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

MSNBC refusing to broadcast press conference and Trump's rallies.


CNN taking a different tack...


https://twitter.com/KaivanShroff/status/1067527142253178885?s=19

For Forks Sake wrote: »

I love that. All the networks should employ factcheckers for all statements coming from this administration.

Excellent idea!

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Trump is "looking at cutting all GM subsidies" due to the company closing factories and laying off nearly 15,000 workers.

Ah yes, because that will really help them to keep US operations open!

Stallingrad wrote: »

Didn't Obama try to save the US auto industry while this fool just kicks it when it's down? Maybe he will incentivise coal powered cars.

Steam power!

Itssoeasy wrote: »

That is a very clever idea by CNN actually. How regular are the press conferences now if not daily ?

Roughly once a month now

batgoat wrote: »

This is really interesting news, Roger Stone was actively trying to get emails off of wikileaks and looks like this could cause him some bother. Mueller is going after him over it.

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/11/27/politics/mueller-stone-corsi-wikileaks/index.html?r=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2F

Stone's fecked. He's clearly a target.

EDIT: Here's the statement of offense that Corsi was supposed to plead guilty to.

Is there anyone out there willing to revisit their claim that the Russia stuff was a hoax?

batgoat wrote: »

This is really interesting news, Roger Stone was actively trying to get emails off of wikileaks and looks like this could cause him some bother. Mueller is going after him over it.

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/11/27/politics/mueller-stone-corsi-wikileaks/index.html?r=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2F

It looks very clear that Stone and other Campaign-related ppl were actively pursuing Assange/Wikileaks to get their hands on as much HRC-related dirt as possible.

a) Was that in/of itself illegal? I don't know. I suspect that so-called "opposition research" goes on all the time and regularly get very legally muddy.
b) Do any of these actions prove Russian collusion? If they knew/suspected that the GRU was in bed with Wikileaks, then yes. If they had no reason to know, then having been knowingly involved in Russian collusion is a stretch.
c) What crimes is Corsi accused of? Lying to the FBI and the Mueller team.
d) Does Corsi's crime implicate anyone else? Not unless they lied also.

So where does this leave us vis a vis Stone? If Corsi 'flipped' and told Mueller stuff about Stone, then It could have been very damaging to Stone depending on what he would have said. Because he has not flipped, Mueller can only use Corsi's emails and messages as evidence of Stone's involvement and that really matters if Stone had told the FBI/Mueller that he had never had such an involvement. But AFAIK, Stone has not yet been interviewed by the FBI/Mueller. So far therefore, it does not appear that he has had a chance to lie to them. Forget about all Stone's TV appearances where he denied involvement. They have no legal standing. Yet! If he doubles down on them under oath or in questioning, then the legal trouble will begin for him. And if he has already spoken to Mueller and I've missed it, then my point here is meaningless.

Unless contact with Assange/Wikileaks is legally synonymous with contact with Russia, then the collusion charge is not supported. The fact that the GRU / Gussifer source for the Wkileaks hacked documents became known after the Wikileaks dump gives all those involved plausible deniability of having knowingly colluded.

So I'm struggling to see how all this helps Mueller's objective beyond indicting Corsi while CorsI continues to hold firm.

Tell me how wrote: »

What is the likely outcome of all this?

I still think it is very unlikely that true justice will be served. (I do think Trump is guilty of collusion).
I suspect that as soon as the noose is approaching his neck, he will either decide to not run for 2020 or that ill health is preventing him from mounting a robust challenge to the charges against him.

I fear that the US Justice system will ultimately just be happy to have him out of the way and given their system of plea bargaining, he will be let fade out of public life. I think they will be happy to just be rid of him.

Anyone care to predict other alternative outcomes?

The American justice system has been coming under a lot of scrutiny in recent years when incarceration rates for the plebs increase and the prison system is privatised. The house shifting not only to Democrat, but there are a handful of new faces there that will want to see this go all the way as means of getting the entire legal system into shape.

I can see why the justice department would be happy to just be rid of him but at the same time there are some very serious charges that could be brought forward. If that is the case the American legal system needs to make an example otherwise they'll be back here in a few election cycles if it's seen there's little or no consequence.

My hope is that the IRS get involved. They take no prisoners and with all the shady money involved here that's not outside the realms of possibility.

Igotadose wrote: »

Knew an IRS auditor back in the US. He'd describe them as 'drooling at the possibility' to go after Trump, his family and especially TrumpCo, which likely is in the middle of Russian money laundering. Personally can't wait till the House Finance committee chaired by Maxine Waters subpoenas Trump's tax returns. He won't give them up, and will fight it to the SCOTUS if he can.

Yeah my understanding is of all the government agencies you don't want to piss off, the USPS and IRS top the list, they don't mess around.

TomOnBoard wrote: »

It looks very clear that Stone and other Campaign-related ppl were actively pursuing Assange/Wikileaks to get their hands on as much HRC-related dirt as possible.

a) Was that in/of itself illegal? I don't know. I suspect that so-called "opposition research" goes on all the time and regularly get very legally muddy.
b) Do any of these actions prove Russian collusion? If they knew/suspected that the GRU was in bed with Wikileaks, then yes. If they had no reason to know, then having been knowingly involved in Russian collusion is a stretch.

There seems to be very clear evidence of links between the GRU and Wikileaks. A lot of this came out in the indictments that Mueller sought back in July against 12 GRU operatives.


There's a pretty good piece on this in the Ney Yorker.

Tell me how wrote: »

What is the likely outcome of all this?

I still think it is very unlikely that true justice will be served. (I do think Trump is guilty of collusion).
I suspect that as soon as the noose is approaching his neck, he will either decide to not run for 2020 or that ill health is preventing him from mounting a robust challenge to the charges against him.

I fear that the US Justice system will ultimately just be happy to have him out of the way and given their system of plea bargaining, he will be let fade out of public life. I think they will be happy to just be rid of him.

Anyone care to predict other alternative outcomes?

My prediction was that he would be gone by Christmas. In my defence, any other president would be well gone by now, considering the unbelievable amounts of scandals and criminality.

He may ride it out until the middle of next year, but I cannot see him going past then. He will step down perhaps as a deal to avoid his kin going to jail.

He will end up either bankrupt or in jail, or both ultimately.

everlast75 wrote: »

My prediction was that he would be gone by Christmas. In my defence, any other president would be well gone by now, considering the unbelievable amounts of scandals and criminality.

He may ride it out until the middle of next year, but I cannot see him going past then. He will step down perhaps as a deal to avoid his kin going to jail.

He will end up either bankrupt or in jail, or both ultimately.

The key thing to watch here is what Mueller's team releases in the run-up to Manafort's sentencing...

[We] will file a detailed sentencing submission to the Probation Department and the Court in advance of sentencing that sets forth the nature of the defendant's crimes and lies, including those after signing the plea agreement.

Trump may be being backed slowly but surely into a corner.

Either:
1) Manafort and Trump colluded on the questioning and Trump has perjured himself;
2) Manafort colluded and they can link it to Trump directly;
3) Manafort is just a serial liar and it has no implications on Trump.

I think case 1 is the slam-dunk and impeachment before Christmas is possible; 2 is more complicated but of course extremely serious and we might see arrests of Kushner and Don Jr.; 3 is the most likely given Manafort's history and how absolutely Teflon-coated Trump seems to be at the moment - if this is the case though, and Trump pardons Manafort you can be sure Mueller has something ready to go for that.

As another poster said, I don't understand how Trump gets away with half of this **** - any other president would be gone by now.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Surely they have a responsibility to ask where the info was coming from? Buying stolen goods and claiming you didn't know is no defence.

So they meet with this guy, known for getting his hands on confidential information. They are told about the info but never even ask how he got it? Not even remotely believable.

Especially since Trump stood up and asked Russia to get the info, surely someone would have gone back and asked the question?

From a moral standpoint, you may well be correct. However, a successful criminal prosecution would require proof of intent to commit an actual crime. Which goes back to the question, did they know that they were dealing with the Russians via Wiki leaks? I don't think arguing that they should have known will cut it, especially as even the CIA/FBI didn't know that (although they suspected it) before July 2016.

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Oh, I've absolutely no doubt that there is now clear evidence of GRU involvement. However, this clear evidence only came out after the election, so unless it can be proven that Stone etc. knew or suspected that they were dealing with the Russians back in the March to July 2016 timeframe, they have plausible deniability.

As to whether they should have known and/or failed to ask... I reckon that's a different legal point, and if that is a crime, then many organisations who used the Wikileaks dumps could equally be accused.

Well the DNC have to have known since they were working to plug the leaks within a month of the hack happening. It would have been clear to the consultants where the hacks originated from. The GRU tried to hide this by creating the Guccifer 2.0 persona.

As for whether Stone et al knew where the data came from, well that's up to Mueller to prove. But there is lots of circumstantial evidence that we know of and lots of links between individuals in the Trump campaign and Russia. George Papadopolous, Kushner and Don Jr. and of course Paul Manafort. The latter being a partner of Stone in his lobbying firm.