Purgatory: Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

16791112168

Comments

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Two points on Manafort's request.
    1. Rosenstein's authorization of Robert Mueller's investigation explicitly directs Mueller to pursue "any matters which arose or may arise directly from the investigation". Similar language in Ken Starr's investigation is how an investigation into an Arkansas land deal ended up with a recommended indictment for perjury about a semen-stained dress.
    2. Manafort's attorneys made this same request in January and it was rejected by the court. I don't think there's any reason to believe that making the same request using more and longer words is going to produce a different result this time around.

    In other words, while it's possible that Manafort may evade conviction, it doesn't seem likely that he can avoid a trial.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    This is from NBC news:
    The FBI says that during the 2016 campaign Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, were in touch with a Manafort associate who had an ongoing relationship with Russian intelligence, according to court documents filed late Tuesday by prosecutors for Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

    Full report: here.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    [*] Manafort's attorneys made this same request in January and it was rejected by the court.
    Was it? I have found nothing about either the lawsuit that Manafort filed against the DOJ (the action from January) or either the motion to dismiss in DC or Virginia have been adjudicated. The docket report from Manafort v. DOJ shows that the DOJ filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, and the court has yet to rule on that one.
  • On the subject of veracity I have always held to there being two kinds of information; truth and lies. If the info is a lie, what is there to worry about? On the other hand, truth can be comfortable or uncomfortable and it’s the latter and the latter alone that give rich and powerful people the cold sweats
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    While it's possible that Manafort may evade conviction, it doesn't seem likely that he can avoid a trial.

    Unless he is pardoned.
  • sionisais wrote: »
    On the subject of veracity I have always held to there being two kinds of information; truth and lies.
    Except it's not true. A lie is a mistruth deliberately told with intent to deceive. If I think my brother is 5'8" and tell you so, but it turns out he's really 5'6", I haven't lied to you, but I have not told the truth either.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    There are two types of information. (three sir) Three! There are three types of information...
  • mdijonmdijon Shipmate Posts: 15
    edited March 2018
    There is only one kind of information, but many kinds of disinformation that categorize the location, extent and motivation of the error.
    (Misinterpretations, mis-speakings, typographical errors, technically correct but misleading answers, lies, delusions, paranoia...)
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Welcome aboard, mdijon. Good to see you.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Unless he is pardoned.

    A couple of points: while Trump may want to pardon Manafort, I would see that as political suicide. Goes to obstruction of justice.

    Two while Tramp may try to pardon Manafort, he can only do that at the Federal level. It will not apply to any state prosecution. The New York State Attorney General will likely file a case for money laundering under state law.

    Of note, even if Mueller can finish his inquiry, he may not be able to release it to the public. He is compelled to send it only to one person: Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General of the US--a Trump appointee. Rosenstein could just file it in the same pigeon hole as the Lost Ark It would not necessarily see the light of public scrutiny if the Republicans can win the 2018 Congressional elections.
  • mdijonmdijon Shipmate Posts: 15
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Welcome aboard, mdijon. Good to see you.

    Good to be here and see you all.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    A couple of points: while Trump may want to pardon Manafort, I would see that as political suicide. Goes to obstruction of justice.

    I don't think exercise of legitimate legal powers could be seen as obstruction of justice in a legal sense, and I think pardoning is a legitimate presidential power. It would only be obstruction if on top of the pardoning, Trump was pressuring Manafort to not talk, or saying to others that they ought to keep schtum in expectation of the same favour etc.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Unless he is pardoned.


    Of note, even if Mueller can finish his inquiry, he may not be able to release it to the public. He is compelled to send it only to one person: Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General of the US--a Trump appointee. Rosenstein could just file it in the same pigeon hole as the Lost Ark It would not necessarily see the light of public scrutiny if the Republicans can win the 2018 Congressional elections.
    "Compelled to" send it to Rosenstein but is he compelled not to release the inquiry's conclusions? And if Rosenstein files it in the circular file, would Mueller be blocked from revealing its conclusions to the press or in a book?

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    mdijon wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    A couple of points: while Trump may want to pardon Manafort, I would see that as political suicide. Goes to obstruction of justice.

    I don't think exercise of legitimate legal powers could be seen as obstruction of justice in a legal sense, and I think pardoning is a legitimate presidential power. It would only be obstruction if on top of the pardoning, Trump was pressuring Manafort to not talk, or saying to others that they ought to keep schtum in expectation of the same favour etc.

    A couple points here. First, it is possible to use what are otherwise legitimate constitutional powers in illegitimate ways. For example, the president is the commander-in-chief of the American military. He also has the power to grant pardons. That doesn't mean that sending a detachment of marines to the Russell Office Building to summarily execute a group of opposition Senators followed by pardoning the troops involved isn't an abuse of power.

    Second, obstruction of justice does not require an explicit quid pro quo agreement between Trump and Manafort (though that would make them both guilty of conspiracy, a different offense), simply the expectation on Trump's part that the actions he takes will impede or derail a legitimate legal inquiry through destroying or concealing evidence.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Compelled to" send it to Rosenstein but is he compelled not to release the inquiry's conclusions?

    The directive that authorizes the Mueller investigation comes from the Attorney Generals office and specifically says that the report is to go to the AG. But, since Sessions had to recuse himself, it goes to the second in command, Rosenstein. Note, I said Mueller may not release his findings to the public. That is because under any investigation there would not be any public release unless it is allowed by the authorizing official.

    When a special prosecutor was appointed to investigate Clinton, it was Congress that authorized the investigation. Ken Starr had more latitude on what he could do with the information he had. Democrats felt he abused his power. Consequently, when they came into power they restricted what a special prosecutor could do with the information he or she would gather.

    The only ways the conclusions of the Mueller investigations can come to light is if Rosenstein releases the information on his authority or if Congress subpoenas the report.

    However, we are getting a good idea of where it is going through the indictments that are being handed down.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    So Trump is claiming that construction has started on his border wall and Tweeted out some pictures of construction. The only problem is that those pictures are from 2009 and construction hasn't really started yet.

    Yeah, yeah, I know. Trump says something untrue, news at 11:00. My question is whether this is because Trump is making stuff up to impress his base or whether it's because his staff is lying to him to keep him calm and he really believes his "big, beautiful wall" is being built right now? The latter seems almost as likely as the former and has some disturbing implications.
  • There was a joke floating around about a year ago, suggesting that we just let Trump tell everyone that the wall got built and Mexico paid for it. A third of the country believes it, and the rest of us save billions.

    Maybe this strategy is coming to fruition?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    There was a joke floating around about a year ago, suggesting that we just let Trump tell everyone that the wall got built and Mexico paid for it. A third of the country believes it, and the rest of us save billions.

    There's a Doonesbury strip from 1976 that details such a strategy in action.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    My question is whether this is because Trump is making stuff up to impress his base or whether it's because his staff is lying to him to keep him calm

    I was under the impression that the president (capital letter to be restored upon filling the office) was requiring his staff and the Cabinet et al. were required to begin meetings by offering praise and gratitude to their boss, essentially lying to him to buoy his spirits. So what else would be new?

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    I was under the impression that the president (capital letter to be restored upon filling the office) was requiring his staff and the Cabinet

    (tangent alert) "president" does not have to be capitalized even after a future change in the regime. Only has to be capitalized when you are speaking about a specific office holder--current holder excepted. But you did capitalize "cabinet." Again, does not have to be capitalized, especially referring to the current secretaries. (/tangent alert)
  • There was a joke floating around about a year ago, suggesting that we just let Trump tell everyone that the wall got built and Mexico paid for it. A third of the country believes it, and the rest of us save billions.

    Maybe this strategy is coming to fruition?


    Or that we allow Trump to live in the White House, surrounded by his favorite people who tell him he's doing a great job, while Truman-style, it's all just a charade for his amusement. Meanwhile the post-25th amendment some duly appointed or elected grown up is running things from a secure location

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Interesting notion. All it would take is a video feed to the White House, a mock-up of the Fox & Friends set, and a group of plausible look-alikes. (Though how many Steve Doocy impersonators can there really be in the world?)
  • HarryCHHarryCH Shipmate
    The actual problem is that we would then have Pence in charge, and he may well be worse than Trump.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    HarryCH wrote: »
    The actual problem is that we would then have Pence in charge, and he may well be worse than Trump.

    At least he is not known to be a womanizer. :smile:

  • I'd be half afraid Pence would round up all the gays and trans people and send them to camps. He's one evil motherfucker.
  • Foaming DraughtFoaming Draught Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    It is not out of the question that Mueller would seek the DoJ's permission to indict Trump directly . Rosenstein (to whom the decision would fall) might consider that an uncertain outcome from the inevitable SCOTUS escalation is better than a certain refusal to impeach by a GOP majority in the Senate. And impeachment then remains an option, with tremendous moral pressure on the Senate who will have seen the counts of indictment.
    Pence's near-invisibility indicates that he knows that he will be indicted if Trump is, and he might even have come to a deal with Mueller that he'll testify against Trump and resign.
    Ryan is done for.
    So things aren't so bleak for the #Resistance as we might imagine. Speaker Pelosi here we come.
    "Westward, look, the land is bright"
  • mdijonmdijon Shipmate Posts: 15
    mdijon wrote: »
    I don't think exercise of legitimate legal powers could be seen as obstruction of justice in a legal sense, and I think pardoning is a legitimate presidential power.
    Crœsos wrote: »
    First, it is possible to use what are otherwise legitimate constitutional powers in illegitimate ways.... doesn't mean that sending a detachment of marines to the Russell Office Building to summarily execute a group of opposition Senators followed by pardoning the troops involved isn't an abuse of power.

    Sure, but in that case there's the illegitimate order to execute senators in the mix. Pardoning them might well be part of the evidence that the president made the illegitimate order, but of itself I don't think could be called obstruction of justice.

    (By definition, a pardon always obstructs justice in some sense doesn't it?)
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Second, obstruction of justice does not require an explicit quid pro quo agreement between Trump and Manafort (though that would make them both guilty of conspiracy, a different offense), simply the expectation on Trump's part that the actions he takes will impede or derail a legitimate legal inquiry through destroying or concealing evidence.

    So I guess the challenge would be demonstrating that expectation. It might be an obvious balance of probabilities, but I'm not sure whether that meets legal standards for establishing guilt.
  • Not so much obstructs, but circumvents.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    a certain refusal to impeach by a GOP majority in the Senate.

    Only the House of Representatives can impeach. The Senate can convict based on the impeachment.
  • The President just attended an Easter Sunday service at an Episcopal parish in Palm Beach, Florida, hours after tweeting that there would be no more deal for Dreamers and that Republicans should use the nuclear option (abolishing the filibuster) to pass a tough immigration law. I wonder what the sermon was like - the preacher must have known in advance the President was coming.
  • Where are our Mystery Worshippers when we need them so badly?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    And now this.

    Including this remarkable quote.
    It is unprecedented for a sitting president to single out one company for such vicious attacks, says the BBC's Business Correspondent, Joe Lynam.

    I am sure he is at least serving his own interests in seeking to introduce another diversion in the news cycle. But what other interests is he serving? Given that the contract with Amazon is profitable, as the article claims, why go fishing?

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    What are the odds on some family members (or Fox & Friends staff) shorting Amazon stock?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    I suppose we had better not go too far down that (potentially C7) road. Tempting though it is.

    Another note for the Mueller files, no doubt.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Given that the contract with Amazon is profitable, as the article claims, why go fishing?

    There seems to be some debate about how the Post Office allocates its overheads between the parcel and letter services, and depending on what assumptions you make, you can decide that parcel delivery is profitable, or is run at a loss.

    I'm not familiar enough with the figures to know who is closer to the truth in this particular discussion, but the general subject is one I've heard on and off over the years, long before Trump got involved.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    As we've seen in discussions re trade deficits Trump uses whatever interpretation of figures suits his argument. I took the BBC at its word in saying that the Postal Regulatory Commission, which has oversight, reported the deal as profitable. Their oversight will have involved a more careful examination of the numbers than Trump has given them. Given his track record, I'd say that's a safe bet.

  • I glanced at the headline and then at the date and thought it was an April fool! :blush:
  • Jeff Bezos is an extremely successful businessman worth over $100 billion, possibly the wealthiest person in the world (earned money, not inherited from daddy). So of course Trump hates him.

  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    About six months old, but I wonder whether this isn't why Trump hates Amazon so much: Amazon lost Trump like 400 million.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    So his public pressure on Amazon might well be criticised as abuse of office in furtherance of his own interests?
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Purgatory Host, Circus Host
    Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. This may go some way towards explaining Mr. Trump's animosity towards him.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    Jeff Bezos is an extremely successful businessman worth over $100 billion, possibly the wealthiest person in the world (earned money, not inherited from daddy). So of course Trump hates him.

    I'm not so sure about this line of reasoning. Trump apparently has no problem whatsoever with another contender for the "wealthiest person in the world" title.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. This may go some way towards explaining Mr. Trump's animosity towards him.
    Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! It is just part of Trump's ongoing assault against the Freedom of the Press.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I dunno; I suspect Gwai's discovery may play a role as well.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Apparently George Papadopoulos should just avoid the bar scene entirely.
    At a London bar in May 2016, after numerous drinks, Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos bragged to an Australian diplomat the Russians had obtained damaging information on Hillary Clinton. The diplomat reported the conversation to American officials, which prompted the FBI to launch their investigation of the Trump campaign and its connections to Russia.

    On Thursday at a Chicago nightclub, Papadopoulos had some drinks and, in a conversation with a new acquaintance, allegedly made new and explosive claims about Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

    Papadopoulos, according to this new acquaintance, said that Sessions was well aware of the contact between Papadopoulos and Joseph Mifsud, an academic from Malta with high-level connections in Russia. Papadopoulos’ indictment revealed that Mifsud had told Papadopoulos that the Russians had “‘dirt’ on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of ‘thousands of emails.'”

    Jason Wilson, a computer engineer who lives in Chicago, told ThinkProgress that Papadopoulos said during their conversation that “Sessions encouraged me” to find out anything he could about the hacked Hillary Clinton emails that Mifsud had mentioned.

    In true "pics or it didn't happen" style, there is a selfie proving that Wilson and Papadopoulos at least met at the bar in question. (The address is conveniently right there in the background.) There is, of course, only Wilson's word that Papadopoulos said anything potentially incriminating about Sessions. Simona Mangiante (Papadopoulos' wife) later claimed via text that "there is nothing george could reveal about the investigation apart from commenting what is already public". I think that "could" should be read as "should". I'm guessing that there's a reason Papadopoulos is having his wife do damage control on this. He obviously can't not leak, a problem which is apparently only exacerbate by alcohol.
  • These people can't even do evil right.
  • Trump is King David

    Uh...I think David had deeper faith than Donald Trump.
  • Trump is King David

    I think trump might be capable of leaving all of us caught up in a military action as a distraction from his own gross failings. So yes, the comparison might have some mileage. Right now we're waiting to see when and where he starts the war.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Trump attended Bethesda Episcopal Church where Melina and he were married. Here is a link to the sermon http://www.bbts.org/resources/watch-sermons/ I tried to post this as a regular link but no can do.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Right now we're waiting to see when and where he starts the war.

    Or maybe just another form of distraction?

    I noted this without surprise.
    A senior official at the Department of Homeland Security said Tuesday that putting troops on the U.S.-Mexico border had been under discussion but that no roll-out had been planned because of unresolved policy issues. The official said Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who was at Tuesday's White House meeting, did not want armed troops at the border.

    And this.
    Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Tuesday he disagreed with sending troops to the border.

    “These people should be stopped at the border and vetted out, just the normal process," Rooney told Fox News. "I would rather have the dealings with immigration be handled in a civil context rather than a military one.”

    Well, exactly. And I'm sure General Mattis thinks the same. I wonder how long he will last?



  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Trump is King David

    Uh...I think David had deeper faith than Donald Trump.

    I'm still struggling through The Faith of Donald J. Trump. I'm aiming to post a brief summary of what I've learned if I can make it to the end. One thing I can say though is that Trump-voting evangelicals appear to suffer from a severe case of cognitive dissonance. Half the time Trump is God's anointed leader because of his spiritual qualities, half the time Trump is God's anointed leader despite obviously lacking any; like Cyrus.
Sign In or Register to comment.