The Trump/Russia connection thread

[MooseMom]

What is worse?  Paying someone $130K to STFU, or lying in sworn testimony to fight a suit for significant financial damages for sexual harassment?   Trump did the former and Bill Clinton the later.  I view the latter as worse, as it was an attempt to influence the judicial process and effectively "steal" from a plaintiff rather than just preserve privacy.

But, the idea an attorney would mortgage his home and cough up $130K without the beneficiary of the hush money knowing about it stretches credibility,

But if the STFU money came from campaign funds, then there is a problem.  If you think the case against Clinton was worse, then so be it, but Clinton is not The President now.

[Michael Murphy]

Muellars charter is to investigate ANY criminal activity that he uncovered .  That’s why ken Star investigated the Monica Lewinski affair with Clinton. Demonizing the Clintons for things that happened over 20 years ago does not take away from the situation the US finds it self in today.  We have a special counsel investigating if the current Presidunce conspired with a hostile foreign power to influence a American election.  Remember Mueller is not a Democrat, he is was and probably will always be a Republican.  What he also is, is a Patriotic Law enforcement individual charged with a investigation.  As he developes more and more evidence we are regaled by more and more tweets about the unfairness and more and more finger pointing at his 2016 opponent  in attempt to deflect from the reality of what is going on.  Mueller needs to be allowed to complete his investigation since if the alligations prove true we have a Quisling as Presidunce.

[Paul]

Now, I feel the left went too far to rush in and confiscate this mans stuff at home, office and hotel.  Nothing has to do with Russia.  It has to do with Stormy Daniels funds?  $130,000 ?? It is crumbs to what most men pay.  Let's pull up what other congressmen and other presidents have paid to keep a trap shut.

Whereas I agree with you that the Stormy Daniels thing is peanuts compared to the Russian thing, that does not excuse it. "Oh he done much worse, so let him off the minor thing" is not a good policy, and it sends a message that America welcomes corrupt presidents, provided they keep it low key.

Similarly, the argument "other people done worse" is also bad policy. There were some seriously corrupt presidents in the past (going right back to that guy who kept chopping down apple trees ), you cannot simply excuse the current president because a predecessor did worse (that goes for all of them, not just Trump).

However the thing that strikes me here is how many people are offering excuses for Trump. This thread alone is full of "Obama/Clinton/Clinton did worse" type comments. The thing about excuses, is that you have to have done something wrong to need one. Those people posting for Trump keep posting excuses, so obviously accept that he did something wrong. In other words this is not a "Trump, good or bad?" thread, it is a "Trump, bad or very bad?" thread.

[Simon Dog]

There is nothing "Corrupt" about:

a) Having sex with a porn star as long as it was consensual
b) Paying her to STFU

The only thing that may be wrong here is a third party paying the hush money as a de-facto campaign donation in excess of legal limits and without the required federal reporting.

[Paul]

Simon Dog, do you get different news reports in America to the rest of the world? Because the rest of us know that, if what his critics accuse him of is correct, it is indeed a serious crime. (In this case I'm not 100% convinced that Trump is guilty, but if he is not guilty he is an idiot for not keeping tighter control.)

The crime is that the $130,000 would have put him over the electoral spending limit. This is why there is such a fuss about whether his lawyer paid it without his knowledge or with. Because if he knew it was paid, his campaign was illegal and he can be impeached or worse (jailed for electoral fraud).

[MooseMom]

There is nothing "Corrupt" about:

a) Having sex with a porn star as long as it was consensual
b) Paying her to STFU

The only thing that may be wrong here is a third party paying the hush money as a de-facto campaign donation in excess of legal limits and without the required federal reporting.

No, it is way more complicated than that.  If this is the only thing that may be wrong, a search warrant would NEVER have been issued.  While we don't know for sure what convinced the US attorney to grant permission for the search, it is fairly certain that said attorney thought there was a good chance that there was evidence of a crime committed contained in communications between Cohen and Trump, that crime being obstruction of justice/investigation at the very least.  The fact that this raid was authorized by the US Attorney also says that he didn't believe that Cohen would turn over documents via subpoena; the FBI must have some sort of evidence to suggest that Cohen has in the past refused to cooperate.

[Rerun]

Now the news is saying the FBI break in was about the 2015 Access Hollywood Tape?  WHY?
Billy Bush got the stick in the eye over that one.  It will be interesting to see what this is all about.

[Simon Dog]

Simon Dog, do you get different news reports in America to the rest of the world

...

The crime is that the $130,000 would have put him over the electoral spending limit. This is why there is such a fuss about whether his lawyer paid it without his knowledge or with. Because if he knew it was paid, his campaign was illegal and he can be impeached or worse (jailed for electoral fraud).

That crime was mentioned in the last line of my post.    Politicians trade in "plausible deniability", but it may not work this time.

[iolaire]

Trump’s allies worry Cohen’s taped conversations are now in hands of FBI
President Trump’s personal attorney Michael D. Cohen sometimes taped conversations with associates, according to three people familiar with his practice. Legal experts say the recordings “would be considered a gold mine” for prosecutors.

If Trump is such an upstanding guy why do they care if there are taped conversations?

[willowtreewren]

If Trump is such an upstanding guy why do they care if there are taped conversations?

Exactly. When one lives a life of integrity, dignity, and honesty, one doesn't have to worry about what others reveal about you. So bring it!

No matter what we do, we need to remember that "what goes around comes around."

It certainly sounds like tRump's hens are coming home to roost.

[Paul]

If Trump is such an upstanding guy why do they care if there are taped conversations?

I'm no defender of Trump (as previous posts will show) but: Come on, you never said anything to a friend that you would hate to hear replayed on the TV news? And when you are president, and hoping for a second term, even a comment like "Look at the ass on that!" can loose you the next election. Or what if he has said something derogatory about his wife, or commented on how hot his wife's sister looks? Would you really want your wife to hear recordings of your "boy's night" conversations, especially on the news?

[Michael Murphy]

All the weeping and moaning about Trumps lawyer is just not real.  The one exception for the layer client privilege is if the lawyer participated in the crimet their is no privilege.  It appears Cohen has crossed the line into possible Criminal behavior.  The justice department just announced he is the subject of a criminal investigation.  My understanding is that a judge will ex’amine all the evidence and give Mueller what involved criminal activity.  Remember just advising a client about the use of weapons during a crime is just enough to involve the lawyer in the crime.  This is beginning to look like Watergate as Nixon became more and more isolated.

[Bill Peckham]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article208870264.html


If this report is true - that Cohen traveled to Prague in late summer 2016 -  then that's our answer, right? The Trump campaign sought to conspire with the Russians to undermine the Clinton campaign. Trump took part in a conspiracy against the United States.


What's the innocent explanation Trump supporters? We are still at the stage that they are denying the trip but assume for a moment that the McClatchy reporting is accurate how will you wave this activity away?

[Simon Dog]

What's the innocent explanation Trump supporters?

No innocent explanation.

Politics is a full-contact sport and it is not how you play the game that counts, but whether you win or lose.    The currency is plausible deniability.

Trump won, and will not be personally convicted, thus proving that his strategy was the correct one, just like "pay to play" was the correct strategy for the Clinton Foundation.

[MooseMom]

Simon Dog, really now, the false equivalency needs to stop.  We are talking about the Presidency of the United States of America, the Office of the Leader of the Free World, not some politician's "foundation".

Are you sure that Trump has won?  Who decides when the game is over?  In politics, it is NEVER over.

If it's not how you play the game that counts, then why is Trump so scared of the Mueller investigation? 

Who decides what victory looks like?  If the Republicans lose the House in the mid-terms, will you still say that Trump has won?

It doesn't matter if, in the end, he is not "personally convicted" because the damage is already done.  His presidency is in tatters.  He is the laughing stock of the world.  He is admired by few and beloved by no one.  He may have won an election, but he has not won "governing".

He's even thinking about rejoining the TPP!  Oh, we're so tired of all the winning!

[Simon Dog]

Are you sure that Trump has won?

Last I checked, he got to move into public housing and Hillary had to stay at her place in NY.

If the Republicans lose the House in the mid-terms, will you still say that Trump has won?

Yes, but his party will have lost.  It's the political equivalent of "The operation was a success but the patient died".

We are talking about the Presidency of the United States of America, the Office of the Leader of the Free World, not some politician's "foundation".

That was about the US Secretary of State selling access to her office.   The political equivalent of selling access to her orifice.

[MooseMom]

Oh, Trump hates the White House; he's already said that it was a dump.  Besides, he's rarely there. 

Trump isn't a Republican, and the GOP doesn't know what it is, anymore.  Why else do you think Paul Ryan has called it a day?

In this case, the American people are "the patient".  #sad

No one cares about any of this biffle about HRC and any supposed selling access to anything.  But if she had won the election, then I guess the Republicans would try to have a go at it.  She'd probably be going through what Trump is going through now, so again, I'm not sure Trump has won much of anything.  Pyrrhic victory.

[Simon Dog]

No one cares about any of this biffle about HRC and any supposed selling access to anything.

Republicans say the same thing about the Trump/Russia thing.

People on both sides overlook what their people do and condemn the sins of the other side.

[Paul]

Are you sure that Trump has won?

If he gets through his entire term without being impeached, then he has won.

If he does this and gets a second term, then he has won BIG TIME.

However if that happens, I really will give up on the American voting public.

[Michael Murphy]

Just for the record impeachment does not remove the president from office.  The removal process is a 2 step procedure.  The first step is impeachment (This is the equivalent of a indictment in a criminal prosecution). Two presidente have Ben impeached Andrew Johnson And William Clinton.  The second step is a trial in front of the senate  with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acting as Judge and the Senate acting as the Jury.  Johnson and Clinton were found innocent at these trials so were not removed from office.

[MooseMom]

Republicans say the same thing about the Trump/Russia thing.

People on both sides overlook what their people do and condemn the sins of the other side.

This is blatantly untrue. 

[MooseMom]

Are you sure that Trump has won?

If he gets through his entire term without being impeached, then he has won.

If he does this and gets a second term, then he has won BIG TIME.

However if that happens, I really will give up on the American voting public.

I am not sure that most people in the UK pay much attention to Congressional races, so I'd encourage you to keep watch on the midterm elections in early November.

[Paul]

I am not sure that most people in the UK pay much attention to Congressional races, so I'd encourage you to keep watch on the midterm elections in early November.

It depends which news source you use. We have what it generally referred to as "the idiots press", where they use short words, short sentences, and pitch articles at people of low IQ (sadly this includes the two most read newspapers in Britain). Those papers give it little coverage. However the broadsheats, television news, and news radio give it plenty of coverage. I tend to get most of my news from a radio show called the Today program, which is a three hour (two on Saturdays) news program broadcast mornings (six to nine). That gives extensive coverage on American politics, your mid terms, etc..

[Simon Dog]

Republicans say the same thing about the Trump/Russia thing.

People on both sides overlook what their people do and condemn the sins of the other side.

This is blatantly untrue.

How would you know it is untrue?

An excellent example is the office of the Massachusetts Speaker of the House.   Three (yes, 3!!) speakers in a row, all Democrats, went to prison for felonies committed while in office.  Guess how many were indicted by the Democratic attorney general, and how many by the feds?    (I'll give you a hint ... the answer to the first part is zero)

[MooseMom]

James Comey, Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller are all Republicans, as are many Congresspeople who think the "Trump/Russia thing" is more than just a "thing".  There is now a difference between a traditional Republican and a "Trump" Republican, so to say that "Republicans say the same thing..." is a sweeping generalization and makes your statement untrue.

And it is also a sweeping and incorrect generalization that "people on both sides overlook ..."    There are many people who voted for Trump because they were sick of the "swamp" in Washington and just wanted to "shake things up".  This doesn't mean that they approve of Trump.  Far from it.  They are just as concerned about this President's policies and behavior as the rest of us.  So, they are by NO means "overlooking" what "their people" do.

There were many people who had voted for Obama but did not like Hillary Clinton because they did not "overlook" what they perceived she had done (remember, out of all of those investigations on The Hill, NOTHING came of them.  NOTHING.  All of those hours with Trey Gowdy were a stonking great waste of time, and he even admitted it.).

Here in Illinois, which is in the iron grip of the Democratic machine mainly because of Chicago, we've seen democratic governors go to jail (Blago, George Ryan, oh goodness, the list goes on), not to mentino good ol' creepy Denny Hastert, but he was a Republican.

So, THAT's how I would know that your statement is blatantly untrue.  Most of us are quite capable of critical thinking and don't fall into the chasm of partisan politics.