Cont: The Trump Presidency Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunmaster14 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Another rationale is because it is a crime and people get into that business to prosecute people for crimes.
 
sunmaster14 said:
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.
Click to expand...

... which suggests that Mueller thinks that Manafort has some dirt on Trump.
 
sunmaster14 said:
That's ironic given that you're agreeing with a post which is filled with strawmen.
Click to expand...

Let me predict the final pivot...

“Yes, it’s now been shown that the Republicans did collude with the Russians and the president was aware. That only shows what a genius Trump is - the goal was to win the presidency, and it worked!”

I’ve already heard versions of that, ranging from “So what?” to “Good for him!”
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
I'll bet there's some juicy trump - Russia stuff that predates his campaign. Money laundering.
Click to expand...


That seems fairly likely. And if true, it may be that some in Trump's campaign also attempted to use any preexisting connections for the benefit of the campaign.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Let me predict the final pivot...

“Yes, it’s now been shown that the Republicans did collude with the Russians and the president was aware. That only shows what a genius Trump is - the goal was to win the presidency, and it worked!”

I’ve already heard versions of that, ranging from “So what?” to “Good for him!”
Click to expand...

Nice to see you can create your own straw man. ...snip...
Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited for compliance with Rule 11 of the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sunmaster14 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Alright! You bet $100 that, as of Jan 20, 2021 the indictment of whoever we find out Monday has been charged has been overturned by the most recent court ruling on the grounds you spelled out in your inirial offer, and I bet $100 against (dollar value on Jan 21, 2021). See you then!
 
BobTheCoward said:
Killers are not experts in criminal law. The person named is an expert in tax law.
Click to expand...
If he is essentially an exponent of devising means whereby the intent of tax law may be avoided with impunity, he would not be suited to any official post. Killers are not ex officio experts in criminal law, but if one of them was, I'm not sure he or she would be suitable as a police chief.
 
Oystein said:
Alright! You bet $100 that, as of Jan 20, 2021 the indictment of whoever we find out Monday has been charged has been overturned by the most recent court ruling on the grounds you spelled out in your inirial offer, and I bet $100 against (dollar value on Jan 21, 2021). See you then!
Click to expand...

Ok, my only condition is that if I lose I get to pay by sending you an Amazon gift code for $100. Is that ok? More anonymous that way.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
You seem recently enamored with that term.

I was making a prediction (“Let me predict...”). Hard to see how that ranks as a Straw Man.
Click to expand...

I predict that some people will say that Trump colluded with the Russians even if Mueller admits he found no evidence. I predict that some people will say that Hillary was framed, if Mueller ends up going after her for colluding with the Russians. I predict that some people will say that Hillary is being persecuted for being a "strong" woman if an investigation is reopened as to her email shenanigans.

Those are predictions and strawmen at the same time, since they mock arguments which have not been advanced here, or anywhere that we know of and can agree on.
 
Mumbles said:
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.
Click to expand...
Opposition research: paying an ex-British spy to investigate Trump, especially as to any foreign power that might have leverage or influence over him. Said research is a single event, paid for, over and done.

Collusion: contacting Russians who illegally hacked into the DNC and Podesta's emails for said opposition research. Trading influence on dismantling future sanctions against Russia or Putin's cronies for said research. Coordinating the targeting of the Russian bot farm and political ads on FaceBook and Twitter via Cambridge Analytica's data, or even sharing RNC database on voters with the Russians.

One of these things is not like the other despite the GOP and Trump's flooding the news media with talking heads that muddy the water with a false equivalence.

Pay particular attention to Trump talking heads' framing, "it's not illegal to collude with a foreign power during an election." Also pay attention to attempts to make some election finance reporting flub into an equivalent crime and framing to make it sound like hiring Steele was illegal and covered up when it wasn't.

Colluding with a foreign power per se is not the issue here. The issue is what the Russians got or planned to get in return, and the Trump campaign's colluding with the Russian interference in the election on social media in particular. And the Trump campaign's trying to or actually acquiring stolen emails is probably illegal as well.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Opposition research: paying an ex-British spy to investigate Trump, especially as to any foreign power that might have leverage or influence over him. Said research is a single event, paid for, over and done.
Click to expand...

Your desperation is almost palpable. The allegations in the dossier came from Russian government sources. The dossier even reads like some of it was translated from Russian. The Clinton campaign paid Russians through two layers of intermediaries for disinformation on Trump's campaign. Then they arranged (almost certainly through intermediaries) to pass that information on to the national security agencies and prompted them to investigate Trump's campaign (which they were successful in doing). There is literally no worse collusion than that, in my book. Working with hostile foreign agents to frame one's political rivals, and to sick the FBI on them is the lowest of the low.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Your desperation is almost palpable. The allegations in the dossier came from Russian government sources. The dossier even reads like some of it was translated from Russian. The Clinton campaign paid Russians through two layers of intermediaries for disinformation on Trump's campaign. Then they arranged (almost certainly through intermediaries) to pass that information on to the national security agencies and prompted them to investigate Trump's campaign (which they were successful in doing). There is literally no worse collusion than that, in my book. Working with hostile foreign agents to frame one's political rivals, and to sick the FBI on them is the lowest of the low.
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence Russians were paid?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom