Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not saying that Trump will be impeached, but if he were, why wouldn't it be possible before the 2020 election? That's 22 months. Clinton's impeachment only took about 3 months in the House, IIRC.
 
carlitos said:
I'm not saying that Trump will be impeached, but if he were, why wouldn't it be possible before the 2020 election? That's 22 months. Clinton's impeachment only took about 3 months in the House, IIRC.
Click to expand...

His strategy at this point seems to be double down with enough of the base so that 2/3 of the Senate won't vote for it. It's no a path to 2020 victory but given the shenanigans going on with GOP primaries and this strategy, I'd put my money on him being the GOP nominee then.
 
carlitos said:
I'm not saying that Trump will be impeached, but if he were, why wouldn't it be possible before the 2020 election? That's 22 months. Clinton's impeachment only took about 3 months in the House, IIRC.
Click to expand...

I can't put my finger on why, so massive grain of salt over all of this, but in my gut I just have this feeling that if it does happen (which as much as I hate to say I still really don't think is going to happen...) it is going to happen fast.

Basically once the first person jump ships or turns on him, that's it. It's going to be a Domino Effect after that. Everyone's either going to get the hell out of Dodge or try to save face and/or their ass by turning on him.

I think, again if an impeachement does happen, a... turning point where everyone sees it is going to happen and the GOP pretty much en masse ("Like a flock of birds evading a predator..." - Dr. Grant) shift into "Damage Control for a Post-Trump world" mode.

I could be 100% wrong about that though.
 
Trump's impeachment or lack thereof will set the standard for what is and what isn't acceptable behavior in a President.
I think Democracts should impeach, even if the Senate won't cooperate.
History is clearly on the side of those who don't want Trump to go down in history as an uncontested President.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I can't put my finger on why, so massive grain of salt over all of this, but in my gut I just have this feeling that if it does happen (which as much as I hate to say I still really don't think is going to happen...) it is going to happen fast.

Basically once the first person jump ships or turns on him, that's it. It's going to be a Domino Effect after that. Everyone's either going to get the hell out of Dodge or try to save face and/or their ass by turning on him.

I think, again if an impeachement does happen, a... turning point where everyone sees it is going to happen and the GOP pretty much en masse ("Like a flock of birds evading a predator..." - Dr. Grant) shift into "Damage Control for a Post-Trump world" mode.

I could be 100% wrong about that though.
Click to expand...

I agree with your reasoning.

With many people, however unpopular amongst others, are popular with their friends and acquaintances. That really isn't the case with Trump - he can't even bring himself to not humiliate people like Michael Cohen, who knows where the almost literal bodies are buried.

Someone elsewhere said "to know Trump is to despise him"

In other words, there is going to be no residual loyalty from anyone - and if people believe that supporting him is doing their prospects more harm than good, they will probably enjoy sticking the boot in. At the moment, the Trump base can be insulated in a bubble, but it is getting vulnerable to being pricked, and if, say Fox actually turns on him, or a few Red-state Senators start to see their figures falling because of supporting Trump, then, as you say, it will turn into a torrent.

I think that the 25th is a possible way for the GOP Senate to save face. It's increasingly obvious that Trump isn't even as capable now as he was in 2016. He's going to get worse by 2020 and it will be harder to pretend that he's remotely OK. The 25th gets the GOP Pence, with no impeachment and probably Trump being ruled unfit to stand trial for anything.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Trump's impeachment or lack thereof will set the standard for what is and what isn't acceptable behavior in a President.
I think Democracts should impeach, even if the Senate won't cooperate.
History is clearly on the side of those who don't want Trump to go down in history as an uncontested President.
Click to expand...

This is a good argument. But it all depends on the evidence. If there is good evidence for criminality, I think impeaching Trump might just be the right thing to do. A lot of people thought the impeachment of Bill Clinton was a partisan stunt. But that is because all they had against Clinton was that he had sex and lied about it. Hardly, serious.

If Impeachment hearings were held and a mountain of evidence was presented to the American people, Republicans in the Senate would have to answer for their own integrity. My guess is that if Democrats were in control of the House the last two years, Trump would already be impeached since the GOP helped Trump obstruct the law and prevented information from becoming public.
 
acbytesla said:
If Impeachment hearings were held and a mountain of evidence was presented to the American people, Republicans in the Senate would have to answer for their own integrity.
Click to expand...

My (very real, very vivid) fear is that they are not going to look at a mountain of evidence and say, "wow, we were wrong about this guy." They're going to look at the mountain of evidence and say, "look how desperate the opposition is. They fabricated this entire mountain of evidence!"

And they will bury the mountain of evidence under an entire continent of ********. Trump will rail against the vast cabal led by the Hillary-Pelosi-Obama triumvirate which had secretly inserted their own judges (some may be Hispanic!) and FBI investigators, Graham will decry the obvious fabrication of evidence by known Democrat sympathizers, Huckabee-Sanders will angrily question the unknown-but-no-doubt-even-greater mountains of "missing" data that would show how corrupt the investigation itself was, McConnell will make stern pronouncements about how all of the witnesses were forced to lie by Mueller and his socialist buddies, and Dershowitz will provide his own mountain of technical procedural violations, primarily based on things that he assumed the Mueller team had done and things he thinks the law should say, that made the whole investigation from the moment that the Australian tipped the FBI*.

*And Giuliani will say, "Well, yes, Trump committed treason, but there's no statute of limitations for treason. In other words, the time limit is zero so it's already expired." Let's face it, Giuliani's there for comic relief.



ETA: Now I've made myself sad.
 
Last edited:
dasmiller said:
My (very real, very vivid) fear is that they are not going to look at a mountain of evidence and say, "wow, we were wrong about this guy." They're going to look at the mountain of evidence and say, "look how desperate the opposition is. They fabricated this entire mountain of evidence!"

And they will bury the mountain of evidence under an entire continent of ********. Trump will rail against the vast cabal led by the Hillary-Pelosi-Obama triumvirate which had secretly inserted their own judges (some may be Hispanic!) and FBI investigators, Graham will decry the obvious fabrication of evidence by known Democrat sympathizers, Huckabee-Sanders will angrily question the unknown-but-no-doubt-even-greater mountains of "missing" data that would show how corrupt the investigation itself was, McConnell will make stern pronouncements about how all of the witnesses were forced to lie by Mueller and his socialist buddies, and Dershowitz will provide his own mountain of technical procedural violations, primarily based on things that he assumed the Mueller team had done and things he thinks the law should say, that made the whole investigation from the moment that the Australian tipped the FBI*.


*And Giuliani will say, "Well, yes, Trump committed treason, but there's no statute of limitations for treason. In other words, the time limit is zero so it's already expired." Let's face it, Giuliani's there for comic relief.
Click to expand...

It's a reasonable fear, but I really don't think it will work. That is, if there is a mountain of evidence.

I'm sure it might work with some of his supporters. Nixon still had 24 percent support at the time of his resignation.
 
dasmiller said:
My (very real, very vivid) fear is that they are not going to look at a mountain of evidence and say, "wow, we were wrong about this guy." They're going to look at the mountain of evidence and say, "look how desperate the opposition is. They fabricated this entire mountain of evidence!"

And they will bury the mountain of evidence under an entire continent of ********. Trump will rail against the vast cabal led by the Hillary-Pelosi-Obama triumvirate which had secretly inserted their own judges (some may be Hispanic!) and FBI investigators, Graham will decry the obvious fabrication of evidence by known Democrat sympathizers, Huckabee-Sanders will angrily question the unknown-but-no-doubt-even-greater mountains of "missing" data that would show how corrupt the investigation itself was, McConnell will make stern pronouncements about how all of the witnesses were forced to lie by Mueller and his socialist buddies, and Dershowitz will provide his own mountain of technical procedural violations, primarily based on things that he assumed the Mueller team had done and things he thinks the law should say, that made the whole investigation from the moment that the Australian tipped the FBI*.

*And Giuliani will say, "Well, yes, Trump committed treason, but there's no statute of limitations for treason. In other words, the time limit is zero so it's already expired." Let's face it, Giuliani's there for comic relief.



ETA: Now I've made myself sad.
Click to expand...

Rick Wilson likes to talk about 3 varieties of Trump supporters: the believers, the opportunists, and the cowards. I agree with JoeMorgue, that if it were to happen, it would happen fast. This all has the same vibe to me as Ceaușescu's final speech as a possible scenario, if there is critical mass of enough Republican senators (the cowards who secretly despise Trump) defect, then it will all be dominoes from that point on. This depends on whether the Mueller report provides enough political cover and if the cowards can muster an ounce of courage. Both are big ifs but it is certainly my hope and wish that it all goes down that way.
 
jimbob said:
I agree with your reasoning.

With many people, however unpopular amongst others, are popular with their friends and acquaintances. That really isn't the case with Trump - he can't even bring himself to not humiliate people like Michael Cohen, who knows where the almost literal bodies are buried.

Someone elsewhere said "to know Trump is to despise him"
Click to expand...

The last version I heard was "To know him is to loathe him". I think it was one of his biographers. Fits in with the 60s (?) song.

In other words, there is going to be no residual loyalty from anyone - and if people believe that supporting him is doing their prospects more harm than good, they will probably enjoy sticking the boot in. At the moment, the Trump base can be insulated in a bubble, but it is getting vulnerable to being pricked, and if, say Fox actually turns on him, or a few Red-state Senators start to see their figures falling because of supporting Trump, then, as you say, it will turn into a torrent.

I think that the 25th is a possible way for the GOP Senate to save face. It's increasingly obvious that Trump isn't even as capable now as he was in 2016. He's going to get worse by 2020 and it will be harder to pretend that he's remotely OK. The 25th gets the GOP Pence, with no impeachment and probably Trump being ruled unfit to stand trial for anything.
Click to expand...

I don't see the 25th happening. Pence wasn't going to win Indiana in 2016; his own state wanted him gone from the statehouse. Republicans still want some semblance of power, and Trump is probably their ticket. The cabinet has to vote to invoke the 25th. With the absences he isn't filling and the sycophants who are there, to me the 25th seems like the least likely path. As always, just MHO.
 
Last edited:
https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1082317915528007681

Some fireworks in court this morning as a judge criticized the lawyer representing Concord Management & Consulting in the special counsel Russian troll farm case for his language and harsh words about Mueller's office in filings — "unprofessional, inappropriate, and ineffective"
Click to expand...

There's a whole thread if you follow the link, with some excerpts embedded.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Basically once the first person jump ships or turns on him, that's it. It's going to be a Domino Effect after that. Everyone's either going to get the hell out of Dodge or try to save face and/or their ass by turning on him.
Click to expand...
Expect variations on "I am shocked -shocked! - to discover that this lying POS is a lying POS".
 

Whoa! :eek:

ETA:

picture.php
 
Last edited:
Stacko said:
Konstantin Kilimnik has alleged ties to Russian intelligence.
Click to expand...

Actual ties, not alleged ties. KK is "Person A" referred to in the Alex Van der Swann Sentencing Memorandum.

GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM said:
Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agents assisting the Special Counsel’s Office assess that Person A has ties to a Russian intelligence service and had such ties in 2016. During his first interview with the Special Counsel’s Office, van der Zwaan admitted that he knew of that connection, stating that Gates told him Person A was a former Russian Intelligence Officer with the GRU.

Person A worked with Manafort and Gates in connection with their Ukraine lobbying work. Person A is a foreign national and was a close business colleague of Manafort and Gates. He worked in Ukraine at Manafort’s company Davis Manafort International, LLC (DMI). Up until mid-August 2016, Person A lived in Kiev and Moscow.
Click to expand...
 
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1082719670678011904

Things we learned today from Manafort's lawyers' redaction errors: Manafort is alleged to have met in Madrid w/Kilimnik; shared polling data with him; and discussed a Ukraine peace plan w/him more than once. Is that the same peace plan that Cohen delivered to Flynn in Jan 2017?
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1082729707102236676

Reminder: the federal investigation into Manafort, and frankly collusion generally, began with allied intel agencies telling U.S. intelligence of suspicious meetings between Trump associates and Russian nationals in Europe, so any meeting in Spain would be part of a longer trend.
Click to expand...
 
Stacko said:

Whoa! :eek:

ETA:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1331&pictureid=12007[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Do we know when Manafort did this? Was it during his time as the campaign chairman?
 
Stacyhs said:
Do we know when Manafort did this? Was it during his time as the campaign chairman?
Click to expand...

The documents don't say when. He was named as campaign strategist before becoming chair. He only became chair after Lewandowski blew up, months leading up to the convention. If not the Madrid meeting, maybe the second meeting, wherever that was, was during his chairmanship. Prague is lovely that time of year...

Remember, as soon as he got the campaign strategist role, and started getting press for being in the Trump campaign, that's when he tried to "get whole" on his debt with Deripaska by providing internal campaign info via KK.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom