President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

A. People went to jail because of the land deal, and for refusing to testify about the land deal.

2. So, a legitimate investigation led far afield.

iii. No one ever complained about the Starr investigation veering so far off from the original reason for the investigation.

 

I was pretty certain that he'd finish his term and maybe win a second. I'm not so sure now.

 

A typical dick move on Trump's part — provided the loss of the House to the Dems and defeat of several friendly Senate incumbents — would be to resign on Jan. 21, 2019, which would give Mike Pence a chance to be president for 10 years minus a day.

 

You realize there’s already two guilty pleas and two indictments, right? And it’s a long way from over. Get a grip. A group of con men and criminals are in the White House. This is what you fell for. Criminals and con men usual end up getting caught because they’re a combination of arrogant and stupid.

This is not a witch hunt. This is not a hoax. It’s a legitimate investigation.

 

If all that happens, the GOP is going to be shattered for awhile. People would realize Pence was an enabler AND so unpoplar in deep red Indiana that he was likely not going to be re-elected as governor. That’s the only reason he was on the ticket.

 

Trump is NEVER resigning. He might be removed from office one way or another, and he might die on the job, but he won't resign. Too humiliating.

 

A. What did the land deal have to do with blowjobs?

2. So now you admit that there is precedent in a legitimate investigation leading far afield. That wasn't what you said before.

III. Plenty of people complained about the Starr investigation and how it cost $48 million and all he found was the president lying under oath about said blowjob.

 

Don't bother Baron. Don't bother. Not worth it. Spend your political time on positive actions. Nothing here's worth it, except the wisecracks from both sides. I like those.

 

This is simply wrong.

Mueller's specific, written mandate includes not only the directive to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated" with Trump's campaign, but also to examine "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

So, for example, in trying to determine any links between the Russian government and Trump and his campaign, it is absolutely relevant to examine whether, for instance, Trump owes significant money to and/or has laundered money for Russian oligarchs. Because most Russian oligarchs are, basically by definition, extensions of Putin who "serve" at his pleasure. So if some oligarchs, and by extension Putin, have leverage over Trump, that's exactly the kind of thing that Mueller should be investigating as part of a wider look at Russia's interference in the 2016 election – especially if they still hold such leverage over our President. And if the Russians got that leverage through criminal activity that Trump and his company may also have participated in and even facilitated, then of course it's part of Mueller's mandate to find out. That's why he's brought on prosecutors who have specialized in money laundering and other financial crimes.

For you to claim that such "financial improprieties" would be outside "it's (sic) original scope" is either 1) naive or B) partisan.

 

I started to make this point on the Bank of Scotland thread, but thought it applies to his political future as well.

If Trump leaves the economy alone, he'll probably be fine. If he did that and also dropped out of the news picture completely for 4-5 weeks, he'll come out the other end with a 47% rating.

 

My first thought was that maybe Trump didn't know how to pronounce Boehner's name. If you've always thought a guy was named "John Boner" and later, in some other context, a guy mentions a "John Bay-ner," it's not crazy for your first reaction to be, "Who?" And after that, either the other person changed the subject because he really thought Trump was that clueless; or the guy explained who he was and Trump was like, "Yeah yeah I know him," but Wolff left that part of the story out because it ruined the "gotcha."

Or it's just made-up. Who knows.

 

And this is something that has perplexed me lately. Just who has "politicized" this investigation?

The Republican (Mueller) running it? The Republican (Rosenstein) who appointed him? The (until recently) Republican (Comey) who originally led the investigation?

The Republican-led House? The Republican-led Senate? The Justice Department led by a Republican (Sessions)? The FBI led by a Republican appointee (Wray)?

Who?