US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Mr Quatro]

There's a difference in fake news and mis-leading news:

Trump says he's not firing Mueller, but the media keep insisting he might

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ing-might.html

The Washington Post, jumping on Warner’s remarks, ran a story yesterday titled "The Growing Specter of Robert Mueller’s Firing." The article declares that “the environment for attempting to fire Mueller is clearly improving.”

Here’s a Bloomberg piece titled "What Might Happen If Trump Orders Mueller Fired."

The media mindset was perfect captured by a Chicago Tribune column with the headline: "Trump Says He Won’t Fire Bob Mueller. Don’t Believe Him."

Originally Posted by vinnea

Now, will Trump pull a 'Nixon' and seal his doom by firing Mueller?...

See how fear can mis-lead?

[Rockstar]

As I said, they keep their audience tuned-in and salivating by simply telling them what they wanna hear.

[vienna]

Its not fear or misleading. The actual fact is Trump has already had an FBI Director removed who was conducting an active investigation into the Trump campaign and its Russian connections and contacts. Please note: I said "Trump Campaign"; I have said before, many times, Trump, himself, had not been personally implicated in the transactions and contacts of his campaign and/or transition team. I also have said I believe if anything he will probably choose to resign if the investigation and charges get close to his office door. Given what is known so far, Don Jr. and Jared Kushner are very, very likely to be charged in the case; in Don Jr.'s case, he has himself released incriminating emails that make it almost impossible he can escape charges; Kushner, in addition to being a party mentioned specifically in those Don Jr. emails, has considerable problems related to his 'memory problems' in reporting his contacts and meetings on security background forms, required by Federal law and, if omissions are made or statements falsified, the charges would be perjury and lying to the FBI; how Kushner hasn't had his security clearance lifted yet is a source of wonder...

In the media stories, the anonymous sources are the usual suspects: people in positions close to or in the Trump camp who are speaking to the press. Why are they anonymous? Well, job security is a prime motive as well as the desire to avoid retribution from the Trump camp; also, it is in the best interest of the press to maintain the anonymity of their sources: if you've got someone on the inside, who could provide you with even more information, why would you expose them and lose a valuable source?...

The quality of sourced information is dependent on having multiple sources; the Washington Post and other large and high visibility media do not publish on the basis of just one source, especially if the subject of a report is some one or some entity of a high profile: the cost of a serious error in reportage can be devastating. The Post, in fact, has used as many as nearly a dozen separate sources to substantiate reports involving the Russian investigation and/or the Trump campaign/administration. Given how much the Trump administration has sought to deflect and distract from their woes by trying to cast a shadow on the media, the end result has been a sort of overkill in substantiation by the media. In an ironic twist, the Trump administration has strengthened the media's reportage by the act of attacking the media...

Consideration should be given to a possible, and, in some cases, probable source of information for the media: the Trump camp itself. It has been a very long time tactic, at all levels of political government, to have some information deliberately 'leaked' as a means of determining what possible ramifications may result from a considered or planned course of action; want to find out what the possible public reaction to firing the Special Counsel might be? Just 'leak', via someone in your camp, the idea it is being considered and gauge the reaction; if its bad, then you have 'plausible deniability'; if its good, then you can confidently go forward. This is an old trick, been around for many, many decades, and wouldn't be surprising if it were happening now. There is also the art of an inside the camp false flag 'leak' as a 'red herring' or as a means of creating chaos and confusion; given how much Trump has relied on chaos as a means to obfuscate in the past, this is not really farfetched at all...

The possibility of Trump firing the Special Counsel is real enough that two bipartisan measures, one in each House, are being considered to put controls on the means by which a Special Counsel can be removed from an investigation. In today's divisive political climate, when you can get members of both parties to agree on anything, it is significant and, apparently, the threat of a Trump firing is considered very significant...and that cold fact is not fear or "fake news"...

In all of this, here is chance for all of us to be brutally honest: if it were a DEM President or his camp who was behaving in this manner, would the GOP be equally condoning of this behavior or would they be screaming for a hanging? I am of no party, so I say if its bad enough to be dealt with seriously for one party, it should be so dealt with to all parties. I'm still waiting to join a party which will actually walk the walk and not just talk the talk...

As said before, so far there is no direct personal link between Russian efforts to influence the 2016 Election and Trump, and I doubt he will be impeached for direct Russian collusion. Trump, faced with indictments coming to his office door for those around him, including family members, and a call for much closer scrutiny of his personal finances, will probably opt to resign rather than face those possibilities as a means to shield himself. Remember, Nixon walked out of the Oval Office with a pardon and no repercussions and he was listed as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the Watergate charges filing; Trump could look at that past experience and, to save what will be left of his 'legacy', take the exit...

Only an idiot and buffoon would try to fire the Special Counsel at this point in the investigation, but, then, again, we are talking about Trump...


Here is something I came across about a matter that still might come back to bite the Trump administration big time; it is very interesting, and detailed, reading:


Is Donald Trump’s Dark Russian Secret Hiding in Deutsche Bank’s Vaults? --

http://www.newsweek.com/2017/12/29/d...nk-753780.html

On the campaign trail—and well before he became a candidate—Trump’s praise of Putin was effusive and unwavering. He called him a strong leader and claimed they’d spoken and gotten along well. His fidelity to Russia’s president has continued in the White House, even as he lambasted other world leaders, turned on aides and allies, fired the head of the FBI and publicly humiliated his attorney general. Shunning Putin would have been the savvy political move, but he has refused to do so.

And then there are the people in the president’s inner circle. Wherever you look, there is a link to Russia. His pick for secretary of state? Rex Tillerson, a figure known and trusted in Moscow, and recipient of the country’s Order of Friendship. Former national security adviser? Flynn, a beneficiary of undeclared Russian money. Campaign manager? Manafort, longtime confidant to ex–Soviet oligarchs. Foreign policy adviser? Carter Page, whom Russia tried to recruit as a spy. Commerce secretary? Wilbur Ross, an entrepreneur with Russia-connected investments. Personal lawyer? Cohen, who sent emails to Putin’s press secretary. Business partner? Sater, who sent Flynn a plan to lift Russian sanctions. And so on.

It was almost as if Putin had picked Trump’s Cabinet. The U.S. president, of course, did the choosing, but the pattern of all these individuals, and their alignment with Russian interests, forms a constellation. Call it Ursa Major. A big Russian bear Robert Mueller is now hunting—at Deutsche Bank and beyond.

[mapuc]

A little wondering.

I have been told by some friends on FB and others.

A campaign staff who runs their "own" agenda without the leaders knowledge would be fired on the spot and would have difficult to get another job in helping others politicians

So have the campaign staff for Trump been running their own business without trumps knowledge or was this campaign staff 110 % loyal to Trump-meaning they wouldn't do anything without Trumps approval ?

Markus

[Mr Quatro]

Very good vienna I knew you would try and defend yourself, but as bad as you make Trump out to be ...

He is still the POTUS and has said out loud and in the press that he has no intentions of firing special prosecutor Mueller.

If your looking for dirt on Trump try searching the internet for the fact that Donald Trump owes Turkey 5 billion dollars for a loan.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by mapuc

A little wondering.

I have been told by some friends on FB and others.

A campaign staff who runs their "own" agenda without the leaders knowledge would be fired on the spot and would have difficult to get another job in helping others politicians

So have the campaign staff for Trump been running their own business without trumps knowledge or was this campaign staff 110 % loyal to Trump-meaning they wouldn't do anything without Trumps approval ?

Markus

It could be, the so called 'inside anonymous source' is just doing their job and having a good laugh too as the media prints it and others regurgitate it.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Very good vienna I knew you would try and defend yourself, but as bad as you make Trump out to be ...

He is still the POTUS and has said out loud and in the press that he has no intentions of firing special prosecutor Mueller.

If your looking for dirt on Trump try searching the internet for the fact that Donald Trump owes Turkey 5 billion dollars for a loan.

He may be POTUS, but he has only been POTUS for less than a year; he has, however, been a well-known liar for his entire life, so he's had more experience and honed craft in that aspect of his life. As pointed out, it is not uncommon for politicos to intentionally 'leak' something to gauge possible responses and repercussions to a considered act; what makes you so sure Trump and his minions didn't do the same thing regarding a possible firing of Mueller? Or, possibly, someone in Trump's camp might be so motivated to 'leak' as a means of dissuading Trump from firing Mueller. Either way, Trump can now puff and huff in faux umbrage and rail away. Of course, you might be right, that is, if you actually believe Trump is an honest and principled person; evidence, past and present seems to argue strongly against that view...

The Turkey scandal really has no direct impact on Trump, personally, and will have more impact on Gen. Flynn and is being addressed as part of Flynn's deal with Mueller. Flynn actually faced a charge of conspiracy to kidnap, but, as part of the plea deal, the charge is deferred; Flynn's kidnap Target? A Turkish opponent of Erdogan that Flynn offered to kidnap and export back to Turkey. The problem Trump has is he has a somewhat close relationship with Turkey and its questionable Preside Erdogan, so he may have to deal officially against someone who is a friend. If he cuts Erdogan, et al, what could be viewed as any slack, he faces questions here at home. Other than that, Trump, really has no direct connection...

For those not familiar with the Turkey situation, here is another detailed article on the scandal:


Why the Trump Team May Be Worried About a Billion-Dollar Money Laundering Case --

http://www.newsweek.com/2017/12/15/t...se-735259.html

Originally Posted by mapuc

A little wondering.

I have been told by some friends on FB and others.

A campaign staff who runs their "own" agenda without the leaders knowledge would be fired on the spot and would have difficult to get another job in helping others politicians

So have the campaign staff for Trump been running their own business without trumps knowledge or was this campaign staff 110 % loyal to Trump-meaning they wouldn't do anything without Trumps approval ?

Markus

Rogue staff has been a situation and problem that has happened several times before in US Presidential history. Nixon tried to foist off the idea his staff acted without his knowledge or consent, a lie which was exposed when the Watergate White House Tapes became public. The Iran-Contra Affair is another example; the Reagan administration maintained Reagan had no direct knowledge or consent in the unlawful activities of close Regan associates and no solid, reasonably irrefutable evidence has come to light to prove otherwise, although many believe activities at that high a level in the White House could not have happened without the President's knowledge...

As far as being fired on the spot, well, that depends; look how long it for Trump to fire Flynn, even in the face of strong evidence. Even Nixon was loath to fire his Chief Of Staff, H.R. Haldeman and Counsel/Domestic Affairs Assistant and the evidence against them was irrefutable. Any member of a staff can go rogue and how soon they are fired is dependent on how soon their transgressions or crimes are discovered and the President's disposition towards terminating their employ...

As far as being unemployable, past experience has shown a lot of persons involved in questionable activities as part of a political campaign or administration have rebounded and been able to continue to function in the political arena. Sometimes those individuals have contacts, insights, or strategic planning knowledge some candidates or officials may see as particularly useful and, hence, turn a blind eye to their 'flaws'...








<O>

[Skybird]

There are always ways for the top management to get lower ranks doing things without telling them explicitly that they want them to do these things. And there is always a way how to get something done without telling explicitly that one wants it to get done. It is naive to then assume that just because explicit notes and records of such orders ever being given are not revealed, such orders indeed were not given. Naive - or intentionally blind on one eye. Right because the offender knows of the danger if written notes on his command get found, he will avoid to goive them in a way that such eviodence will be created. It would be stupid to create such evidence whule knowing how dangerous it is.

Media are extremly low quality in general these days, but discrediting the Trump-critical ones while ignoring and remaining silent about the many occasions when Trumpo bend, broke, distorted the truth himself in his statements, and told fairy tales about thing sin the world that little kids stopped crying when listening to him, is double standards as well.

One thing ic clear. Trump will not allow Mueller to continue if Mueller becomes too threatening for him. Trump would not be Trump if he would just surrender then and wait for his fate getting sealed. No matter what he does - you will hardly ever find a written note by Trump, saying "Get me rid of this bastard Mueller". But he wuill get rid of him, this way or any other way. A smear campaign. Forged eivdneces aga8inst him. Deiscrditting him at all costs. Right pout telling lies about him. And why not juzst telling lies? These days, many believe them in oure self-defence. Especially when it is Trump telling them. Else they would suffer a monumental blow to thewir ego if needing to realise they followed a liar and fraudster and imposter instead of the figure of light they thought he would be. The idols you will to follow, always tell more about you then about the idol. It says something about your hopes in good - and about your weaknesses regarding what ammount if lies you accept to still believe in your bid to just hold tight to your belief in this idol, and your effort to deny reality.

[ikalugin]

An individual is not guilty, unless proven to be so in the court of law and with due process.

Unless there is hard evidence that an individual issued illegal orders then said individual could not be punished by law for it.

(Anon) reports are not such evidence, because then (anon) individuals would falsify their claims to gain something without loosing anything, as, for example, Soviet 1930s or present day feminist experience shows.

[vienna]

So far, the only people who have been punished are the ones who have made plea deals and have plead guilty to lesser charges in return for their cooperation in investigations. I have heard of no one being in any way punished for a criminal offense without due process in the ongoing investigations. The purpose of an investigation is not to punish, but to verify or debunk any allegations brought forth. As far as anonymous sources and their role in investigations, far, far more often than not, the official investigators know exactly who those sources are and, if not, can almost always find ways to compel the disclosure of the source or verify the information provided by the source independent of the source. Remember, not only does the condition of "innocent until proven guilty" hold, so does the need for the investigators to find probative, substantial evidence and for the prosecutors or a Grand Jury to determine if the proof is viable and rises to the level of being prosecutable under current law. It is the duty of investigators, particularly law enforcement investigators, to follow all leads and to separate the false from the true. The assumption of innocence before proof of guilt is not, in any way, a substantive reason to delay, defer or terminate investigations into possible or probable criminal wrong doing. Do you stop or not investigate at all a burglary merely because a suspect is assumed to be innocent? What you do is conduct an investigation, determine the facts, and either exonerate or charge the suspect. Even if you charge the suspect, he is not considered guilty until either the suspect confesses (or plea deals) or the suspect is found guilty. That is what is due process. To 'exonerate' a suspect before due process is just as wrong as 'convicting' a suspect before due process. What we are seeing now is the actual process of due process...







<O>

[Rockstar]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartanntp

Justice probe looms as possible landmine for Mueller

Chris Swecker, a former FBI assistant director, said the text communications unearthed by Horowitz have handed leverage to attorneys representing current and possible future defendants in the Mueller investigation, either in possible plea negotiations or at trial.

"Two star witnesses have been created for the defense," Swecker said, referring to Strzok and Page whose communications could be introduced as evidence of an investigation biased against Trump.

[vienna]

So what? Two persons involved in the investigation were found to have exchanged emails and were immediately dealt with when they were discovered; sounds like the Special Counsel was on top of it and acted affirmatively and, until the emails became public, without fanfare or political posturing. It should be noted Mueller has, throughout the investigation process, been extremely mum about the cases, unlike Comey. The presence of two tainted staff members, since dismissed, is not an indictment of Mueller or his investigators/investigations; at the time the news broke, persons in the Trump camp who had been interviewed by or had interaction with the two individuals stated publicly they felt no overt bias or prejudice. There are is a substantially large number of people on the Special Counsel' s staff and the actions of two does not degrade the whole, particularly since they have been excised. Once again it should be pointed out, if the Trump camp actually believes this is all that serious a matter, and are not just desperately grasping at straws to avert what may be inevitable, they should put it on the table and get the GOP-backed, Trump appointed Attorney-General to exercise his powers and conduct a criminal probe. The absence of any such actions while they carp, gripe, and whine publicly either means they are exceedingly and grossly incompetent and impotent, or they realize that, under the glare of open, public scrutiny of going through appropriate legal processes (you know, that due process thing), the fact there is no great case to be made and all the sound and fury is just another distract and deflect tactic by a failing and flailing Trump presidency. Let Mueller finish his mandate and let the courts and ultimately the voters have their say...

Here's another view of the subject, with insight from people who have actually done the work and who have knowledge of the agent involved, a set of knowledge woefully lacking in the Alt-Right press and in the desperate Trump apologists:


'He was thrown to the wolves': Former FBI agents defend ousted Mueller investigator as Trump attacks 'rigged' DOJ --

http://www.businessinsider.com/peter...gation-2017-12


The characterization by Trump and his minions of a "rigged" DOJ is laughable; the AG Sessions is a Trump appointee and Trump himself has the ability to direct the AG to conduct whatever probes onto Clinton or anyone else who Trump has felt slighted by; the fact it is almost a full year into the Trump administration and, while Trump has trumpeted loudly and continuously about it, no actual charges or formal investigations have been initiated; there's only one of two reasons: either there are no viable, winnable cases to be brought, or Trump and his minions are merely loud, empty vessels without merit to their declarations - in a word, impotent...






<O>

[Rockstar]

So what, are you kidding? Since this so called investigation started accusations of bias leading to the dismissal of chief investigators are the first facts I've heard come out of this taxpayer boondoggle. Up until now its just been trolls casting shadows of doubt, presenting more questions and a multitude of what-ifs.

[vienna]

Well, it must be a "so, what?" since neither Trump or his own appointed AG have seen the need to initiate formal investigation(s) into their own allegations and accusations...

...I mean, if they don't seem to think the matter(s) are worth formal criminal investigation(s), why should we care about their bellowing?...

...simply said: "Put Up or Shut Up"...








<O>

[Rockstar]

Put up or shut up, I wish Mueller would follow that advice. Russian collusion was the reason for this investigation. So far no evidence of Russian collusion but two chief investigator have been fired for bias.

Mueller's who ran cover and saved Goodell's and the NFL's butt from a major lawsuit. Indicates to me he's not much of a stand-up guy for truth and justice. He just yes man a puppet who does what he's told. Had he any say I'm sure this tax payer boondoggle err.. I mean investigation into Russian collusion would have been over with a longtime ago. It stink, it politically motivated it has nothing to do with justice. Elections are what's most important to the puppet masters.