Mirage Escort
Montreal Escorts

The Trump Crime Family

Valcazar

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2013
860
256
83
Right. Trump obviously fought like hell against all attempts to clear his name and reputation.

Maybe so! We don't actually know all that he did or what Mueller is listing. It is entirely possible people will look at the list and go "yeah, this was legit fighting back". We don't know until Mueller's report is made public.

Sambuca - I would love people to discuss public policy. Sadly, parties in both Canada and the US have realized they get more engagement by not doing that. I mean, look at Warren - she is going flat out hardcore on policy and Beto who is all sizzle no details is getting more press an spilling higher. Look at Trump, who has policy themes but never talks details. He did very well by avoiding actual policy. (Look at the healthcare disaster. They only had a slogan, no actual policy.)

As far as articles of impeachment, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
837
2
38
I'm not a legal scholar, but most judicial experts believe Articles of Impeachment are the only way to remove a sitting President. Extrapolating further, campaign finance issues related to Stormy, some minor infractions in Trump Foundation spending and/or someone on the Inaugural Committee misspending funds might mean problems for Trump and his family, but unlikely would end his Presidency. Great cable news fodder, impeachment no.

The brilliance of the founding fathers is their foresight that sitting Presidents would have political enemies out to get them at different levels and that there would be big hurdles to remove them. I'm guessing our founding fathers were well read in Shakespeare.
 

Valcazar

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2013
860
256
83
You have no idea about the history of impeachment, do you.

Regardless, impeachment and removal is a high bar, yes.

So?
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
837
2
38
This was the beginning of the thread.

Right. Trump obviously fought like hell against all attempts to clear his name and reputation.

I responded "The only thing keeping the jackals from tearing Trump apart are the articles of impeachment. It effectively protects our head of state from Congressional overreach and indictments for minor infractions at the State level and in this case the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York."

This is not that abstract or opaque. Maybe Bred Sob meant this in a different context, but I've been hearing the whole "the President doth protest too much" for a long time. I'm saying Trump is under attack from various levels of government. Let's be real Mueller was gunning for Trump.

The Articles of Impeachment comment was to point out that it is keeping the House, SDNY and possibly the Mueller Special Counsel at bay.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
837
2
38
Since Trump himself asked for it to be released and so did the entire Republican caucus of the House, only to suddenly reverse course, demand Schiff resign, claim anyone who said Russia helped was a traitor (even though Barr says that is what happened), is odd.

The demand for Schiff's resignation is interesting. My first inclination is that this is just to galvanize the base. Perhaps the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee on principal thought he legitimately had crossed a line. These guys on these Congressional committees say a lot of partisan stuff, but I can't really remember a Congressmen saying he had evidence of something so incessantly and so many times without putting up or shutting up.

Either way, it's not a bad move. If Schiff is going to keep crying wolf, why not challenge him.

Believe me, I realize Schiff is a hero to so many people. He could replace Kamala Harris in the Senate if she wins the Democratic Presidential nomination.
 

Bred Sob

New Member
Jan 17, 2012
969
3
0
It is entirely possible people will look at the list and go "yeah, this was legit fighting back".

"Fighting back" is certainly one theory. A pretty ridiculous one, in my view, as Trump had nothing to "fight back" against. And another theory is that Trump, being after all in charge of the federal government, was against wasting time and money on this bullshit investigation.

We don't know until Mueller's report is made public.

Is this a royal "we"? People who seriously believe that the U.S. President is a Russian agent are unlikely to "know" anything after the full report is released -- or at any other time in the future.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
837
2
38
"Fighting back" is certainly one theory. A pretty ridiculous one, in my view, as Trump had nothing to "fight back" against. And another theory is that Trump, being after all in charge of the federal government, was against wasting time and money on this bullshit investigation.

In my opinion, fighting back has served Trump well. We could debate the general concept of Special Counsels with vast and special investigatory powers, but don't forget the Ken Starr Special Counsel went on for almost four years and turned the Clintons and their White House upside down trying to shake out dirt. Ken Starr went investigating one thing after another and came up with a cover-up of blow jobs in the Oval Office.

Clearly some of Trump's associates were guilty of something, but the big crimes had nothing to with Russian interference. I really have to scratch my head and wonder why the IRS never audited Manafort more thoroughly. The Special Counsel was trying to squeeze Trump's associates. So some guilt for association. I worry this sends a terrible message to businessmen to stay the fuck out of the Washington game. If we can't fuck you up, we'll fuck up your friends.

In a MERB sidebar, don't you have to think dapper Paul Manafort was scoring some hot Ukrainian chicks in his work with the Ukraine?

Anyways, if Trump didn't fight back and turn public opinion, Mueller could have been investigating into 2020. I could argue the "Report" should have been issue before the midterms. Most everything that came about after the election including charging Roger Stone seemed like a foregone conclusion. I think Mueller didn't mind impacting the midterms and also they were waiting and hoping for someone to dish out dirt on Trump.
 

Bred Sob

New Member
Jan 17, 2012
969
3
0
Well, you need to go a few posts back to get to the context of my "fighting back"remarks. I was basically responding to Valcazar saying "Trump committed a bunch of stuff that could be reasonably construed as obstruction of justice".

The point I was trying to make (not sure if I succeeded) is that Mueller (as summarized by Barr) has established that "justice" is that Trump is not guilty of collusion with Russia. Which is exactly what Trump claimed over and over again. Therefore to try to accuse Trump of "obstruction of justice" (which was allegedly the goal of his "fighting back") is ridiculous beyond belief. Trump was not obstructing justice. As a businessman familiar with the concept of counting money, he was trying to get to that "justice" sooner and with less waste.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
837
2
38
I'm still not sure I entirely follow.

I do think Trump was trying to persuade Comey and try to get him to give Flynn a break. This is the President's prerogative to some degree. Comey's arrogant comments about Flynn and other things never helped his case that his firing was obstruction.

If you believe Trump was trying to get this over to save the government time, money and distractions, I think you give him too much credit. Mueller did bleed Trump's associates finances (charged or not charged), but I didn't think that was what you meant.

We might have similar conclusions, but explaining them from different perspectives. Valcazar is really good at explaining how everyone thinks. Where is he? ;)
 

Bred Sob

New Member
Jan 17, 2012
969
3
0
If you believe Trump was trying to get this over to save the government time, money and distractions, I think you give him too much credit.

I don't see why (I give him too much credit). If we admit (even if for the sake of the argument) that Trump is not guilty of collusion, then it is logical to assume that he was aware of that better than anyone. And then of course he would fight to clear his name and reputation and stop the bullshit investigation as soon as possible. And the only people who still insist on pursuing the obstruction accusation, are the ones who are not familiar with the trite "stop digging" cliché.

So the only (possible) stretch of imagination here is that Trump is capable, at least occasionally, to behave like a sane and reasonable human being. I understand of course that many will never grant him that.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
837
2
38
I've been an outspoken defender of him in this Mueller thing, I think his response to things was too haphazard and impetuous. That's why I think you give him too much credit.

Oddly, I think his initial counsel executed a "kill them with cooperation" strategy. The next group was surely more aggressive. But here again, Trump fires in all directions. Trump also wanted to sit down with Mueller's team. Dumb-fucking idea! I'm glad his current lawyers got him to not testify.

A lot of his early missteps seemed to be because the Trump family didn't want anyone to know of their business dealings and later contact with Russians. Which to my eyes seemed ridiculous because none of it was illegal and the FBI has a way to find out everything. If you followed some of this from the beginning, media people were throwing out the never used and possibly unconstitutional Logan Act.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
837
2
38
If anyone agrees that the FBI was out to get him (Comey, McCabe and Strzok------all fired by the way.), you would agree fighting these assholes was the right instinct.
 

Bred Sob

New Member
Jan 17, 2012
969
3
0
There were many more assholes trying to get him. And a lot of them are in situ and still trying. TDS is a serious condition, you got to agree.
 

Sol Tee Nutz

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2012
7,694
1,546
113
Look behind you.
To the people who were positive about Russian collusion, do you still see them, are they in the room with you now? :behindsofa:
 

jalimon

I am addicted member
Dec 28, 2015
6,268
162
63
Well the trumpet team is pretty quiet these days... I think people are starting to understand that the 4 page resume of Barr is a bit flattering... to say the least. This thing is far from over.

cheers
 

Valcazar

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2013
860
256
83
Is this a royal "we"? People who seriously believe that the U.S. President is a Russian agent are unlikely to "know" anything after the full report is released -- or at any other time in the future.

Not the royal we, we as in the American public. Nothing has changed about what we know from Barr's letter. 1) Barr states that the Russians interfered in the election to help Trump. 2) Barr states that criminal coordination to hack the DNC or to manipulate social media was not proven by the investigation. 3) Mueller listed a bunch of reasons one could consider indicting Trump for obstructing justice, and a bunch of reasons not to bring the indictment, and in Barr's view there is no reason for an indictment.

That's all we know. (Yes, there are the leaks from the Mueller team, but that isn't something we know.)

Every other time we've had an investigation like this, it has been released to the public to some degree. This should be too. (Which was the position of the majority of the people polled, the position of the entire House of Representatives, and the position of Trump himself until a few days ago.)

@sambuca - "Anyways, if Trump didn't fight back and turn public opinion, Mueller could have been investigating into 2020. " And you believe this why? I can make things up, too. "If Trump hadn't fired Comey he wouldn't have had a Muller investigation in the first place, so " fighting back" dragged it out. I see that despite Mueller not making any news for the month or so before the midterms was him deciding to impacting the midterms?

The point I was trying to make (not sure if I succeeded) is that Mueller (as summarized by Barr) has established that "justice" is that Trump is not guilty of collusion with Russia. Which is exactly what Trump claimed over and over again. Therefore to try to accuse Trump of "obstruction of justice" (which was allegedly the goal of his "fighting back") is ridiculous beyond belief. Trump was not obstructing justice. As a businessman familiar with the concept of counting money, he was trying to get to that "justice" sooner and with less waste.

Yes, I understood that. It is part (but not all) of the theory Barr put in his letter - that it is impossible to obstruct justice if you didn't get charged with the underlying crime. This is, of course, ridiculous on its face as a legal theory. Besides the obvious fact that if I successfully obstruct you, I don't get charged, which according to this theory means I didn't obstruct; it also means that if you are investigating a murder, and I obstruct because looking at me as a suspect is going to reveal I am embezzling from my company, I didn't obstruct. The entire idea is basically nonsense.

To be fair, Barr doesn't rely just on that for his argument against charging Trump. He includes something more similar to sambuca's argument. The President has the prerogative to fire people working for him, therefore firing someone cannot be obstruction of justice, because you always have to assume he had a legitimate reason. So because Trump claimed at first he fired Comey because Comey was too unfair to Hilary Clinton, then that is a plausible legitimate reason and so the DOJ has to accept it as the real reason and therefore not obstruction.

A lot of his early missteps seemed to be because the Trump family didn't want anyone to know of their business dealings and later contact with Russians. Which to my eyes seemed ridiculous because none of it was illegal and the FBI has a way to find out everything. If you followed some of this from the beginning, media people were throwing out the never used and possibly unconstitutional Logan Act.

I think this is most easily explained by the fact Trump is a bullshit artist. Russia came up when he was campaigning and people were asking about if he had ties to Russia. Since at that moment admitting he did would make him look bad or at least open up a line of attack on him, he lied and said he didn't. As long as he thought people would think it made him look bad, he lied about it. That's basically how he seems to do most things - say whatever he thinks is most advantageous at that moment. The fact it probably wasn't illegal didn't matter if it might make him look bad.

STN - The Barr memo admits the Russians interfered to help Trump. All it says is that Trump Team's moves to collude (Accepting the meetings, not reporting them to the FBI, lying about their ties to Russia, encouraging Russia to attack Clinton, saying they loved the help, etc.) were not criminal coordination.

And, as Jailmon points out, the idea that Barr's summary is even less representative than it appears is now in play. (As opposed to just different than the MSM was reporting and Trump was claiming about Total Exoneration.)
 

Carmine Falcone

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2017
700
966
93
Well the trumpet team is pretty quiet these days... I think people are starting to understand that the 4 page resume of Barr is a bit flattering... to say the least. This thing is far from over.
cheers

Exactly. Turns out my qualifier about Barr's summary being accurate was luckily prescient. Or perhaps less luck, but actually reading the tea leaves to consider the source: Barr. It bears repeating for everyone that doesn't know but Barr opined, without being prompted, that the President cannot commit obstruction of justice. It also bears repeating that Barr initially met with Trump to potentially be Trump's defense lawyer (Barr turned down Trump). Add to that, Barr crafted his own summary when it appears Mueller had already prepared a summary of his own investigation. Based on those tidbits, it shouldn't strain credulity if it turns out Barr is not impartial.

Rather than being argumentative, the point of this post was to stress a few things. I've been away for a few weeks and like Valcazar and Jali said, there has been a solid amount of restraint on behalf of everyone here who would have reason to crow about what we've learned so far.
 

Carmine Falcone

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2017
700
966
93
To be fair, Barr doesn't rely just on that for his argument against charging Trump. He includes something more similar to sambuca's argument. The President has the prerogative to fire people working for him, therefore firing someone cannot be obstruction of justice, because you always have to assume he had a legitimate reason. So because Trump claimed at first he fired Comey because Comey was too unfair to Hilary Clinton, then that is a plausible legitimate reason and so the DOJ has to accept it as the real reason and therefore not obstruction.

The President can indeed fire anyone he chooses for just cause. Remember when John Oliver coined "Stupid Watergate"? Rosenstein and Sessions had a rationale for firing Comey that immediately imploded when Trump went on TV to say "the Russia thing" was the reason. It still amazes me how anyone can cheerlead for someone so grossly incompetent and with zero impulse control. Comey's termination would have likely not triggered appointing the Special Counsel if Trump didn't botch it. It is a recurring theme for Trump to undermine himself. The same scenario played itself out with the travel ban.

The number one saboteur of Trump is...the Deep State...of Constant Idiocy that resides in Trump's head.
 

sambuca

Active Member
Sep 9, 2015
837
2
38
If you remember, Comey was flippant about going around the Administration and interviewing Flynn without advising him to have counsel. They nailed Flynn on something. Apparently, nothing to do with Trump even if Trump might have been their ultimate target. There's so much that went on you or Valcazar can make a great argument about Trump's paranoia, this and that. There's also a lot of facts that counter your arguments.

Given what I know about Comey, McCabe and Strzok, I could say these three and some DOJ colleagues could have really fucked up the Trump Administration. (Valcazar Caveat: This is my opinion.) It's possible McCabe and Strzok never would have been fired if Comey was heading the FBI. If you remember, McCabe tried to get the Cabinet to overthrow the President and Strzok said "we will stop him". I'm not making this shit up.

The Watergate cover-up was a good case of Presidential obstruction.
 
Toronto Escorts