Cont: The Trump Presidency Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oystein said:
Can you put an end date to this? Then I may be game!
Click to expand...

They may be able to find a tame judge to throw it out.....that opinion would then be reversed on appeal.

It does show another evolution of the right wing narrative. First there was no contact, then there was contact but no attempt at collusion, then there was attempt at collusion but no successful collusion, then there was no evidence of collusion.

Now the latest incarnation, there is evidence but it was gathered inappropriately. I guess if the evidence is ruled good then there'll be a new excuse. :rolleyes:
 
BobTheCoward said:
A tax expert?
Click to expand...
So Jack the Ripper would have been qualified to direct the Metropolitan Police, because was a "killer expert". He got away with it too. Perhaps he could have taught miscreants how to defeat the intent of the law without infringing its literal terms.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Every candidate does oppo research. Normal part of politics. HUGE difference between paying a professional investigator and colluding with a hostile foreign power in exchange for selling out the nation.
Click to expand...

It's worth pointing out that oppo research is so common that candidates often pay for opposition research on themselves, in order to anticipate anything that their actual opposition will be able to find.
 
Yes, part of the issue with the Russian meeting is that the price was not clear.

If you think that are getting something from a foreign state, and that they haven't told you what it is costing, the price is probably too high.
 
Craig B said:
So Jack the Ripper would have been qualified to direct the Metropolitan Police, because was a "killer expert". He got away with it too. Perhaps he could have taught miscreants how to defeat the intent of the law without infringing its literal terms.
Click to expand...

Killers are not experts in criminal law. The person named is an expert in tax law.
 
logger said:
Lol
You believe he hasn’t gotten anything done because the media tells you this. I’m delighted in what he has done so far and he’s in the first year of four.
Click to expand...

Lol

Trump is a big fat lazy bum with small hands and a low IQ so it's no wonder he can't accomplish anything, anything of value at least. Everything he suggests is awful and terrible especially for those stupid fools who supported him, not that they would care about that since his voters don't seem to care about anything at all.

As what's left of his disturbed mind rots away from the stress of the presidency he serves as the ultimate proof of Americas degeneracy and national decay. That a country which is so rich and prosperous would be willing to risk it all for completely empty promises and obvious lies is a cautionary tale for all.
 
Last edited:
logger said:
The most important to me was the nomination and confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch.
Click to expand...

Does it matter to you that he oversold or lied about his capability? He promised that only he could fix things and that he could be a dealmaker and generate these legislative accomplishments. Why or why not?
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
It does show another evolution of the right wing narrative. First there was no contact, then there was contact but no attempt at collusion, then there was attempt at collusion but no successful collusion, then there was no evidence of collusion.

Now the latest incarnation, there is evidence but it was gathered inappropriately. I guess if the evidence is ruled good then there'll be a new excuse. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I agree.

Avoid Cognitive Dissonance at all costs!
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I agree.

Avoid Cognitive Dissonance at all costs!
Click to expand...

That's ironic given that you're agreeing with a post which is filled with strawmen. It is possible to believe the following things all at the same time: (a) there were no suspicious contacts, either more numerous than to be expected for a political campaign, or intentionally hidden; (b) no contacts involved improper discussions or coordination; (c) Don Jr.'s meeting simply involved listening to a claim that the Clinton campaign was engaged in illegal conduct, with no further action; (d) that there is no evidence of collusion; in fact there is negative evidence of collusion (e.g. why take a meeting with some unknown Russian lawyer if there was collusion at a higher level?); (e) collusion is not a crime by itself, since it is too vague a term and could encompass perfectly acceptable activity protected by the 1st Amendment; and (f) the investigation is improper because it was begun only because of a reckless disregard for the truth.

I'll note further that The Don implies that the leak (only to CNN, by the way) about a forthcoming indictment has to do with collusion. That is doubtful, since collusion isn't even a crime by itself and the elements of a related crime have not even been plausibly alleged. It probably is an indictment of Manafort for financial crimes unrelated to the presidential campaign. Seems kind of obvious actually, given that Mueller was able to convince a judge that they needed a warrant to do a pre-dawn, armed search of Manafort's private residence a few months ago.
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
So Jack the Ripper would have been qualified to direct the Metropolitan Police, because was a "killer expert". He got away with it too. Perhaps he could have taught miscreants how to defeat the intent of the law without infringing its literal terms.
Click to expand...

The first commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission was Joe Kennedy Sr. (the pro-Nazi father of the serial sexual harassers Jack, Bobby, and Teddy). He was chosen in part because he was the most successful and notorious of stock price manipulators. In other words, he knew all of the tricks of the trade. He actually turned out to be a pretty good commissioner.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
It probably is an indictment of Manafort for financial crimes unrelated to the presidential campaign.
Click to expand...


that would actually be outside the scope of the investigation, which is specifically tasked with looking for Russian meddling in the election.
Only if these crimes relate to Manafort working for Russia would this argument fly.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
that would actually be outside the scope of the investigation, which is specifically tasked with looking for Russian meddling in the election.
Only if these crimes relate to Manafort working for Russia would this argument fly.
Click to expand...

He is allowed to investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation" from the appointment letter.

The consensus seems to be that a crime that comes up unrelated to Russia is still in the reach of the special counsel.
 
Oystein said:
Can you put an end date to this? Then I may be game!
Click to expand...

Well, these court battles can last a good long time, especially since the interesting action will probably be at the appellate level after more than two years at the trial court after an indictment. I guess the end of Trump's first term - Jan. 20, 2021 - would be a good end date, since he might put an end to things with a pardon anyway.

Also, I'll caution that a plea deal by Manafort or whomever would not put an end to things. I think ultimately a plea deal will be overturned based on the same reasoning I gave.
 
BobTheCoward said:
He is allowed to investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation" from the appointment letter.

The consensus seems to be that a crime that comes up unrelated to Russia is still in the reach of the special counsel.
Click to expand...

But why would he waste time on that if it didn't serve the main purpose? He could easily hand that case to the FBI if it had nothing to do with Russian interference.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
But why would he waste time on that if it didn't serve the main purpose? He could easily hand that case to the FBI if it had nothing to do with Russian interference.
Click to expand...

The comment was related to scope. I pointed out that it would be within the scope as defined by the special counsel letter. I have no opinion on why he would or wouldn't do it.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
But why would he waste time on that if it didn't serve the main purpose? He could easily hand that case to the FBI if it had nothing to do with Russian interference.
Click to expand...

The rationale (besides the usual one for special prosecutors, which is that they really want to collect a scalp or two to justify their existence and their budget) is that Mueller could squeeze a Trump insider to turn state's evidence by indicting him for an unrelated crime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom