Cont: The Trump Presidency Part III

[sunmaster14]

The post you replied to didn't, did it? I wasn't engaging him on the topic, just telling him that doing so was pointless, as did my follow up above.

If this were a real debate, with judges and scoring and all, then your engagement with me would be pointless.

 

[Oystein]

If this were a real debate, with judges and scoring and all, then your engagement with me would be pointless.

0:0, going into 3rd OT.

 

[Jim_MDP]

... (and she's quite the poor storyteller... surprising in this case, she's ridiculously well informed and prepared in a normal presser.)

I need to clarify this poorly phrased statement before someone points out my mistake...

In no way am I a fan of Sarah's... she makes me cringe. I think she obfuscates, dissembles, misleads, perhaps flat-out lies from the podium.
But she seems to have a prepared admin position response for just about any and every person, event or scandal that gets asked about.*

And that's what scares me about her as this admin's mouthpiece... she's just that good.
(A stunningly good hire on their part... for once.)

--
* Except those topics they would rather not talk about, or would like to just go away... then it's "I'll get back to you about that." (just like Trump) and then of course they never do.

 

[WilliamSeger]

There are two kinds of investigations: counterintelligence and criminal. You don't appoint special counsel to do a counterintelligence investigation. In fact, you can't. There is no authorization for such a thing. The special counsel law is for investigating crimes. Mueller's appointment was based on the allegation that crimes had been committed by the Trump campaign, even though, contrary to DOJ guidelines, Rosenstein's letter did not actually state there was probable cause to believe that crimes had been committed.

No, it wasn't just an issue of espionage and counter-intellegence. Mueller's appointment was based on the allegation and evidence that Russians had hacked Democratic email servers (which was itself a crime regardless of who did it, and remember Trumpsters were still saying we didn't know who did it), and that they had used that stolen information to give material aid to the Trump campaign (another crime). The possibility that the Trump campaign had also committed a crime by conspiring to participate in this illegal activity is certainly suggested by their guilty behavior, but that's not what Mueller's investigation was "based on."

Pursuing financial crimes by Manafort and his crony was not mentioned, nor would it have been a basis for appointing a special prosecutor. There was no reason that the FBI couldn't investigate Manafort themselves, as they had been doing, off and on, since 2012 or so, apparently.

Your notion that an investigation is only justified when it's already known what will be found is rather strange, but we don't know yet how all this mess is tied together. We don't even know if Mueller is finished with charges against Manafort. But anyway, Mueller was specifically directed to follow up on any criminal activity uncovered by the investigation. That's how investigations work, and Trump brought that upon himself and his people by firing Comey (obstruction of justice being another crime).

I think very few of the so-called lies about contacts were lies. These people were meeting hundreds, if not thousands, of new people during a frenetic campaign that spanned a year. It is not surprising if they either couldn't remember a causal contact, or believed that such casual contact was not worth reporting.

Another thing is that the level of contact with Russia strikes me as quite low. I would bet that if you conducted the same audit of the Clinton campaign you would find a much higher level of contact with pretty much every foreign country on Earth, including Russia. It was the dossier (which is obviously total garbage) that focused intense scrutiny on the Trump campaign. It is a trivial matter to cherrypick from such intense scrutiny (i.e. ignore exculpatory information and only publicize inculpatory information) to cast any campaign or any person in a bad light.

Honestly (and I really mean this), I am surprised at just how "clean" Trump's campaign really was. I think they were probably just too overwhelmed and understaffed even to pursue nefarious deeds. The campaign was also too naive (or incompetent) to play the game the right way, like the Clintons do, with layers of intermediaries. For that reason, I think any illegalities would be easy to uncover. The fact that they haven't been uncovered yet is very strong evidence that they don't exist.


Well, as my bet with you shows, I believe that it does matter that the dossier was baseless, from a due process perspective. But, in any event, there is still no evidence for a dossier connected crime.

Manafort et al.'s crimes are from before the campaign and were already publicly suspected by the time the dossier alluded to them. That is, there are no allegations in the dossier with respect to Manafort's receipt of payments from the pro-Russian Ukraine party that the FBI (and the New York Times) didn't already know.

As for Papa-whatever, he is guilty only of a process crime. That is, he committed a crime only because he allowed himself to be interviewed by the FBI and then proceeded to lie to them (maybe). It will be interesting to see what Papa-whatever's punishment is. I bet it is extremely light. Probably a suspended sentence.

Well, as I've said before, you seem to be in denial about a great many things. Suit yourself; the investigation proceeds.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Equal evidence? eh? The probability that I bought it or teleported it into my fridge are equal, are they? So if a suspect is found in possession of a million dollars, that is equal evidence that he stole it or that he received it from the Tooth Fairy, and you can think of no way of narrowing down the list?

I'm on holiday in Dublin just now. That is equal evidence that I travelled from Scotland to Ireland by plane or by magic carpet. These are two explanations of how I got here; and you can think of no way of narrowing down these two possibilities?

Yes, simply being in possession of it is equal evidence of any evidence for it being there. The fact magic isn't real is a different piece of evidence.

 

[Craig B]

Yes, simply being in possession of it is equal evidence of any evidence for it being there. The fact magic isn't real is a different piece of evidence.

Quite correct. Yes indeedy. Being in possession of an object is evidence for the existence of the object. That's right.

 

[chrispy]

Same here -- I've previously had little interest in "politics" in all senses of the word. But having caught Spicer's post-Inauguration day rant, it hooked me and I've been glued to the news ever since. It's fascinating and horrifying.

I am interested in politics and am still hooked. I am glad that this has brought into the politics loop, but sad that it had to be this way

 

[BobTheCoward]

Quite correct. Yes indeedy. Being in possession of an object is evidence for the existence of the object. That's right.

And that fact alone is generally not evidence how it got there.

 

[sunmaster14]

And that fact alone is generally not evidence how it got there.

That's exactly the reasoning I expect to use with the police if they find the headless body in the trunk of my car.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That's exactly the reasoning I expect to use with the police if they find the headless body in the trunk of my car.

Police are not skeptics.

 

[sunmaster14]

Police are not skeptics.

No, but they're not complete morons either.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

A better defense would be "No proof that Trump knew about this when it happened" rather then try to deny that anything happened.

They'll get there eventually, like the religious and their God of the Gaps.

 

[phiwum]

Hate is a key tenet of the Conservative religion and has been since inception. They don't see it as a threat, they see it as strength.

No, that's not true. Respectable conservatives like David Brooks are not fundamentally hateful people. He's an outlier these days, sadly, but it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If she had pulled this gas-lighting on just about any other day... the networks would still be full of laughter sometime next week.

As it stands so far today... she's getting a free pass.
(and she's quite the poor storyteller... surprising in this case, she's ridiculously well informed and prepared in a normal presser.)

I'm positive I'm not the only one that noticed the free $20 in that story was the equivalent of a free lunch. Everyone in business knows there is no free lunch, or they should know it.

 

[Jim_MDP]

I'm positive I'm not the only one that noticed the free $20 in that story was the equivalent of a free lunch. Everyone in business knows, there is no free lunch, or they should.

I think it would work out to the Fed finding ~$730 Billion... in the sofa cushions maybe?

 

[phiwum]

Today I think I have broken my personal record for both hours of TV watched and amount of popcorn eaten. This is amazing. As a relatively young guy (35) this could be a watershed political moment for my generation in the way that Watergate was for my parents. Sad to see this happen in our gov't, but exciting times.

Your avatar suggests you haven't aged well for thirty-five. Must be the cats.

ETA: Unless you're one of the cats, in which case, my mistake.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Take your chances folks, don't incriminate Trump and hope he pardons you, sure. But it's a gamble because it's being echoed enough for Trump to hear, firing the special prosecutor is the straw that got Nixon impeached. Surely getting a pardon is not a safe gamble for these guys. Trading the dirt on Trump for a lighter sentence might just be more of a sure bet.

It puts a lot of pressure on Trump to pardon these guys. If he pardons them, then everyone else will be assured that Trump will pardon them as well. Most, if not all, will stay silent. If he doesn't pardon someone, then they know that loyalty is a one-way street and many will talk.

However, if Trump pardons people, the political fallout will be substantial. Republicans probably will cry foul but take no action to penalize Trump. Hopefully, the public will vote them out of office because of it.

Grab the popcorn.

 

[The Don]

Today I think I have broken my personal record for both hours of TV watched and amount of popcorn eaten. This is amazing. As a relatively young guy (35) this could be a watershed political moment for my generation in the way that Watergate was for my parents. Sad to see this happen in our gov't, but exciting times.

I'm not sure it will be. For sure Nixon was a paranoid drunk but at least he had enough residual respect for the office of President to resign when it became clear that he was bang to rights. IMO President Trump has learned that if you just tough things out then they tend to go quietly. IMO he will not resign regardless and would have to be removed from office.

The GOP will not do this and there is no immediate prospect of the Democratic Party having the votes to start, much less successfully conclude impeachment proceedings if there is sufficient evidence to justify it.

I suppose it could be a watershed in that it will prove that as long as one party is in control and resolute then the checks and balances which were supposed to allow situations like this to be resolved no longer work.

 

[The Don]

It puts a lot of pressure on Trump to pardon these guys. If he pardons them, then everyone else will be assured that Trump will pardon them as well. Most, if not all, will stay silent. If he doesn't pardon someone, then they know that loyalty is a one-way street and many will talk.

However, if Trump pardons people, the political fallout will be substantial. Republicans probably will cry foul but take no action to penalize Trump. Hopefully, the public will vote them out of office because of it.

Grab the popcorn.

I don't think that the US electorate would necessarily view it that way - at least not the ones who may be minded to vote GOP.

Presidential pardons will be interpreted as either those pardoned are innocent or that the charges were blown out of all proportion for partisan reasons. The Mueller investigation will be viewed like the Starr investigation as being a witch hunt that wasted tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. Any and all blow-back will be on the Democratic Party for behaving in such a despicable way.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm not sure it will be. For sure Nixon was a paranoid drunk but at least he had enough residual respect for the office of President to resign when it became clear that he was bang to rights. IMO President Trump has learned that if you just tough things out then they tend to go quietly. IMO he will not resign regardless and would have to be removed from office.

The GOP will not do this and there is no immediate prospect of the Democratic Party having the votes to start, much less successfully conclude impeachment proceedings if there is sufficient evidence to justify it.

I suppose it could be a watershed in that it will prove that as long as one party is in control and resolute then the checks and balances which were supposed to allow situations like this to be resolved no longer work.

I think people have a tendency to place on "checks and balances" things it wasn't meant to. The Federalist papers talk about the distribution of legislative, judicial, and executive power. It isnt checks and balances over garden variety criminality.