an election then im damn sure manafort can get away with this non election based criminality.

Did you read this back before hitting post? I dunno, I assume it sounded witty or clever in your head but surely you saw your error when reading back?

Call me Al

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The manafort trial is all to do with money laundering and activities in the Ukraine years before the election, nothing to do with trump , but sure its the US, if Hillary could get away with everything she did to interfere in an election then im damn sure manafort can get away with this non election based criminality.

Non-election based criminality, 18 charges, and yet Trump won't rule out pardoning him.

Only the best people apparently.. well if this is the gold-standard according to Trump's guidelines Mueller will have a field-day.