Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

everlast75

serfboard wrote: »

Yeah - lots of shady characters involved in that taxi cab business he was up to his neck in.

Similar to Manafort.

Both involved with shady types. Neither one prepared to properly enter into a cooperation agreement

serfboard

everlast75 wrote: »

Both involved with shady types. Neither one prepared to properly enter into a cooperation agreement

You can understand why.

The characters they were involved with wouldn't take too kindly to being fingered.

Muahahaha

Duck Soup wrote: »

Help me out here. Why was Flynn recommended to serve pretty much no time and Michael Cohen recommended to serve a long stint? Both sang like canaries apparently.

Because Cohen lied to investigators initially? Does that suggest they're going to drop a piano on Manafort?

From what Ive read Paul Manafort is in serious trouble. He is currently in solitary confinement in a Virginia prison. He had been only under house arrest but then got properly locked up because he was interfereing with witnesses trying to cover his tracks as well as making contact with someone in the White House. Other charges include failing to register as a foreign lobbyist and money laundering, bank and tax fraud in the tens of millions.

IIRC he has a couple of sentencing hearings coming up, the first of which is in Feburary. Ive read that he is looking at between 17-22 years in prison, not what he will want to be hearing at the age of almost 70. It will be some fall from grace for someone who has been a Washington insider for decades.

serfboard

Muahahaha wrote: »

IIRC he has a couple of sentencing hearings coming up, the first of which is in Feburary. Ive read that he is looking at between 17-22 years in prison, not what he will want to be hearing at the age of almost 70. It will be some fall from grace for someone who has been a Washington insider for decades.

Manafort is still holding out for a pardon, which suggests to me that he still has some serious provable dirt on The Don, because that's the only way he'll get one.

Trump of course signalling to him to hold out, through his Tweets that talk about Manafort being a "good man" etc. Similarily with Roger Stone - Roger, if they threaten you, keep shtum, and there's a pardon in it for you.

DrumSteve

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Trump may run but will he win the primary. If there is a strong enough alternative, GoP may finally abandon him, especially if Mueller's final report is damning.

Also, how does any member of the GOP run against him? What way could they attack him without pointing out the rank hypocrisy of their party?

Itssoeasy

I'd always assumed there was a statute of limitations on campaign finance violations I just found out what it is. It's five years. So 2016 +5 =2021 which if trump gets reelected would mean he'd be sworn in again in jaunuary 2021 and as it's an unresolved issue on whether a sitting president can be indicted he'd be away in a laugh. The crafty fecker could get away with it.

everlast75

DrumSteve wrote: »

Also, how does any member of the GOP run against him? What way could they attack him without pointing out the rank hypocrisy of their party?

They start peeling away now....

Penn

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I'd always assumed there was a statute of limitations on campaign finance violations I just found out what it is. It's five years. So 2016 +5 =2021 which if trump gets reelected would mean he'd be sworn in again in jaunuary 2021 and as it's an unresolved issue on whether a sitting president can be indicted he'd be away in a laugh. The crafty fecker could get away with it.

I can't remember where or when I read it, but I think I read that in the arguments as to whether or not you could indict a sitting president, most agree that even if you can't, the statute of limitations for their crimes would have to be paused until their term ends, thereby ensuring they can't use the statute of limitations to escape criminal liability.

Again, I may be completely wrong or misremembering that, but I don't think that would save him.

TomOnBoard

DrumSteve wrote: »

Also, how does any member of the GOP run against him? What way could they attack him without pointing out the rank hypocrisy of their party?

The Never Trumpers who are full GOP card carriers, have NOT gone away, you know... However, they need to start grabbing the GOP base away from Trump by some means. Otherwise, they may as well join the Democrats to really act in accordance with their names.

TomOnBoard

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I'd always assumed there was a statute of limitations on campaign finance violations I just found out what it is. It's five years. So 2016 +5 =2021 which if trump gets reelected would mean he'd be sworn in again in jaunuary 2021 and as it's an unresolved issue on whether a sitting president can be indicted he'd be away in a laugh. The crafty fecker could get away with it.

AFAIK, a case does not need to be resolved within the limitations period. It does however need to be filed. I'm not sure if an actual indictment would be contrary to current DoJ guide!ines.. HOwever, sadly, you could be 100% correct... Sad!

EDit: I think Penn is closer to the mark above... Sure hope so!!

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

So the lady accused of being a russian spy, infiltrating the NRA, and the one that conspicuously asked the then candidate Trump for the first time on the trail about Russian sanctions, appears to have struck a deal with the prosecutors..

https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1072156485105475584

It'd be good to know if Vlad is in on the change of plea. I'd imagine that as long as she does not provide testimony about him or other Russians living within Russia [only about her US-deals partners] that he's sick to the gills with Don and is washing his hands of him, with a deal that allows her return to Russia with Vlad's blessing and a Hero of Russia gong presented to her by him to rub it in.

If anyone had told me 4 or 5 years ago that Russia would deal a near fatal blow to U.S democracy, to it's political, legal and counterespionage systems with the willing assistance of an idiot elected to the Oval Office, I'd have asked them what they'd been reading.

An_Toirpin

DrumSteve wrote: »

Also, how does any member of the GOP run against him? What way could they attack him without pointing out the rank hypocrisy of their party?

What hypocrisy precisely? The GOP is a diverse grouping. A lot of nostalgia was expressed recently for the style of presidency of George Bush Senior (technocrat, highly educated, middle of the road) and you know what, you still have politicians like that in the GOP like Mitt Romney and on the other end of the spectrum you have fiercely libertarian figures like Thomas Massie. Two examples who are nothing remotely like Trump.

everlast75

Penn wrote: »

I can't remember where or when I read it, but I think I read that in the arguments as to whether or not you could indict a sitting president, most agree that even if you can't, the statute of limitations for their crimes would have to be paused until their term ends, thereby ensuring they can't use the statute of limitations to escape criminal liability.

Again, I may be completely wrong or misremembering that, but I don't think that would save him.

That's not the case as it stands i believe, as i heard Jerry Nadler say he wanted to introduce legislation to that effect in the new year

everlast75

An_Toirpin wrote: »

What hypocrisy precisely? The GOP is a diverse grouping. A lot of nostalgia was expressed recently for the style of presidency of George Bush Senior (technocrat, highly educated, middle of the road) and you know what, you still have politicians like that in the GOP like Mitt Romney and on the other end of the spectrum you have fiercely libertarian figures like Thomas Massie. Two examples who are nothing remotely like Trump.

The hypocrisy of sitting idly by while he makes a complete train wreck out of the party's (former) principles obviously

Itssoeasy

Penn wrote: »

I can't remember where or when I read it, but I think I read that in the arguments as to whether or not you could indict a sitting president, most agree that even if you can't, the statute of limitations for their crimes would have to be paused until their term ends, thereby ensuring they can't use the statute of limitations to escape criminal liability.

Again, I may be completely wrong or misremembering that, but I don't think that would save him.

That's an interesting point I didn't know was a possibility. I'd always assumed that statute of limitations started running and had a limited time depending on the crime.

An_Toirpin

everlast75 wrote: »

The hypocrisy of sitting idly by while he makes a complete train wreck out of the party's (former) principles obviously

Well they do on matters where it possible.

aloyisious

Re the next presidential elections, if it looks like Don will be named as No 1 in the investigation, what's the chance that the GOP does a deal with Mike Pence to keep his nose clean & his popularity higher than Don's, it'll put Mike forward as it's candidate and tell's Don if he wants to run, they WILL NOT fund him or his campaign and he will NOT be allowed use the party name or any of it's facilities, senate or congress members while campaigning?

Regardless of his connection to Don via the office he holds, Mike has to be seen as Mr Clean when stood by Don.

Carry

Apparantly the rats are leaving the sinking ship.
Tucker Carlson of Fox News fame denounces his former master, sort of:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/07/tucker-carlson-fox-news-trump-interview-turns

Not long now and one after another is jumping off that train wreck called Trump admin. I don't think that he will ever run for president again. I even dare say that he won't finish this term.

I was noticing earlier today that the silence of Trump supporters in this thread is deafening. Not that I miss them, but I'm wondering if it dawns on them that all hope is lost?

TomOnBoard

Itssoeasy wrote: »

That's an interesting point I didn't know was a possibility. I'd always assumed that statute of limitations started running and had a limited time depending on the crime.

Another wrinkle in all this is that the DOJ 'y'all can't indict a sitting POTUS ' guideline/policy is just that. It is a g uideline/policy and not clear law. I've seen arguments that say this policy is rooted in the need to ensure s/he is not distracted from important work as the President by having to defend an indictment. And, on the face of it, that seems reasonab le. However, by the DOJ being reasonab le, there is a possibility that the POTUS would then become above the law.

So, I reckon this lies at the heart of sealed indictments that may a!ready have been lodged. These would avoid the SOL running out at the same time as avoiding the distraction problem for the POTUS. WHen he leaves office, the stay in the proceedings could then be lif ted. However, if Trump resigned say 30 minutes before his term expired, then Pence would become POTuS for those 30 minutes, and could pardon any/all Trump's federal crimes.

If cri minal indictments arise at State level, then DOJ guidelii nes might not even be relevant, so States might be able to indict AND proceed even while POTUS is still in office, without possibility of Presidential pardon. And if they did abide by DOJ policy 'in the national interest ' , then once again, a sealed indictment may suffice...

Lots of food for thought, and loads to explode the heads of gaggles of constitutional lawyers..

Itssoeasy

The Russian "spy"/NRA enthusiast marina butina is reported to have changed her plea to guilty and is cooperating with prosecutors. I'd say Dana loesch and others in the NRA are a bit uneasy tonight hearing that.

mcmoustache

aloyisious wrote: »

It'd be good to know if Vlad is in on the change of plea.

Hard to know. She had defense lawyers earlier and presumably these were paid for in some way by Russia. Then last week, she was suddenly assigned a public defender.



I don't know what that means but I hope it's something along the lines of her thinking that her interests weren't being well represented by those lawyers.

Christy42

mcmoustache wrote: »

aloyisious wrote: »

It'd be good to know if Vlad is in on the change of plea.

Hard to know. She had defense lawyers earlier and presumably these were paid for in some way by Russia. Then last week, she was suddenly assigned a public defender.



I don't know what that means but I hope it's something along the lines of her thinking that her interests weren't being well represented by those lawyers.

Hard to imagine she would do a lot without the backing of Vlad. Seems suicide to do otherwise.

Likewise Manafort may not be holding out for a pardon. Life (effectively for him) in jail may be preferable to a bullet outside of it. He has some nasty friends outside of whatever he has done with Trump. Or maybe he brought them into this situation.

JJayoo

It's still bizarre to think Donald Trump is the president of America.

everlast75

Catching up on overnight news.

It appears that May of 2016 a meeting occurred with DJT with Torshin, then the NRA when the NRA officially endorsed him.

With Butina, it looks like the NRA laundered money through Trump's campaign.

https://twitter.com/PePelletier/status/1001473316035747840?s=19

Jesus.

Leroy42

Orin Hatch, GOP senator, has told CNN that he doesn't care about any potential illegal acts by Trump because he is doing a good job.

prawnsambo

Leroy42 wrote: »

Orin Hatch, GOP senator, has told CNN that he doesn't care about any potential illegal acts by Trump because he is doing a good job.

Is that the chap who took off the glasses he wasn't wearing?

Edit: Yep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c47MW8Y8Rk4

batgoat

Leroy42 wrote: »

Orin Hatch, GOP senator, has told CNN that he doesn't care about any potential illegal acts by Trump because he is doing a good job.

Gone in January anyway and has always been a big supporter of Trump. Trump tried to get him to rerun.

circadian

everlast75 wrote: »

Catching up on overnight news.

It appears that May of 2016 a meeting occurred with DJT with Torshin, then the NRA when the NRA officially endorsed him.

With Butina, it looks like the NRA laundered money through Trump's campaign.

https://twitter.com/PePelletier/status/1001473316035747840?s=19

Jesus.

Would explain why the NRA has been doubling down after mass shootings, not because they care about gun control but rather would incite fear and anger.

pixelburp

Leroy42 wrote: »

Orin Hatch, GOP senator, has told CNN that he doesn't care about any potential illegal acts by Trump because he is doing a good job.

Hey, at least he's honest. It's not like we didn't already suspect a cohort of Republicans were putting party before country in rolling behind an obvious malcontent like Trump. Though turning the other cheek to full-blown illegality is a particularly bold statement

everlast75

circadian wrote: »

Would explain why the NRA has been doubling down after mass shootings, not because they care about gun control but rather would incite fear and anger.

Apparently they are broke.

Which would explain why they gladly took the russian money.

How are their members, who at least in theory, possess guns so that they can overthrow a corrupt domestic government, wrap their heads around their funding an organisation who worked with a foreign adversarial government.