Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Jan 2018, 10:50 pm

Taking these point by point:

(1) The DNC emails upset Sanders' supporters as they demonstrated a bias in favor of Hillary. That drives down turnout. Also reinforced the notion of her being an insider.

(2) The thing with saying Papadopoulos was a nobody..was that he said turned out to be true. As for no one paying attention to him It's pretty clear if a so-called nobody told Don, Jr. there were thousands of emails on Hillary out here making her look bad...Don, Jr. would go looking for them. And it's not quite clear he was a nobody. He was one of the five members of Trump's foreign policy team. That photo you talk about was from the only meeting of that group. When he sent out an email to other senior campaign officials about coordinating meetings with Russia, apparently he was shut down by senior campaign staff. But if he told an Australian diplomat that Russia had dirt consisting of thousands of emails relating to Hillary...he almost certainly told senior campaign staff about it, too. We're getting the information that he was a nobody from Trump officials, who have every reason to minimize his involvement. His fiancé says differently: " Papadopoulos' fiancee, Simona Mangiante, told CNN in a recent interview that Papadopoulos was anything but a coffee boy. Mangiante, who explained she spoke out because Papadopoulos could not, said he worked with senior members of the Trump campaign. "He worked with Michael Flynn during the transition, and he was actively contributing to the foreign policy strategies for the campaign," she said. "He didn't take any initiative on his own without campaign approval."

(3) I don't know why Manafort did not take a deal. One thing that makes it difficult that once you file federal charges it's not that easy to get sweetheart deals. Sentencing guidelines are pretty strict and prosecutors cannot just dismiss charges because they feel like it when there is evidence to support them. Easier to make a deal before charges are filed when the prosecutor can select which charges to file. So...Manafort probably cannot get that great of a deal; he's looking at a long sentence even if he talks. And if he talks...no pardon. So I think it's pretty understandable why he would keep quiet. Don't say anything, ride it out, and if Trump gets through it then Manafort will get a pardon.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Jan 2018, 6:45 am

freeman3 wrote:Taking these point by point:

(1) The DNC emails upset Sanders' supporters as they demonstrated a bias in favor of Hillary. That drives down turnout. Also reinforced the notion of her being an insider.

(2) The thing with saying Papadopoulos was a nobody..was that he said turned out to be true. As for no one paying attention to him It's pretty clear if a so-called nobody told Don, Jr. there were thousands of emails on Hillary out here making her look bad...Don, Jr. would go looking for them. And it's not quite clear he was a nobody. He was one of the five members of Trump's foreign policy team. That photo you talk about was from the only meeting of that group. When he sent out an email to other senior campaign officials about coordinating meetings with Russia, apparently he was shut down by senior campaign staff. But if he told an Australian diplomat that Russia had dirt consisting of thousands of emails relating to Hillary...he almost certainly told senior campaign staff about it, too. We're getting the information that he was a nobody from Trump officials, who have every reason to minimize his involvement. His fiancé says differently: " Papadopoulos' fiancee, Simona Mangiante, told CNN in a recent interview that Papadopoulos was anything but a coffee boy. Mangiante, who explained she spoke out because Papadopoulos could not, said he worked with senior members of the Trump campaign. "He worked with Michael Flynn during the transition, and he was actively contributing to the foreign policy strategies for the campaign," she said. "He didn't take any initiative on his own without campaign approval."

(3) I don't know why Manafort did not take a deal. One thing that makes it difficult that once you file federal charges it's not that easy to get sweetheart deals. Sentencing guidelines are pretty strict and prosecutors cannot just dismiss charges because they feel like it when there is evidence to support them. Easier to make a deal before charges are filed when the prosecutor can select which charges to file. So...Manafort probably cannot get that great of a deal; he's looking at a long sentence even if he talks. And if he talks...no pardon. So I think it's pretty understandable why he would keep quiet. Don't say anything, ride it out, and if Trump gets through it then Manafort will get a pardon.

In order:

1. Trump drove down GOP turnout by being a joke. Hillary herself drove down Democratic turnout by being what she is: a crook.

Your argument here is specious. Basically, the truth cost Hillary votes. If only the emails had been concealed!

2. Papadopoulos was a nobody. Go ahead, prove he was somebody. Hint: his fiance’s supportive comments don’t “prove” anything. Cite all the times he appeared on TV for the campaign. I’m sure he gave many, many interviews since he was a major player. Please list them.

For the record, the Australian diplomat was interviewed by the FBI (wait for it) AFTER the emails were in the public domain. So, he was not the impetus for the investigation. My money’s on the discredited dossier. I believe the FBI is too proud to admit it was duped.

3. Thank you for your honesty. This is another hole in your theory. If Manafort was integral to the supposed plot, Mueller would not indict him on some ancillary charge. Instead, he would have used every lever he had to get Manafort to roll on Trump.

Counselor, your case is weak.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Jan 2018, 10:39 am

I guess we'll see if the case turns out to be weak or not. It's possible Trump made his policy changes helping Putin without any quid pro quo in the hope that Putin would put out the dirt on Hillary that the Trump campaign knew was out here. It's also possible that Trump decided to give Putin two policy wins within four days for reasons unrelated to getting Hillary dirt. One small point: I am not saying Mueller brought ancillary charges. I assume Mueller brought whatever charges he could. But if he were able to make a deal before filing charges I think he could be more generous. Were overtures made and Manafort rejected them? I don't know. If there were...why did Manafort reject them IF he had something to offer with regard to Trump? Problem is, we're going into a lot of unknowns. The point I'm making is that now I don't think Mueller could offer a deal good enough (e.g. little or no jail time) to outweigh the hope of getting a full pardon.

I think if you weren't seeing things in a partisan lens you would agree that there is no way Trump was doing all these things he did for Russia (including the later efforts to mollify them regarding sanctions) unless he was getting something for it. That's a conclusion based on an analysis of normal human behavior and Trump is more of a me person than most. Whether it was due to concerns that he owed Russia for prior loans/money laundering deals or for interference in the election...he acted out of his own self-interest to help himself at the expense of country by helping Russia. And he deserves impeachment for that.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4781
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 04 Jan 2018, 12:13 pm

freeman3 wrote:I think if you weren't seeing things in a partisan lens you would agree that there is no way Trump was doing all these things he did for Russia (including the later efforts to mollify them regarding sanctions) unless he was getting something for it. That's a conclusion based on an analysis of normal human behavior and Trump is more of a me person than most. Whether it was due to concerns that he owed Russia for prior loans/money laundering deals or for interference in the election...he acted out of his own self-interest to help himself at the expense of country by helping Russia. And he deserves impeachment for that.


Sorry if you mentioned this already, but what is it that Trump did for Russia? I do see that Russia did not tit our latest tat in 2016, but that helped us more than them. In general, it seems like he's been a pain in the butt for Russia in a few different ways. He's increased drilling to keep oil prices low. He is sanctioning them for NK trade. He is arming Ukrainians with Rifles. He's being tougher on Syria and Iran. If I were Putin I would much prefer to have Clinton in power right now.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Jan 2018, 12:32 pm

Ray Jay wrote:
freeman3 wrote:I think if you weren't seeing things in a partisan lens you would agree that there is no way Trump was doing all these things he did for Russia (including the later efforts to mollify them regarding sanctions) unless he was getting something for it. That's a conclusion based on an analysis of normal human behavior and Trump is more of a me person than most. Whether it was due to concerns that he owed Russia for prior loans/money laundering deals or for interference in the election...he acted out of his own self-interest to help himself at the expense of country by helping Russia. And he deserves impeachment for that.


Sorry if you mentioned this already, but what is it that Trump did for Russia? I do see that Russia did not tit our latest tat in 2016, but that helped us more than them. In general, it seems like he's been a pain in the butt for Russia in a few different ways. He's increased drilling to keep oil prices low. He is sanctioning them for NK trade. He is arming Ukrainians with Rifles. He's being tougher on Syria and Iran. If I were Putin I would much prefer to have Clinton in power right now.


A minor nit: he's also selling Javelin anti-tank weapons.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Jan 2018, 12:46 pm

freeman3 wrote:I guess we'll see if the case turns out to be weak or not. It's possible Trump made his policy changes helping Putin without any quid pro quo in the hope that Putin would put out the dirt on Hillary that the Trump campaign knew was out here.


Is it possible that Putin gave the emails to Wikileaks because he hates Clinton? There seems ample evidence he harbors some deep bitterness toward her for her political activities against him.

It's also possible that Trump decided to give Putin two policy wins within four days for reasons unrelated to getting Hillary dirt.


It's also possible . . . wait for it . . . that Trump opened his big yapper for no reason other than to garner attention.

One small point: I am not saying Mueller brought ancillary charges. I assume Mueller brought whatever charges he could. But if he were able to make a deal before filing charges I think he could be more generous. Were overtures made and Manafort rejected them? I don't know. If there were...why did Manafort reject them IF he had something to offer with regard to Trump? Problem is, we're going into a lot of unknowns. The point I'm making is that now I don't think Mueller could offer a deal good enough (e.g. little or no jail time) to outweigh the hope of getting a full pardon.


Sure, there are a lot of unknowns. That's always been part of my contention: with all the leaking this Administration did early on (but seem to have slowed), how is it possible that THE most valuable "secrets" stayed secret? There's nothing concrete.

What makes you think Trump survive a pardon of Manafort? I think that would be the end of the road for him with most Republicans.

I think if you weren't seeing things in a partisan lens you would agree that there is no way Trump was doing all these things he did for Russia (including the later efforts to mollify them regarding sanctions) unless he was getting something for it. That's a conclusion based on an analysis of normal human behavior and Trump is more of a me person than most. Whether it was due to concerns that he owed Russia for prior loans/money laundering deals or for interference in the election...he acted out of his own self-interest to help himself at the expense of country by helping Russia. And he deserves impeachment for that.


Hahaha.

So, your contention is that acting in self-interest at the expense of the country is bad?

I agree.

And yet, I didn't vote for Clinton, which would be a direct violation of your rule. So, I'm sure you didn't vote for her either, right?

Here's the thing: I think Trump always appears to be playing a double-game. He tries to gain the favor of Putin or Xi, or someone else, he says nice things publicly, then sends Hayley, or someone else, to bash them. During the campaign he said it would be great to have Russia on our side. So what? Isn't that what Obama tried? (Please answer that) Was Obama a traitor too?

When there is actual evidence, I'll be leading with pitchforks and torches. Until then, I'm fairly detached. I loath the President's personal affect. However, I like some of what he's done . . . and there is no actual "pass the laugh test" evidence.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Jan 2018, 2:44 pm

RJ, it doesn't matter if Trump is doing policies that Russia may not particularly like now if Russia and Trump agreed that Russia would help him get elected in return for Trump doing something for Russia. Do we agree that should get him imprleached if proven? And I think that Putin is happy that Trump is in power. Clearly, Trump wants to be pro-Russian when he can and right now that it's very difficult because of the investigation. But that would change if Trump gets past that. And Putin has sown disarray in our politics, Trump has shown zero interest in trying to stop future Russian interference in our politics, Trump has been a one-man wrecking crew in attacking our democratic institutions, and Trump's America First philosophy and lack of leadership of the West fragments opposition to Russia. Short-term policies which Russia might not like that much are small potatoes compared to that.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Jan 2018, 4:31 pm

freeman3 wrote:RJ, it doesn't matter if Trump is doing policies that Russia may not particularly like now if Russia and Trump agreed that Russia would help him get elected in return for Trump doing something for Russia. Do we agree that should get him imprleached if proven? And I think that Putin is happy that Trump is in power. Clearly, Trump wants to be pro-Russian when he can and right now that it's very difficult because of the investigation. But that would change if Trump gets past that. And Putin has sown disarray in our politics, Trump has shown zero interest in trying to stop future Russian interference in our politics, Trump has been a one-man wrecking crew in attacking our democratic institutions, and Trump's America First philosophy and lack of leadership of the West fragments opposition to Russia. Short-term policies which Russia might not like that much are small potatoes compared to that.


That's as hopelessly partisan as it could be.

First, there is still no evidence for what you assert. If clear evidence appears, sure, he will be impeached. And, if Martians attack, it will probably be Los Angeles first.

Second, you say Trump "clearly" wants to be pro-Russian. So what? Obama wanted to be pro-Russian too. Should he have been impeached?

The question isn't whether someone is pro-Russia or not. Was there collusion. You say "Yes." I say, "I'm wiling to be convinced. Show me the evidence." Who is blindly partisan?

Trump has been a one-man wrecking crew in attacking our democratic institutions, and Trump's America First philosophy and lack of leadership of the West fragments opposition to Russia.


Give me a list of Trump's "(attacks) on our democratic institutions" and I'll give you a list of Obama's "attacks" that is at least as long. It's a matter of whose ox is being gored.

Obama's "leading from behind" model led to Russia being strengthened throughout the Middle East, Ukraine, and Europe. China was emboldened. Iran was emboldened. His track record was a train wreck. It's too soon to say what the outcome of Trump's style will be.

Obama knew about Russian interference before the election. What did he do?

Nothing.

Next.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10967
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 04 Jan 2018, 4:59 pm

It doesn't matter if Mueller finds enough evidence to prove collusion. (I don't think he will unless Jared cuts a deal)
It matters whether or not he finds evidence of crimes.
He will almost certainly find evidence of money laundering.

At that point its up to Congress. Impeachment is a political process not a legal one.
Considering the mood since the excerpts of Fire and Fury have been published (and almost no one quoted has denied the quotations), Republicans may in a mood to relieve Trump of his role soon too.
and Mueller probably has another 6 months before he's ready to wind up ... based on the experience of other special prosecutors.

Special prosecutor investigation costs and results. (chart half way down here...)
From January 1979 through Sept. 30, 2017
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tr ... s-mueller/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Jan 2018, 5:39 pm

rickyp wrote:It doesn't matter if Mueller finds enough evidence to prove collusion. (I don't think he will unless Jared cuts a deal)
It matters whether or not he finds evidence of crimes.
He will almost certainly find evidence of money laundering.

At that point its up to Congress. Impeachment is a political process not a legal one.


Uh-huh. Let me know when there’s evidence of that.

When/if that happens, he’ll be impeached in a heartbeat.

Considering the mood since the excerpts of Fire and Fury have been published (and almost no one quoted has denied the quotations), Republicans may in a mood to relieve Trump of his role soon too.


Actually, you’re just wrong. I’m not going to run down all of the denials, but here’s one:

Barrack said this week that he had not been interviewed by Wolff, and denied an allegation elsewhere in the book that he called the president “not only crazy” but “stupid.”


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -book-says
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Jan 2018, 7:45 pm

President Trump sits down for a wide-ranging interview for a reporter...

Reporter: "There are reports you like to eat at McDonalds because of a concern about being poisoned?"
Trump: "I prefer to be slowly poisoned."
Reporter: "And you consume rather large quantities of fast food in general?
Trump: "Go big or go home!"
Reporter: "And you love Lays Potato Chips?
Trump: "Gotta have some vegetables."
Reporter: "You don't allow anyone to touch your stuff, particularly your toothbrush?
Trump: "I am a germophobe. That's why these sexual harassment allegations are ridiculous. I am not touching anyone unless I have gloves on.
Reporter: "Like Howard Hughes?
Trump: "My hero. Another billionaire who hated germs."
Reporter: "What is your justification to opening up America's coastlines to drilling?"
Trump: "What I can say? I like oily fish..."
Reporter: "There are reports that Melania cried on election night."
Trump: "Can you blame her? She realized that she was going to have to live with me for 4 years. It's terrible what the American people did to her.."
Reporter: "On a related note...did you expect to win?"
Trump: "No! It was all a marketing thing. Who knew the voters were dumb enough to elect me..."
Reporter: "It's also reported that you don't read much, that you're almost semi-literate."
Trump: "Reading is overrated. All you reporters read a lot, right? Who's asking the questions here: me or you? I rest my case..."
Reporter: "Last question: with regard to the Russia investigation did you help out Russia in return for their helping you win the election?
Trump: "Of course not! When have I ever helped out anyone? I'm a narcissist, remember? It's me, me, me! That why's I find the whole thing ridiculous! I didn't want to win...so I am going to help Russia in order to win something I didn't want to win? No way. I am only going to be able to spend only half my time at Mar-A-Lago and on golf courses instead of all of the time? Too much of a sacrifice..."

The interview continues...

Reporter: "Let's talk about your advisers...Steve Bannon?
Trump: "What do you call an investment banker who talks behind your back?
Reporter: "What?"
Trump: "Fat Rat."
Reporter: "Reince Prebius?"
Trump: "Rinoplastic? We had to recycle the Plastic Man. Oh wait...you can't recycle plastic. Guess he is out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with other garbage..."
Reporter: "How about Kellyanne Conway?"
Trump: " Con Air?Her flight is off the radar. You got a better chance of finding that Malaysia Airlines plane..."
Reporter: "Sarah Huckabee Sanders?"
Trump: "The Matrix? I thought I was a good liar...she creates whole new worlds."
Reporter: "Finally how is Hope Hicks as an adviser?"
Trump: "The best...I ever had. She gives as good as she gets. She gives good...Sorry, her head is as good as it gets."
Reporter: "Wow. What praise."
Trump: "I really like the views she provides...."
Last edited by freeman3 on 04 Jan 2018, 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Jan 2018, 8:36 pm

Funny.

Now, please consider: nearly any Republican elected President is considered by the liberal media as a moron. They don’t read. They don’t know anything.

Why is that? Maybe it’s true. In that case, it’s in keeping with the liberal, dystopian view of the country in which a conservative stooge is controlled by corporate interests.

Except . . . The companies were behind Hillary Clinton.

Hmm.

Then, there’s this “possibility.” Wolff is a liar who is cashing in.

Nah, couldn’t be!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Jan 2018, 10:29 pm

Fair point. My Mom is from the South and she was always sensitive about southerners being depicted as being dumb. I think the liberal elite tends to expect two things as being indicative of intelligence: (1) verbal fluency, being articulate, (2) knowledge base of certain things (history, classical music, philosophy, literature, art) deemed necessary to being educated. I think recent Republican candidates may not be as strong in those areas, but of course you can be very intelligent and not be very articulate or have a deep knowledge of European culture.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Jan 2018, 6:21 am

freeman3 wrote:Fair point. My Mom is from the South and she was always sensitive about southerners being depicted as being dumb. I think the liberal elite tends to expect two things as being indicative of intelligence: (1) verbal fluency, being articulate, (2) knowledge base of certain things (history, classical music, philosophy, literature, art) deemed necessary to being educated. I think recent Republican candidates may not be as strong in those areas, but of course you can be very intelligent and not be very articulate or have a deep knowledge of European culture.


Would you say Trump has always been obsessed with money, branding, and image?

I think it is.

To that end, I've heard he is a student of people--reads about people with whom he deals. I've heard he is a student of companies--reads about them.

I'd guess he's not someone who has the classical focus. Then again, that's not why he won.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Jan 2018, 7:57 am

Agreed. He has perfected branding his personality. His aggressiveness stands out. I think he has a sense of how to sell himself, how to stand out in the social hierarchy. He must have a good deal of emotional intelligence in how to deal with people. And I am sure he acquired a great deal of knowledge of things concerning his business over the years. He appears obsessed with making money as a means of showing his high status.

But basically he has figured out how to make money off of licensing his personality. That has been his big skill. His track record in real estate and running casinos is not good. Frankly, he is more like the Kardashians than some kind of great businessman. He took his personality and made money in business by branding it. He took that same cult of personality to win the presidency.

But I don't see great analytical skills. I don't see the ability to work with people, rather than dominate them. The lack of general knowledge base about history and other areas makes it hard for him to deal with difficult, complex problems. His distaste for reading makes it impossible for him to get up to speed in areas he doesn't know. While his talents/knowledge/personality may have allowed him to overcome almost insurmountable odds to become president, I think he is singularly Ill-equipped to be president.

I saw that Abraham Lincoln had 5,500 cases as a lawyer. All those cases he had to analyze, juries to connect with, judges to convince, many different areas of human activity to know. Many cases presenting almost unsolvable problems that had to be resolved...somehow.Of course he was a great writer. He had superior analytical skills. There were quite large gaps in his knowledge base...but he was willing to read up on them. He was so self-confident/self-assured that he put people he had competed with for the nomination in his cabinet. General McClellan insulted him one time by refusing to see him and he said something like he would hold General McClellan's horse for him if he would bring him victories. We all know how Trump is so uncertain of himself that he cannot stand any perceived slight to his ego.

Lincoln had the archetypal background/temperament to be president. Trump is his antithesis.