The Trump Crime Family
- Thread starter Doc Holliday
- Start date
@sambuca - That is an interesting question. I believe legally Mueller can't have access and must subpoena them publically. I may be wrong. However, I suspect he does have access through intelligence services or a leak.
If that is the case he still won't reveal it until he goes through official channels, I suspect.
But more likely Jailmon is talking about the House committee demanding them and then making them public.
If that is the case he still won't reveal it until he goes through official channels, I suspect.
But more likely Jailmon is talking about the House committee demanding them and then making them public.
"I won`t be here when it blows up" Trump talking to one of his aides about the coming debt crisis.
Once more it shows that he only cares about his own legacy and doesn`t give a fuck about America or even his grand kids.
Just to clarify ….I dislike trump the person and his (new soul like) immature and insecure type self promotion and bullying ways, but I like and respect Reagan and Bush Republicans as well as Canada`s Conservative party.
Once more it shows that he only cares about his own legacy and doesn`t give a fuck about America or even his grand kids.
Just to clarify ….I dislike trump the person and his (new soul like) immature and insecure type self promotion and bullying ways, but I like and respect Reagan and Bush Republicans as well as Canada`s Conservative party.
I suspect you are all correct. However just like Obama changed the discussion on healthcare, I'm confident Trump has helped change the discussion on trade agreements and very possibly immigration. Like Reagan before him, Trump might have put another stake in government regulation. It seems like liberal Presidents continue to sneak more regulation into the U.S. economy every opportunity they get.
Most of my Democratic friends hold Franklin Roosevelt near and dear. When you tell them that the U.S. economy in 1938 was barely larger than 1929, they think you are speaking heresy. So history isn't entirely objective.
Most of my Democratic friends hold Franklin Roosevelt near and dear. When you tell them that the U.S. economy in 1938 was barely larger than 1929, they think you are speaking heresy. So history isn't entirely objective.
The 1928 economy was vastly overblown and crashed and burnt in 1929 and the early 30`s.
It was quite the accomplishment by Roosevelt`s government to bring it back to early 1929 levels by 1938.
Interesting but not surprising is the fact that Trump is in the bottom 10% of I.Q. intelligence among all presidents while my hero Jefferson is in the top 3.
All presidents even Trump, Truman and Nixon have much higher I.Q.`s than the average American
It was quite the accomplishment by Roosevelt`s government to bring it back to early 1929 levels by 1938.
Interesting but not surprising is the fact that Trump is in the bottom 10% of I.Q. intelligence among all presidents while my hero Jefferson is in the top 3.
All presidents even Trump, Truman and Nixon have much higher I.Q.`s than the average American
Perhaps and perhaps not. Hoover, Roosevelt and the Fed did a lot stupid things during the Great Depression. Massive war spending in the 1940s and final victory gave people a great sense of confidence and purpose. More importantly, the destruction and rebuilding of the European industrial base gave the U.S. economy enormous vigor in the late 1940s and 1950s.
As I have pointed out many times, people tend to attach all good economic fortune to their political party of choice and disregard any negatives. Roosevelt did a great deal to expand the social safety net. If you looked at our Federal bureaucracy, he left us with a cornucopia of ABC agencies many redundant and many with an existence that is almost inexplicable. Roosevelt's legacy has probably benefited some from Hoover's insensitivity and inflexibility.
I'm sure Valcazar is thinking what does FDR's legacy have to with Trump.
Well, in a sense, everything. I suspect when the U.S. goes into recession which will happen and likely during Trump's first term, many here will blame him for the recession. How he should be judged is not on whether we have a recession, but how he deals with the inevitable slowdown. Then if things go well in navigating the cycle, both Trump and Obama will deserve credit.
Well, in a sense, everything. I suspect when the U.S. goes into recession which will happen and likely during Trump's first term, many here will blame him for the recession. How he should be judged is not on whether we have a recession, but how he deals with the inevitable slowdown. Then if things go well in navigating the cycle, both Trump and Obama will deserve credit.
I agree with that. Letting a good economy run is one thing, dealing with a crisis is another. If there is a serious slowdown/crash, then Trump will be judged by how he reacts to it. I wouldn't argue with that.
I will also agree that FDR's rep benefited from how badly Hoover handled the crisis.
I will also agree that FDR's rep benefited from how badly Hoover handled the crisis.
I'm not sure what stake in government regulation Trump is supposed to have put in? (I mean, he is slashing all kinds of regulations, but slashing stuff to slash stuff doesn't seem to have the propaganda value Reagan's stuff had.
I *do* expect a lot of New Guilded Age style movement, but I would put that more through the Roberts court supporting challenges than stuff Trump does directly. That might be a distinction without a difference though.
As for immigration, will turning immigration into an explicitly white supremacist policy hold long term? I'm doubtful, but there is definitely a strong core that supports it, so it is possible.
More interestingly given the title of the thread -- Flynn this week, Cohen last and more follow-up again tomorrow probably, Manafort as well... how much more of the story do we get to see? How much is redacted? Will we get a surprise revelation or just some striaghtforward sentencing guidelines? (I really don't know what to expect here. It wouldn't surprise me if each sentencing recommendation implies more investigations, but Mueller isn't exactly an open book to read.)
And do you think the rumors of throwing Pence overboard for Kelly are worth anything? (I remain very dubious. Most of these "court intrigue" things seem to just be self-serving leaks by the various players themselves.)
I *do* expect a lot of New Guilded Age style movement, but I would put that more through the Roberts court supporting challenges than stuff Trump does directly. That might be a distinction without a difference though.
As for immigration, will turning immigration into an explicitly white supremacist policy hold long term? I'm doubtful, but there is definitely a strong core that supports it, so it is possible.
More interestingly given the title of the thread -- Flynn this week, Cohen last and more follow-up again tomorrow probably, Manafort as well... how much more of the story do we get to see? How much is redacted? Will we get a surprise revelation or just some striaghtforward sentencing guidelines? (I really don't know what to expect here. It wouldn't surprise me if each sentencing recommendation implies more investigations, but Mueller isn't exactly an open book to read.)
And do you think the rumors of throwing Pence overboard for Kelly are worth anything? (I remain very dubious. Most of these "court intrigue" things seem to just be self-serving leaks by the various players themselves.)
This statement made me laugh. I think you are hard selling the white supremacist idea because that is clearly the plank of the Democratic party and their media allies. To the contrary a reformed immigration system, could bring more diversity than what we have now. I could see more immigration from East Asia and South Asia. Of course, before you say it, the media has painted a picture of legal immigrants fearing a Trump America. I don't agree. Most of the immigrants I know don't have a problem with Trump's rhetoric.
Objectively, immigrants as a percentage of our population are close to the highest levels in our history. This includes the late 1800s and early 1900s a period when we were rapidly industrializing and our agriculture base expanded westward. That high percentage of immigrant population is not under threat anytime soon.
I expect immigration to be a contentious political debate long after Trump. It is and will be a contentious debate around the world. And the dumbest thing about the faux outrage over Trump and immigration is that his policies are reversible with a Democratic President. Just fuckin' negotiate. Get some resolution on the DACA applicants and border security.
Actually most presidents have taken an IQ test and among presidents he ends up in the bottom 5 at a score of 125.
That is still higher than the average American at 99, but much lower than Jefferson`s 160
Tillerson is the latest to dump on trump in a recent CBS interview. Tillerson said that trump was unfocused, didn`t like to read or listen to briefings and was always thinking up illegal ways to do things.
Secratary Tillerson please tell us more on how you really feel about the guy you once called a moron.
have you heard guys new political science students are skipping internship at the white house... opting for working for free at Fox news gives them better working opportunity at the WH in the future
That's not even news Jalimon. PolySci majors have been avoiding White House internships for twenty years. Historically, the job has been hard on their knees.
First off.
@cloudsurf - where are you getting this stuff about presidents and IQ tests and such? I wouldn't be that shocked if a bunch of Presidents have done IQ tests and done well, but it seems like you are citing some specific thing about it and I just have never heard of IQ being a big thing for Presidents to talk about historically. (genuinely curious)
@sambuca - They offered DACA for wall funding, Trump torpedoed it. The White Supremacist thing is because it is the best description. If Trump starts actually proposing your reforms, I will reconsider. But outside of saying "we need a Merit-based system, he and the GOP haven't bothered to actually put one on the table. They control all three branches of government. If they wanted immigration reform they could have passed it anytime.
Immigration will always be contentious, I agree. You said he may have permanently changed the debate. I don't see evidence of that.
And yes, the percentage of foreign born people in the US is the highest since 1910 according to last year's numbers, still below the high water mark of the late 19th century.
@cloudsurf - where are you getting this stuff about presidents and IQ tests and such? I wouldn't be that shocked if a bunch of Presidents have done IQ tests and done well, but it seems like you are citing some specific thing about it and I just have never heard of IQ being a big thing for Presidents to talk about historically. (genuinely curious)
@sambuca - They offered DACA for wall funding, Trump torpedoed it. The White Supremacist thing is because it is the best description. If Trump starts actually proposing your reforms, I will reconsider. But outside of saying "we need a Merit-based system, he and the GOP haven't bothered to actually put one on the table. They control all three branches of government. If they wanted immigration reform they could have passed it anytime.
Immigration will always be contentious, I agree. You said he may have permanently changed the debate. I don't see evidence of that.
And yes, the percentage of foreign born people in the US is the highest since 1910 according to last year's numbers, still below the high water mark of the late 19th century.
Wow
I can honestly say I did not expect any of the memos today to say that the witness says Trump committed a crime and that this is supported by other evidence.
https://www.axios.com/michael-cohen...emo-d664b3a5-81ff-413a-ba3a-024d8cda1815.html
I always thought that because DOJ guidelines says you can't indict him they simply would never say it in public.
I can honestly say I did not expect any of the memos today to say that the witness says Trump committed a crime and that this is supported by other evidence.
https://www.axios.com/michael-cohen...emo-d664b3a5-81ff-413a-ba3a-024d8cda1815.html
I always thought that because DOJ guidelines says you can't indict him they simply would never say it in public.
The problem is Cohen's mea culpa doesn't automatically translate to Trump. In fact, it doesn't. Cohen could say he and Trump killed a man and Trump would still have to be indicted and have a chance to defend himself.
The campaign finance violation is simply a malicious and clever back door political attack. Campaign finance violations are typically civil in nature and not criminal. The quickest defense/dismissal of this campaign finance violation is that if Trump has had Cohen pay-off Trump's sexual liaisons over the years Stormy and McDougal would just be normal business protecting his reputation. That's not even considering the John Edwards precedence which ran in the seven figures.
(Remember we had a President lie under oath about a sexual liaison in order to protect his reputation.)
Why did Cohen say to Congress the Trump organization was in discussions for a Moscow Trump Tower no later than January 2016 and then recant and say it was June 2016? Who knows? It's not illegal to have business discussions in a foreign domain during a campaign. It could be a desperate Special Counsel trying to dig up innuendo and a guy caught for unrelated things trying to give them something. It would have been more damaging if Cohen had said Trump told him to lie.
It's all fascinating, but none of it presents the President doing anything illegal.
The campaign finance violation is simply a malicious and clever back door political attack. Campaign finance violations are typically civil in nature and not criminal. The quickest defense/dismissal of this campaign finance violation is that if Trump has had Cohen pay-off Trump's sexual liaisons over the years Stormy and McDougal would just be normal business protecting his reputation. That's not even considering the John Edwards precedence which ran in the seven figures.
(Remember we had a President lie under oath about a sexual liaison in order to protect his reputation.)
Why did Cohen say to Congress the Trump organization was in discussions for a Moscow Trump Tower no later than January 2016 and then recant and say it was June 2016? Who knows? It's not illegal to have business discussions in a foreign domain during a campaign. It could be a desperate Special Counsel trying to dig up innuendo and a guy caught for unrelated things trying to give them something. It would have been more damaging if Cohen had said Trump told him to lie.
It's all fascinating, but none of it presents the President doing anything illegal.
Similar threads
