Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[Karl Henning]

The lamestream press misquoted him:  what he said was "we have prevailed in testing the White House staff! The best ever!"

[71 dB]

Paul Manafort released to home confinement amid coronavirus threat in prison

So, what say the most wise, virtuous, and just members of GMG, is this a miscarriage of justice, a moral outrage?

The priviledge of rich white men in the US...

https://www.youtube.com/v/VXz3qeYQP0A

[Todd]

Since the very bad man Donald Trump appointed very bad men to the Supreme Court, this is the best place to post this:

U.S. Supreme Court justices worry about 'chaos' in Electoral College dispute

What say the resident Constitutional Law experts?

[Herman]

trolling...

[SimonNZ]

Since the very bad man Donald Trump appointed very bad men to the Supreme Court, this is the best place to post this:

U.S. Supreme Court justices worry about 'chaos' in Electoral College dispute

What say the resident Constitutional Law experts?

What do you think about it?

Beyond saying how entertaining it all is. I'll take your predictable first-impulse"its all so entertaining"and its-funny-because-I'm -the-only-one-laughing boilerplate as read.

With that out of the way: what do you think about it?

[Herman]

Kushner has given the "we'll see how it goes" as to whether the Election will happen November 3d.

There is probably a team of lawyers working at a plan to postpone the election indefinitely.

[Todd]

Perhaps some legal scholar on this forum could explain how the president could postpone the election at all.  Irrespective of what Mr Kushner said.

[JBS]

Kushner has given the "we'll see how it goes" as to whether the Election will happen November 3d.

There is probably a team of lawyers working at a plan to postpone the election indefinitely.

Not really. The "first Tuesday after the first Monday in November" is a federal law, so Congress would have to change it.

Even if Trump tried something unilaterally, the individual states have enough powers to allow Democratic governors to hold the election in their own states. Meaning Republican governors would have to hold the elections too, or face a Democratic blowout in the electoral college, a House composed of only blue state representatives (since a Congressperson can't just hold over their term of office), and a Senate minus any red state senators up for election or re-election this year.

[JBS]

The substantial reason was from the Steele dossier? Discredited. The FBI? Disgraced. Obama? Had a vendetta against Flynn and wanted to destroy the presidency of the guy who won fair and square. 

Your view of common sense is rather skewed.

Russian money was financing Trump's business dealings. Not only the proposed building in Moscow  but much else. We know that because both of his sons said so, and well before he became a presidential candidate

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-said-money-pouring-in-from-russia-2018-2

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/332270-eric-trump-in-2014-we-dont-rely-on-american-banks-we-have-all-the-funding-we

That alone justifies what I said.

[BasilValentine]

I'll take your word for it that you've read the Mueller report. So with that said, the report starts off with the dismissal of the word "collusion" with "conspiracy" for these reasons:
The more I fact check the more it appears that your reading of the Mueller report is bullshit and dishonest. Well done, troll. 

You haven't refuted a single claim I made. Nor have you done any "fact checking."
Did you refute that Mueller detailed ten instances in which Trump's actions fulfilled all of the elements of the crime of obstruction of justice? You didn't. Did you refute that Mueller suggested impeachment as the appropriate remedy? You didn't. And your quotation from the beginning of the report doesn't refute anything I said either. All of the actions by individuals that didn't meet the legal definition of conspiracy do meet the definitions of collusion and cooperation. Meeting with Russians in Trump Tower to secure dirt on Hillary is collusion. Setting up meetings to exchange polling data with Russian operatives is coordination. Asking and receiving assistance from the Russians in releasing Hillary's emails is collusion. As Mueller notes, these actions don't meet the legal definition of conspiracy under which he was working. I never claimed they did.

You know nothing about the report and precious little about any of the events involved.

[JBS]

No it doesn't. LOL.

An article from 2008–eight years before the presidential election in 2016–and a purely anecdotal story from early 2017 when the Trump/Russia hysteria was at its worst.

This is TDS at it's finest.

So businessman who depends on Russian oligarchs and Russian mafiosi (to the degree those two categories are different) for his money, is perpetually bankrupt, refuses to publicly disclose his finances, has staffers like Manafort maintain ties with Putin representatives...yet you think there's no possible problem of him being compromised or controlled by Russia.

You are either willfully blind or invincibly ignorant.

[SimonNZ]

The proof - and potential proof of innocence - would be in all the financial information he's desperately hiding. And in all the testimony he's blocking.

As has been said at least a couple of times already.

But do feel free to cry ":Trump Derangement Syndrome!" again if you've got nothing better and think those are the magic words for shutting down an argument.

[JBS]

Correlation doesn't equal causation. You don't have any proof of him being compromised or controlled by Russia thus far in his presidency. This is nothing more than a patchwork of allegations and smears. Some bought into this in 2017 but by now should know better.

I'm not saying Trump is a saint, either, so spare me the cult of personality crap.

I didn't say he was in fact compromised or controlled.

I am saying that enough was publicly known in 2016 to justify the intelligence community into trying to figure out if he was in fact compromised or controlled. In fact, enough evidence was available that the intelligence community would have failed to to do its duty if it did not investigate.

[BasilValentine]

Just admit you didn't read the report and you're getting your crap from the Huffington Post or pulling it out of your rear. You specifically chastised me and said to focus on collusion and not conspiracy.......when Mueller specifically stated to focus on conspiracy because collusion is a meaningless term in the criminal code. So how much did your really read of the MR?

You can act haughty and condescending all you want but you've been busted for being a shyster and downright liar.

Listen, *: You are a latecomer to this thread who hasn't made the minimal effort to acquaint yourself with its earlier discussions, proving once again that you never do the necessary reading and so never know what you're talking about. One would think you would at least have had the sense to read the extensive discussions of the Mueller Report from when it was a timely topic. Just go back in the thread to the date of its publication and work forward (and backward for that matter, although that way lies bullshit)  You might notice that one of the contributors to many of these discussions was one Basil Valentine, who demonstrated detailed knowledge of its contents within a couple days of its publication, citing it extensively and summarizing its arguments. He even read the footnotes. Moreover, Mr. Valentine took extensive well-indexed notes on the document. Just ask Todd. And before you try to claim that Mr. Valentine got his summaries and citations of obscure passages from a media source you'd better look at the dates. I doubt you'll find media sources that got some of the information into print faster than he did.

So, if you ever get around to learning the state of play here by actually reading the thread, I'll expect a groveling apology or two. But I'm not holding my breath.

EDIT:
I'm assuming you will be unwilling to do the work yourself, so here is a quotation of Basil Valentine from April 20, 2019. Work forward from there (page 798 I think) in the thread and then apologize:

You haven't read the report, have you? I have. The case for obstruction is damning. Mueller has clearly teed this up for future prosecution, presenting detailed analysis of each element of the crime for each potential offense (The three elements are: Obstructive act, Nexus to a proceeding, Intent.) If Trump loses in 2020, he is going to jail.

The summary of Bill Barr you touted turned out to be a cynical misrepresentation of the findings. Mueller did not fail to establish obstruction as Barr claimed, he has in fact laid out an open and shut case for it. Mueller's failure to "reach a conclusion" was based solely on the inability to indict a sitting president. Moreover, after the discussion of the obstructive acts themselves he has addressed any constitutional or legal objections to the applicability of the statutes in Trump's case and has found them without merit.

It should be noted that Barr's summary conclusions with respect to the collusion/coordination investigations were a distortion as well. In claiming no coordination with Russia was established he failed to state that the definition of coordination in play for this report has no relation to the dictionary definition. In fact, if one reads the introduction to Volume I, one learns that coordination in this context was taken to mean the same thing as conspiracy, that is, it requires an overt agreement. By the dictionary definition of coordination, the report presents hitherto unreported findings about ongoing coordination between campaign officials and Russian operatives, for example, that Paul Manafort had continuing contacts over his whole tenure in the campaign for the purpose of sharing RNC polling data with Russians.

[arpeggio]

Just admit you didn't read the report and you're getting your crap from the Huffington Post or pulling it out of your rear. You specifically chastised me and said to focus on collusion and not conspiracy.......when Mueller specifically stated to focus on conspiracy because collusion is a meaningless term in the criminal code. So how much did your really read of the MR?

You can act haughty and condescending all you want but you've been busted for being a shyster and downright liar.

I have read the report and I have it in front of me right now.  I have rechecked sections and you are correct.  He could not find any acts of conspiracy but the book is full of examples of collusion.

And the sections that deal with obstruction are damning.

Don't bother to read it so will not have to listen to screaming it is nothing but lies.

[Que]

Dear political debaters.

Please allow me to spell out a few rules of engagement once more....
No personal insults, no name calling. Remain courteous and respectful.

And try to take a calming break from this thread once in a while.
If necessary, the next step could be to lock this thread temporarily for a collective break & cooldown.
Another option could be that certain members are requested not to post here (for a while).....or to prevent them from doing so.

[SimonNZ]

EDIT:
I'm assuming you will be unwilling to do the work yourself, so here is a quotation of Basil Valentine from April 20, 2019, that is, within a few days of the Mueller Report's publication. Work forward from there (page 798 I think) in the thread and then apologize:

Nice.

[Florestan]

one of the contributors to many of these discussions was one Basil Valentine, who demonstrated detailed knowledge of its contents within a week or so of its publication, quoting it extensively and summarizing its arguments. He even read the footnotes. Moreover, Mr. Valentine took extensive well-indexed notes on the document. Just ask Todd.

You call Todd of all people to your defense. Quite a suicidal move. 

[Florestan]

Not really. The "first Tuesday after the first Monday in November" is a federal law, so Congress would have to change it.

What a tautological formulation! The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November is simply the first Tuesday in November. What is the need to bring in Monday as well, I wonder?

[Christo]

What a tautological formulation! The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November is simply the first Tuesday in November. What is the need to bring in Monday as well, I wonder?

Could be the second Tuesday.