Trump Thread

[HopAlongBunny]

The Trump team needed a secure line to Russia!?
Sure, why not; alternative facts or alternative reality?:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/0...034037268.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...20a_story.html

[Gilrandir]

The Trump team needed a secure line to Russia!?
Sure, why not; alternative facts or alternative reality?:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/0...034037268.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...20a_story.html

What about a Russian oligarch ready to testify in exchange for immunity?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/u...fort.html?_r=1

[Greyblades]

Which law are the investigators expecting to be able to charge trump with breaking?

[HopAlongBunny]

A look at the Trump proposed budget, from Canada.
Take away, with low interest rates not much money heads to those who will spend it on necessities, keeping consumer inflation in check; note: low interest rates do not make it to people living on pay-day loans.
The money goes to those who increasingly look for somewhere to "park" it; thus asset inflation largely stocks and real estate. Bubble and bust? Perhaps, but not now (hopefully) and policy may even extend it indefinitely (lol)
Part of the idea being even a bust leaves you with something that you can afford to sit on.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trum...tion-1.4127880

[spmetla]

Which law are the investigators expecting to be able to charge trump with breaking?

https://www.vox.com/2017/5/16/156502...estigation-fbi
According to Jimmy Gurulé, a professor of law at the University of Notre Dame who served as assistant attorney general for George H.W. Bush and undersecretary of the Treasury for enforcement under George W. Bush

If President Trump asked then-FBI Director James Comey to drop the criminal investigation of General Michael Flynn, this would constitute obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. section 1505. Section 1505 makes it a crime to "endeavor to influence, obstruct, or impede" "any pending proceeding … before any department or agency of the United States." Obviously, Trump had knowledge that Flynn was the target of an FBI investigation. The FBI investigation was a "pending proceeding . . . before [a] department or agency of the United States." Further, if Trump had knowledge of a pending grand jury investigation targeting Flynn, his conduct would constitute an attempt to influence or obstruct a grand jury investigation. The FBI was an active participant in the grand jury investigation.

Also, 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) punishes "Whoever corruptly . . . obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so." A violation of section 1512 imposes a maximum sentence of 20 years

The prevailing view of constitutional law scholars is that the US president cannot be criminally charged by normal prosecutors, and any charges must be brought by Congress through the impeachment process. Unless Republicans in Congress change their minds, it is doubtful that the president will face any consequences if he is guilty of obstruction of justice.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-investigation

Legally, it all depends on the findings. If Mueller finds enough evidence, he could try to indict and convict anyone in the Trump campaign. That may include Trump, although there’s generally a consensus among legal experts that Trump could not be prosecuted until after he’s out of office — with a big caveat that this has never actually been tested in court, so the underlying assumption could be wrong.

“It’d be hard for him to go after Trump directly for all sorts of reasons,” Josh Chafetz, who studies the intersection of law and politics at Cornell Law School, told me. “But he could do an awful lot of damage to Trump without ever filing charges against Trump. Remember: In Watergate, [President Richard] Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator, but none of the special prosecutors actually tried to indict Nixon.”

[Greyblades]

I was referring to the russian connections, the obsruction of justice charge has allready been established as completely unuseable due to the ongoing investigation being in no way impeded by the firing of comey.

[Gilrandir]

For all you Simpsons' fans out there:

[Husar]

I was referring to the russian connections, the obsruction of justice charge has allready been established as completely unuseable due to the ongoing investigation being in no way impeded by the firing of comey.

Apparently you didn't read the post:

If President Trump asked then-FBI Director James Comey to drop the criminal investigation of General Michael Flynn, this would constitute obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. section 1505.

It's not about him firing Comey, but whether he asked Comey to end the investigation before he fired him.

[spmetla]

I was referring to the russian connections, the obsruction of justice charge has allready been established as completely unuseable due to the ongoing investigation being in no way impeded by the firing of comey.

For the Russian connections it's once again the same thing as with the obstruction, the President himself will not be charged with anything. His advisers and circle of friends/partners however can and possibly will be charged, be it like General Flynn and the charge of conducting diplomacy as an individual and not disclosing his foreign connections. Kushner may be in the same boat as Flynn and a whole host of other members of his white house staff, that's what the multiple investigations will determine.
Though none of these will probably be able to directly implicate Trump, the fact that he surrounds himself with possibly compromised persons will weaken his role as one to 'make America Great.' All these investigations however may reveal that he was trying to obstruct any look into to his associates which could be grounds for impeachment though at this moment that's highly unlikely. In a year's time though the damage of these investigations to himself and his party may make him such dead-weight that the Republicans may feel compelled to get rid of him in favor of having Pence as president.

Remember that just as it was with Nixon and Clinton, it's not the crime itself that ultimately hurt them it was the cover-up/lying.

Having many friends (in law enforcement and military) that are adamantly pro-Trump I know that right now they aren't swayed by anything that's happened. They see him as under attack by the the 'liberal' media and the 'deep state bureaucrats' and stand by him 100%. They think the Russian charges as BS and just an attempt by the left to subvert the election results. The empty gestures such as having the white house illuminated blue to support the police someone gain great traction.

I can't imagine however that they'll stand by him if his closest associates start going to jail (unless he pardons them). Unfortunately politics are so partisan and everyone is so wrapped in their echo chamber of self-righteousness that they refuse to acknowledge the faults of their side because the other is the enemy.

[Greyblades]

Apparently you didn't read the post:

It's not about him firing Comey, but whether he asked Comey to end the investigation before he fired him.

No, it isnt.

A request to stop without the authority of an order or the use of intimidation is not obstruction of justice and I cannot find any example of it being used as a basis for the charge.

In this case the wording of his statement was such that it cannot even reliably determined as request or expression of opinion.

For the Russian connections it's once again the same thing as with the obstruction, the President himself will not be charged with anything. His advisers and circle of friends/partners however can and possibly will be charged, be it like General Flynn and the charge of conducting diplomacy as an individual and not disclosing his foreign connections. Kushner may be in the same boat as Flynn and a whole host of other members of his white house staff, that's what the multiple investigations will determine.

I've heard arguments stating it is common incoming president's staff to be in contact with foreign nations in preparation for the transfer. Is this true and could it be applied to this situation?

Though none of these will probably be able to directly implicate Trump, the fact that he surrounds himself with possibly compromised persons will weaken his role as one to 'make America Great.' All these investigations however may reveal that he was trying to obstruct any look into to his associates which could be grounds for impeachment though at this moment that's highly unlikely. In a year's time though the damage of these investigations to himself and his party may make him such dead-weight that the Republicans may feel compelled to get rid of him in favor of having Pence as president.

I disagree with the idea that the republicans will just get rid of Trump just for being a dead weight. The republican establishment have wanted him out since day one and his continuing position is entirely predicated upon his base popularity. If they try to remove him without a undeniable reason, such as an actual obstruction of justice, a significant portion of thier electorate will revolt against the party.

They could have Pence now if they wanted, but they'd forfiet the next few elections and risk a schism.

Having many friends (in law enforcement and military) that are adamantly pro-Trump I know that right now they aren't swayed by anything that's happened. They see him as under attack by the the 'liberal' media and the 'deep state bureaucrats' and stand by him 100%. They think the Russian charges as BS and just an attempt by the left to subvert the election results.

I do not think their viewpoint are invalid, considering the devolution of some of left wing's media platforms to the level of disinformation previously dominated by Fox news and the frequent leaks from inside the government, many of which that werent in the public's interest to be revealed and only served to undermine Trump.

I can't imagine however that they'll stand by him if his closest associates start going to jail (unless he pardons them). Unfortunately politics are so partisan and everyone is so wrapped in their echo chamber of self-righteousness that they refuse to acknowledge the faults of their side because the other is the enemy.

I wish I could disagree with that.

A problem in both our contries over the last few decades is that the ruling partys have too often been able to survive as a ruling party despite so much incompetence only due to the even worse performance of the opposition.

Sometimes it seems as if self improvement has just gone out of style.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Self improvement has never gone out of style. It has been redefined.

The current definition trends towards marketing and name recognition. Brand loyalty is also valued. Content is immaterial.

[Gilrandir]

Remember that just as it was with Nixon and Clinton, it's not the crime itself that ultimately hurt them it was the cover-up/lying.

Was there any crime in Clinton's case?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Was there any crime in Clinton's case?

Probably perjury during a deposition, though he "fig-leafed" it a bit, using language that could be viewed as equivocal. As it was a private lawsuit, if I recall, the impeachability of it was in question from the outset.

[Gilrandir]

Probably perjury during a deposition, though he "fig-leafed" it a bit, using language that could be viewed as equivocal. As it was a private lawsuit, if I recall, the impeachability of it was in question from the outset.

But this was lying/cover-up Spmetla spoke about. Charges of adultery which he tried to hide can't be qualified as a crime.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But this was lying/cover-up Spmetla spoke about. Charges of adultery which he tried to hide can't be qualified as a crime.

Nor did I suggest they were. It was the 'trying to hide' part during an sworn legal inquiry that constituted perjury (at least in the eyes of some). His peccadillos, however crass or glorious, were never the legal issue. That was just the tawdry bit all the media and comics had fun with the most.

[a completely inoffensive name]

A request to stop without the authority of an order or the use of intimidation is not obstruction of justice and I cannot find any example of it being used as a basis for the charge.

In this case the wording of his statement was such that it cannot even reliably determined as request or expression of opinion.

Distinction without a difference.

[Greyblades]

No difference as neither are impeachable.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No difference as neither are impeachable.

Anything is impeachable. Impeachment is a political trial, not a criminal one.

[spmetla]

I do not think their viewpoint are invalid, considering the devolution of some of left wing's media platforms to the level of disinformation previously dominated by Fox news and the frequent leaks from inside the government, many of which that werent in the public's interest to be revealed and only served to undermine Trump

Is this a fair view of how you see Trump then? Where do you get your news from, what to you is the best news source? The extreme faith that so many have in Trump absolutely boggles my mind. He lies, he whines, he bullies, he's refuses any transparencies in his finances, he's got zero tact and his methods and loyalties seem opposed to all the values that the US have tried to maintain for a president since our rise to superpower status.

As someone who supported Bush Jr, has never voted for Obama, and would have voted for McCain if he hadn't put looney Palin on his ticket I just don't understand how so many 'Republicans' can support such a man. What role do you want for the US in the world? Because if it's a as a responsible and respected superpower he's doing a great job at destroying our role in the international order.

[Greyblades]

Anything is impeachable. Impeachment is a political trial, not a criminal one.

Article two of the United States constitution, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Sure, they could convict based on politics, but to impeach on either request or opinion would be to render the constitution worthless and set a hell of precident.

You really think there are enough senators in this or any congress that would cross that rubicon?

[Greyblades]

Is this a fair view of how you see Trump then?

No.

Do you deny that he is often attacked by a array of news outlets who are frequently overeager to attack him?
Do you deny his administration is riddled by leaks of less than virtuous intent?

Where do you get your news from, what to you is the best news source?

BBC, Daily Mail, Reuters, Fox, the Guardian, the Express, various political commentators and this.

Where do you get your news from?

The extreme faith that so many have in Trump absolutely boggles my mind. He lies, he whines, he bullies, he's refuses any transparencies in his finances, he's got zero tact and his methods and loyalties seem opposed to all the values that the US have tried to maintain for a president since our rise to superpower status.

Your presidents have lied and bullied since your rise, ther tact was selective at best, the only difference was a crafted appearance. I can assure your thier methods were only different in thier public exposure.

The finances are reporter bait, letting them ruin their credibility with hysteria over a innocent, ala Obama's birth certificate. As for loyalties, you did see what he did to Putin's pet syrian, correct?

As someone who supported Bush Jr, has never voted for Obama, and would have voted for McCain if he hadn't put looney Palin on his ticket I just don't understand how so many 'Republicans' can support such a man. What role do you want for the US in the world? Because if it's a as a responsible and respected superpower he's doing a great job at destroying our role in the international order.

Your role in the international order is set by your overwhelming strength and willingness to use it, your president's eloquence is but an optional extra.You havent been responsible since Bush Sr and you havent been respected since Junior. Trump is a symptom, not a cause of your recent decline.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Article two of the United States constitution, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Sure, they could convict based on politics, but to impeach on either request or opinion would be to render the constitution worthless and set a hell of precident.

You really think there are enough senators in this or any congress that would cross that rubicon?

Both historical impeachments were politically motivated and failed when put to the vote in the Senate. The only one who WOULD have been impeached and convicted resigned before the articles of impeachment were introduced on the floor of the house.

[Greyblades]

Aye they were, but my understanding is that they were based upon actual crimes, this would be extending the definition of obstruction of justice past it's definition, essentially making a new crime. One that could make any number of officials criminals.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Aye they were, but my understanding is that they were based upon actual crimes, this would be extending the definition of obstruction of justice past it's definition, essentially making a new crime. One that could make any number of officials criminals.

Technically, all the impeachment and conviction does is to remove the person in question from office. Their removal from office leaves them open to subsequent criminal prosecution, which is not possible while in office. That is why Ford pardoned Nixon. Absent that pardon we would all have had to endure the spectacle of a former President being put on trial and probably found guilty. Ford chose to think being the first to resign and being tarnished in history was punishment enough.

Because all it does is remove them from office, it would not be redefining the law in any way.

However, you are partially correct in that it was the Senate's consideration in each case that the "crimes and misdemeanors" cited in the articles of impeachment were not sufficiently criminal (or maybe of concern/valid at all) to warrant removal from office. Johnson was retained in office by one vote; Clinton's margin was larger.

[Greyblades]

Because all it does is remove them from office, it would not be redefining the law in any way.

Yes but wouldnt such an impeachment leave precident that could be used to put weight behind the removal of other officials for similar non crimes?

Maybe the american justice system is more napoleonic than common law than I understand it is, but I was under the impression that precident was still a force there.

[spmetla]

Do you deny that he is often attacked by a array of news outlets who are frequently overeager to attack him?
Do you deny his administration is riddled by leaks of less than virtuous intent?

He is often attacked but no more so than other any previous president. Obama's citizenship was doubted, Bush Jr was deemed a moron...

The leaks from his administration are worrying but right now they seem (to me at least) the symptoms of an administration that rewards sycophants and punishes/ostracizes anyone who doesn't toe the line or who offers too strong an opposing opinion. These leakers may think themselves whisteblowers with no normal avenue to avert what they consider poor decision making or worse case a manchurian candidate situation.

Where do you get your news from?

BBC, France 24, Deutsche Welle, CNN, PBS Newshour, CNBC Power Lunch. I'll check the foxnews site to read up on a different viewpoint of domestic issues. Occasionally I'll check NHK, China Daily, or ITAR TASS to see other international perspectives.

I asked because you're no fool but like I've said, the people I know here (USA) that share your opinions aren't exactly news readers. They seem to get their news from many far right facebook feeds which I follow but don't trust at all: Turning Point USA, Prager U, Trump Fan Network

Your presidents have lied and bullied since your rise, ther tact was selective at best, the only difference was a crafted appearance. I can assure your thier methods were only different in thier public exposure.

I'm aware of that, that's why people like Johnson bullied his advisors into supporting his polices leading into us bumbling into Vietnam despite all the professionals of the military and intelligence advising otherwise unless we were ready for total war with China too.

The veneer of civility is importance though, the office of president merits it. Tact is vital and most of president's have used it, we've never had such a brazen bully use his office so. At least not since 1800s

The finances are reporter bait, letting them ruin their credibility with hysteria over a innocent, ala Obama's birth certificate. As for loyalties, you did see what he did to Putin's pet syrian, correct?

He fired off a salvo of missiles and then nothing else. It's not like he's started a no fly zone or killed Assad. If Putin and Erdogan can be good buddies after one of Turkey's fighters shot down some Russians I'm sure that Putin doesn't mind too much if Assad is used as a punching bag to boost his American 'friend.'

Your role in the international order is set by your overwhelming strength and willingness to use it, your president's eloquence is but an optional extra.You havent been responsible since Bush Sr and you havent been respected since Junior. Trump is a symptom, not a cause of your recent decline.

The president's eloquence is the difference between being an international bully or the arsenal of democracy. The president is commander in chief and also our number one diplomat. If he's one without being the other we're in a lot of trouble. That's why our soft power has been so important and why Trumps apparent agenda of undermining/cutting the State Department worry me so much. I'm very much a hawk but the use of force must be done smartly, with clear military and political goals, not endless open-ended conflicts or limited strikes that alienate neutrals but don't destroy our enemies.

I agree wholeheartedly about the second sentence. Bush Sr would likely have managed crises like Somalia, the Balkans, Rwanda far better than Clinton. Like I've admitted elsewhere in the backroom I supported Jr far longer than I should have. I had hoped that he was half the man his father was, he had the same network of people around him but without the intellect, experience, or respect to use them effectively.

[Fragony]

Amiricans should be happy, you had the chose between two psychopats, The lesser evil will soon be gone probably.

[Strike For The South]

I am at the point where I don't believe anything I read anymore. His vanity and myopia concern me more than ever. The American presidency is very much an imperial position and those are not good traits

[Fragony]

You are late, I never take anything I read for granted

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes but wouldnt such an impeachment leave precident that could be used to put weight behind the removal of other officials for similar non crimes?

Maybe the american justice system is more napoleonic than common law than I understand it is, but I was under the impression that precident was still a force there.

Precedent is still of great import in the US legal system. 49 of our 50 states are based, for the most part, on common law.

Remember, though, that the impeachment of federal office-holders is a constitutional provision, not a legal one. Just as those serving are immune from prosecution while serving, so as to not be assailable in their duties while serving; the founders deemed it necessary to have a process for removing office holders from office. This was and is a political tool of governance and not of the legal system.

As a guideline, and since many of them are attorneys anyway, most reps deciding to vote for impeachment or not ARE considering the legal definitions of the grounds being used to move for impeachment. The Senate, upon trying an impeached officer holder, is almost certainly considering such standards as well. This is, however, a result of their training/orientation toward these issues and their decisions would NOT constitute legal precedent.

Previous decisions COULD also serve as influence to those voting to impeach or to convict, though that sense of precedence would not be part of the law in the way that legal precedence is held to be. Nevertheless, I recall myself that, when they were voting articles of impeachment against Clinton, that I thought it was of greater importance that they voted one article for obstruction of justice (essentially the same grounds that would have seen Nixon impeached) than for the perjury charge in a civil case. However, their failure to vote for "abuse of power" (the likely second would-have-been article against Nixon) signaled to me that the Senate would not vote to remove him from office. So, since I do NOT think my musings unique or that original, I suspect there were a number of folks in the Congress who were thinking of such 'precedents.'

In that sense, you may be correct that one decision can serve to guide/encourage future efforts against similar office holders.