The Official Former President Trump thread

[Baxter Parp]

1 minute ago, Deplorable said:

Flynn is saying he did nothing wrong. Reports are that the transcripts of the phone call are pretty ambiguous and can be read multiple ways.

If he did nothing wrong, why did he resign? Reports from anybody trustworthy?

 

1 minute ago, Deplorable said:

Wikileaks is saying.....

Ah.

[Ira Gaines]

[emoji38]

[Deplorable]

10 minutes ago, Paco said:

Well, yes. Hence Flynn is gone, and I don't think even the man himself has any arguments about it.

Really just trying to ascertain the likelihood of Trump getting done with this, I guess.

Zero chance. This is about Flynn. Trump could tell Flynn to instruct Russia that we are dismantling our whole military and leaving NATO, and Trump would be within his rights.

The Republicans in Congress are already calling for investigations of the intelligence services and prosecution of the leakers. It's a ten year sentence to put out the information that was leaked about Flynn.

[Deplorable]

2 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

If he did nothing wrong, why did he resign? Reports from anybody trustworthy?

 

Ah.

Because he was less than forthcoming is the official line. This is an issue of him stepping outside of his bounds. I was responding to Paco saying that Flynn had no arguments against his firing. He is claiming innocence, and there are sources who have seen the transcripts backing him up.

In reality, it could be any one of a million reasons and Trump was just using this as an excuse to dump him. Who knows?

[Ira Gaines]

[emoji38]

[Baxter Parp]

6 minutes ago, Deplorable said:

Zero chance. This is about Flynn. Trump could tell Flynn to instruct Russia that we are dismantling our whole military and leaving NATO, and Trump would be within his rights.

I'm pretty sure that treason isn't one of the President's rights.

[mjw]

Zero chance. This is about Flynn. Trump could tell Flynn to instruct Russia that we are dismantling our whole military and leaving NATO, and Trump would be within his rights.

Even when trump was still a civilian?

[Deplorable]

5 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

I'm pretty sure that treason isn't one of the President's rights.

Deciding to let the Russians attack Germany is not treason. It's the President's right. It's foreign policy.

Treason is bureaucrats in the spy agencies leaking classified information to the press in an effort to topple one the President's top aides and destabilize a legitimately elected President who ran on close ties with Russia.

As Eli Lake said in Bloomberg News:

"Normally intercepts of US official and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states doe."

[marty_j]

I enjoyed this. 

 

[Baxter Parp]

Just now, Deplorable said:

Deciding to let the Russians attack Germany is not treason. It's the President's right. It's foreign policy.

This has nothing to do with the insane case you gave and, while NATO exists, aiding a foreign power over a valued ally is indeed treasonous.

Treason = a betrayal of one's own country. If it helps.

[Ira Gaines]

[emoji38]

[Savage Henry]

1 hour ago, Deplorable said:

Scary stuff that Democrat operatives within the intelligence agencies are illegally leaking information to bring down their political opponents. Hopefully people end up in jail for this.

It's odd that getting cozy with Russia is considered traitorous. Since Trump won election promising close ties with Russia, isn't it traitorous to stand in the way of close ties?

Mexican politicians are in the US meeting with illegal aliens to convince them to try and clog up the court system and endure detention rather than deportation. The Mexican government has allocated $50 million to aid in this effort. Mexico's true colors as our national enemy are showing. Can you imagine if 10-20 million Americans were living illegally in Country X, our government did everything we could to stop a candidate who wanted to remove them, and then came up with a scheme of widespread disobedience towards local authorities to interfere with the legal process in that country? The world would be melting down, but I'm sure most countries will be cheering on Mexico.

Democrat operatives?  You are better than that, surely?  The CIA and FBI (and indeed the courts) are apolitical.  These leaks aren't coming because Obama infiltrated the secret service.  They're coming because the CIA and the FBI are in open revolt against Trump... as is State and the moderate element of Homeland Security.  They are being told to act illegally by, presumably, the Commander in Chief.  If the President does it, that means it can't be illegal.  Where have I heard that before?

All of which is considered traitorous by the Republicans more than anybody else, except perhaps for the intelligence services themselves.  It is the Republicans who are leading the calls for formal investigations.  It is the Republicans who will control the impeachment process.  It's not hard to see where this is heading.  The leaks are coming for a reason, and that reason isn't "Democrat operatives".    There are checks and balances, but if Trump is trying to circumvent those checks and balances and he's been caught  out, this is far from the end of the story.

If it is proved that the Trump administration has been co-operating with the Russians prior to taking office, Trump is dead in the water.  He's already instructed Spicer to lie on his behalf, which is an ominous sign.  Let's see what happens to Mattis.  Let's see what transpires in the next week.  

 

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, Paco said:

Is contact with Russians during the transition automatically bad? Not a defence, a genuine query. I'm not upto speed on the ins and outs of how a transition should be handled. 

 

On the same day that President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for interfering in the US election, Flynn phoned the Russian Ambassador 5 times, telling him not to worry about it, Trump would sort it when he became President. That was undermining the foreign policy of the US Government.

[Granny Danger]

11 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

Democrat operatives?  You are better than that, surely?  The CIA and FBI (and indeed the courts) are apolitical.  These leaks aren't coming because Obama infiltrated the secret service.  They're coming because the CIA and the FBI are in open revolt against Trump... as is State and the moderate element of Homeland Security.  They are being told to act illegally by, presumably, the Commander in Chief.  If the President does it, that means it can't be illegal.  Where have I heard that before?

All of which is considered traitorous by the Republicans more than anybody else, except perhaps for the intelligence services themselves.  It is the Republicans who are leading the calls for formal investigations.  It is the Republicans who will control the impeachment process.  It's not hard to see where this is heading.  The leaks are coming for a reason, and that reason isn't "Democrat operatives".    There are checks and balances, but if Trump is trying to circumvent those checks and balances and he's been caught  out, this is far from the end of the story.

If it is proved that the Trump administration has been co-operating with the Russians prior to taking office, Trump is dead in the water.  He's already instructed Spicer to lie on his behalf, which is an ominous sign.  Let's see what happens to Mattis.  Let's see what transpires in the next week.  

 

The Republicans will look at the long game here.  They 'suffered' a Democrat President for eight years and won't want a return to it.  They key issues here will be:

What's the chance of Trump getting a second term?  Based on the first few weeks zero.

What's the chance of Pence getting a second term?  Maybe not great but far better than Trump.

Will Pence play the game (i.e. do what Congressional Republicans and the party leadership want)?  Probably yes.

Can Trump's continued actions cause further damage to the Republicam cause?  I think the answer to that is obvious, how will that impact on the mid-terms?

Add to the fact that no one in the Republican Party wanted Trump in the first place you can see where this is going.

[Paco]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

On the same day that President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for interfering in the US election, Flynn phoned the Russian Ambassador 5 times, telling him not to worry about it, Trump would sort it when he became President. That was undermining the foreign policy of the US Government.

Again, I wasn't meaning specifically for Flynn. He's out and rightly so. I was more wondering if, hypothetically, Trump in his post-election telephone call with Putin, told him that sanctions would be reviewed when he became President, and that he wanted a better working relationship moving forward. 

Is that impeachable? Surely not? I doubt he only discussed golf with the Japanese PM when he came to visit. He'd be talking trade tariffs, particularly on Japanese cars and electronics, and defence contributions. Most likely future North Korea/China policy too. In many of these instances his policy would be different to Obama's. 

For Trump only, is that not allowed, or am I picking this up wrong? Is it allowed with Japan but not Russia? As I said I don't know the rights and wrongs of transition protocol.

Again, hypothetically, what if Trump told Flynn to put the Russians minds at ease? Is that then allowed because it's straight from the President-Elect? If it isn't allowed, is the President-Elect expected to keep schtum about everything during the transition?

Advisers such as Flynn, I fully understand can't go doing that kind of thing on their own accord - particularly when they then lie about it to the VP (which the administration keep repeating is why he's gone, rather than the act itself, which they've known about for a month).

I just want to know how likely we are to be rid of Trump, really. I get it depends on what he knew, and when, etc. But in terms of the 'what' he knew, I'm just trying to establish what the law says if it turns out he planned the whole thing. 

[NotThePars]

I'm still stuck on someone claiming Sarah Silverman, her that did blackface, is "far left". If she's "far left" to someone then I'm really interested to see where their starting point for their own views are.

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, Paco said:

Again, I wasn't meaning specifically for Flynn. He's out and rightly so. I was more wondering if, hypothetically, Trump in his post-election telephone call with Putin, told him that sanctions would be reviewed when he became President, and that he wanted a better working relationship moving forward. 

Is that impeachable? Surely not? I doubt he only discussed golf with the Japanese PM when he came to visit. He'd be talking trade tariffs, particularly on Japanese cars and electronics, and defence contributions. Most likely future North Korea/China policy too. In many of these instances his policy would be different to Obama's. 

For Trump only, is that not allowed, or am I picking this up wrong? Is it allowed with Japan but not Russia? As I said I don't know the rights and wrongs of transition protocol.

Again, hypothetically, what if Trump told Flynn to put the Russians minds at ease? Is that then allowed because it's straight from the President-Elect? If it isn't allowed, is the President-Elect expected to keep schtum about everything during the transition?

Advisers such as Flynn, I fully understand can't go doing that kind of thing on their own accord - particularly when they then lie about it to the VP (which the administration keep repeating is why he's gone, rather than the act itself, which they've known about for a month).

I just want to know how likely we are to be rid of Trump, really. I get it depends on what he knew, and when, etc. But in terms of the 'what' he knew, I'm just trying to establish what the law says if it turns out he planned the whole thing. 

Talking about trade with Japan wouldn't undermine anything the US Government was doing. What Flynn did was officially illegal and if Trump told him what to say he was breaking the law. However the law has never been used before. Reagan's team is said to have persuaded Iran to hold onto their hostages until after the election, and Nixon was accused of persuading the South Vietnamese to scupper peace talks before his election, and nothing was done, perhaps because neither of them slagged off and undermined the whole intelligence/diplomatic/military/judicial wings of Government. Traditional Republicans are furious with Trump and I'm sure quite a few would relish an excuse to replace him with Pence who would happily do their bidding.

[Savage Henry]

45 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

The Republicans will look at the long game here.  They 'suffered' a Democrat President for eight years and won't want a return to it.  They key issues here will be:

What's the chance of Trump getting a second term?  Based on the first few weeks zero.

What's the chance of Pence getting a second term?  Maybe not great but far better than Trump.

Will Pence play the game (i.e. do what Congressional Republicans and the party leadership want)?  Probably yes.

Can Trump's continued actions cause further damage to the Republicam cause?  I think the answer to that is obvious, how will that impact on the mid-terms?

Add to the fact that no one in the Republican Party wanted Trump in the first place you can see where this is going.

Right.  Which is what folk have been saying all along.  Given the nature of the houses, all the power lies with moderate Republicans.  If they don't use the checks and balances wisely, they'll be destroyed at the midterms, and  the US will be a political mess for at least two years.  

It's not so much that what Trump is doing is unique.  Much of it isn't - although the Tweeting, and the bizarre accusations of vote fraud are the first of their kind.   It's the damage it is causing.  The deliberate antagonism of the courts and the apparent alienation of half the Republican party makes no sense on any level, other than as a coup d'etat by an oddball, extremely dumb, wealthy elite at the expense of the judicial system.

[mjw]

Aye that's the real scandal indeed Don.

 

 

[doulikefish]

Aye that's the real scandal indeed Don't.

Seems to be blaming the cia and fbi now