So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[nereo]

Well Rand Paul says he'll vote for the measure to block Trump's "national emergency". 
Given the almost certain prez veto it's largely about being on record... but I've been wondering:
Given several high-profile legal challenges to this emergency declaration, it seems all but certain that at least one will wind up in SCOTUS.  Will SCOTUS consider the fact that both chambers tried to block the national emergency when considering whether it violates congressional authority?  Or will they just say "well you still had the power - with a 2/3 veto-proof majority"?

I guess we'll find out soon enough (read: in 6-18 months).

[talltexan]

Yes, Pres. Trump goes golfing more than Obama if you count days.

But it's about the same when you go by strokes.

I just now realized that this was not a serious comment, but rather an insult to Barrack Obama's skill at golfing.

An unfounded one, as if that matters.

Sol-
thank you for indulging my shade at Obama here. I'm grateful someone noticed.

I spent years listening to other conservatives in my office (ones who do not care about logical consistency as I do) complain about all the time Obama spent golfing. Now they seem to think golfing is one of the most important things a leader does. It's disheartening.

[nereo]

wait, is Trump actually a decent golfer?  I don't play so I have no frame of reference.

[sol]

wait, is Trump actually a decent golfer?  I don't play so I have no frame of reference.

I think he is, for a senior citizen.  He's been playing golf multiple times per week, for decades and decades now, so he should be good by now.

There have been a couple of pieces of journalism about his golf playing.  He bought several golf courses, and has used the royal treatment he gets from sycophants at his own businesses as a backdrop for business deals.  Lots of people have also reported that he tends to be a little fast and loose with the rules, especially at his own courses where everybody works for him and so nobody will object.  Sound familiar?

[RetiredAt63]

wait, is Trump actually a decent golfer?  I don't play so I have no frame of reference.

I think he is, for a senior citizen.  He's been playing golf multiple times per week, for decades and decades now, so he should be good by now.

There have been a couple of pieces of journalism about his golf playing.  He bought several golf courses, and has used the royal treatment he gets from sycophants at his own businesses as a backdrop for business deals.  Lots of people have also reported that he tends to be a little fast and loose with the rules, especially at his own courses where everybody works for him and so nobody will object.  Sound familiar?

That is actually a terrible character indictment.

Reminds me of Podkayne of Mars, where near the end the younger brother says he knew someone was bad because they cheated at solitaire. 

[Little Aussie Battler]

His swing looks decent for a 70 year old.

[marty998]

Yes, Pres. Trump goes golfing more than Obama if you count days.

But it's about the same when you go by strokes.

I just now realized that this was not a serious comment, but rather an insult to Barrack Obama's skill at golfing.

An unfounded one, as if that matters.

I thought it was a dig at Trump cheating so much.... like recording an 8 as a 3 so there are more golfing days but less strokes taken....

[talltexan]

I think the totality of my comments on this thread are anti-Trump. Saying he's a good golfer shouldn't excuse his unfortunate choices as a candidate and a President.

[Kris]

I think the totality of my comments on this thread are anti-Trump. Saying he's a good golfer shouldn't excuse his unfortunate choices as a candidate and a President.

Yeah, whether he's a good golfer really doesn't matter.

I've read from a lot of different sources that he cheats like hell. Which really doesn't come as any sort of surprise.

[nereo]

I think the totality of my comments on this thread are anti-Trump. Saying he's a good golfer shouldn't excuse his unfortunate choices as a candidate and a President.

Yeah, whether he's a good golfer really doesn't matter.

I've read from a lot of different sources that he cheats like hell. Which really doesn't come as any sort of surprise.

To be fair, Bill Clinton was well known for giving himself a mulligan or four after poor shots.

[Dancin'Dog]

I'll probably try golf one day.  When I get too old and gimpy to do much else!  The little shoes are cute though.


I shouldn't make fun of golf.  It's been good for the real estate prices around here.  Fortunately we've always been on the waterfront side of the street.  I've never felt the need to rub elbows. 


Next time I find myself praying I'll try to remember to ask for a lightening bolt for Trump on the greens.  Seriously, what could possibly be a more fitting farewell to the "Really Smart Guy". 

[talltexan]

Shouldn't a guy who commands a nuclear arsenal be allowed to take a couple of mulligans on the Links?

[nereo]

Shouldn't a guy who commands a nuclear arsenal be allowed to take a couple of mulligans on the Links?

Let me rephrase your question:  Do you want someone who controls nuclear weapons to get used to the idea of a perpetual "do over"?

[talltexan]

A hit, a very palpable hit!

[JLee]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/politics/michael-cohen-lawyer-pardon/index.html

Wall Street Journal: Cohen's lawyer discussed possible pardon with Trump lawyers

[GuitarStv]

I wonder why Trump didn't give him a pardon.

[nereo]

I wonder why Trump didn't give him a pardon.

Apparently Sessions and Graham (among others) talked him out of it, saying he'd look really bad pardoning his own personal lawyer.

Guess that backfired...

[sol]

I wonder why Trump didn't give him a pardon.

I think that the real story here is left unstated in that article:  this is another example of obstruction. 

If you go to a witness and offer him something of value (in this case, a future pardon) in exchange for his refusal to cooperate with law enforcement, that's textbook obstruction of justice.  Everyone admits that's what happened in this case, and the whitehouse is claiming it's not illegal. 

[thd7t]

I wonder why Trump didn't give him a pardon.

I think that the real story here is left unstated in that article:  this is another example of obstruction. 

If you go to a witness and offer him something of value (in this case, a future pardon) in exchange for his refusal to cooperate with law enforcement, that's textbook obstruction of justice.  Everyone admits that's what happened in this case, and the whitehouse is claiming it's not illegal.

It would be unwise for Trump to pardon anyone at this point.  After a pardon, people lose the ability to plead the fifth in testimony.  Either they would have to reveal information about him or incur new legal jeopardy.  I'm sure his lawyers have made this clear.

[GuitarStv]

I wonder why Trump didn't give him a pardon.

I think that the real story here is left unstated in that article:  this is another example of obstruction. 

If you go to a witness and offer him something of value (in this case, a future pardon) in exchange for his refusal to cooperate with law enforcement, that's textbook obstruction of justice.  Everyone admits that's what happened in this case, and the whitehouse is claiming it's not illegal.

It would be unwise for Trump to pardon anyone at this point.  After a pardon, people lose the ability to plead the fifth in testimony.  Either they would have to reveal information about him or incur new legal jeopardy.  I'm sure his lawyers have made this clear.

Yeah, but once the pardons start rolling there's no real reason to talk as another pardon can be issued just as readily.  Granted it would look bad, but this administration is not held accountable for anything they do that looks bad.  Just throw the new concern on the pile.

[Glenstache]

Apparently the guy who can't figure out how to use AOL thinks planes are now too complex... before the actual crash report has been completed.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/president-of-the-united-states-planes-are-becoming-far-too-complex-to-fly

FFS.

[GuitarStv]

Apparently the guy who can't figure out how to use AOL thinks planes are now too complex... before the actual crash report has been completed.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/president-of-the-united-states-planes-are-becoming-far-too-complex-to-fly

FFS.

Not using AOL is possibly the most likable thing about Donald Trump.  :P

[gentmach]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-s-impeachment-skepticism-draws-little-pushback-fellow-dems-n982191

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country," she said in an interview with the Washington Post published Monday. "And he's just not worth it."

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., agreed with Pelosi.

“I certainly agree that in the absence of very compelling evidence that either Mueller produces or we’re able to find, gaining the bipartisan support necessary, impeachment, to be successful, would be enormously difficult,” Schiff told reporters Monday night. “While I don’t exclude that possibility, I don’t think we should put the country through impeachment without that amount evidence.”

Many Democrats said that Pelosi has not changed her tune on impeachment, pointing out that she has not yet ruled it out.

“She said essentially what I’ve been saying. We’re not nearly there yet. We may or may not get there,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.

Impeachment seems to be off the table at the moment. Ah well.

[Glenstache]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-s-impeachment-skepticism-draws-little-pushback-fellow-dems-n982191

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country," she said in an interview with the Washington Post published Monday. "And he's just not worth it."

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., agreed with Pelosi.

“I certainly agree that in the absence of very compelling evidence that either Mueller produces or we’re able to find, gaining the bipartisan support necessary, impeachment, to be successful, would be enormously difficult,” Schiff told reporters Monday night. “While I don’t exclude that possibility, I don’t think we should put the country through impeachment without that amount evidence.”

Many Democrats said that Pelosi has not changed her tune on impeachment, pointing out that she has not yet ruled it out.

“She said essentially what I’ve been saying. We’re not nearly there yet. We may or may not get there,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.

Impeachment seems to be off the table at the moment. Ah well.

I read this as saying that until it is bipartisan, it is not going to actually result in impeachment and will simply be even more divisive. This is utterly pragmatic.

[nereo]

Here I happen to agree with Pelosi.  So long as there are 34 senators that will not support a vote to remove DJT from office (and currently there are 52 GOP senators, with ~45 solidly supporting him), starting impeachment proceedings would harm more than help the country.

As long as impeachment hasn't sucked all the air out of the room the House can continue to investigate, legislate and exercise its powers as a co-equal branch of govenment to block this WH's most egregious overreaches and set spending priorities.  They would largely lose that ability the moment impeachment moves forward, so unless there's the votes to remove in the Senate its counterproductive.

[Versatile]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-s-impeachment-skepticism-draws-little-pushback-fellow-dems-n982191

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country," she said in an interview with the Washington Post published Monday. "And he's just not worth it."

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., agreed with Pelosi.

“I certainly agree that in the absence of very compelling evidence that either Mueller produces or we’re able to find, gaining the bipartisan support necessary, impeachment, to be successful, would be enormously difficult,” Schiff told reporters Monday night. “While I don’t exclude that possibility, I don’t think we should put the country through impeachment without that amount evidence.”

Many Democrats said that Pelosi has not changed her tune on impeachment, pointing out that she has not yet ruled it out.

“She said essentially what I’ve been saying. We’re not nearly there yet. We may or may not get there,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.

Impeachment seems to be off the table at the moment. Ah well.

I read this as saying that until it is bipartisan, it is not going to actually result in impeachment and will simply be even more divisive. This is utterly pragmatic.

I have a different interpretation.

The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump committed any crimes much less an impeachable offense.

I really hope they make Mueller's findings public for all of us, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I think Pelosi and company are setting the stage for when Mueller does present his final assessment. And I think that is also why Schiff is suddenly now pushing for more investigations into Trump's private business dealings. If Mueller had solid evidence then this wouldn't be necessary.

[JLee]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-s-impeachment-skepticism-draws-little-pushback-fellow-dems-n982191

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country," she said in an interview with the Washington Post published Monday. "And he's just not worth it."

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., agreed with Pelosi.

“I certainly agree that in the absence of very compelling evidence that either Mueller produces or we’re able to find, gaining the bipartisan support necessary, impeachment, to be successful, would be enormously difficult,” Schiff told reporters Monday night. “While I don’t exclude that possibility, I don’t think we should put the country through impeachment without that amount evidence.”

Many Democrats said that Pelosi has not changed her tune on impeachment, pointing out that she has not yet ruled it out.

“She said essentially what I’ve been saying. We’re not nearly there yet. We may or may not get there,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.

Impeachment seems to be off the table at the moment. Ah well.

I read this as saying that until it is bipartisan, it is not going to actually result in impeachment and will simply be even more divisive. This is utterly pragmatic.

I have a different interpretation.

The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump committed any crimes much less an impeachable offense.

I really hope they make Mueller's findings public for all of us, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I think Pelosi and company are setting the stage for when Mueller does present his final assessment. And I think that is also why Schiff is suddenly now pushing for more investigations into Trump's private business dealings. If Mueller had solid evidence then this wouldn't be necessary.

Would this then mean that Trump was utterly clueless about everything that was going on around him?

[Versatile]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-s-impeachment-skepticism-draws-little-pushback-fellow-dems-n982191

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country," she said in an interview with the Washington Post published Monday. "And he's just not worth it."

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., agreed with Pelosi.

“I certainly agree that in the absence of very compelling evidence that either Mueller produces or we’re able to find, gaining the bipartisan support necessary, impeachment, to be successful, would be enormously difficult,” Schiff told reporters Monday night. “While I don’t exclude that possibility, I don’t think we should put the country through impeachment without that amount evidence.”

Many Democrats said that Pelosi has not changed her tune on impeachment, pointing out that she has not yet ruled it out.

“She said essentially what I’ve been saying. We’re not nearly there yet. We may or may not get there,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.

Impeachment seems to be off the table at the moment. Ah well.

I read this as saying that until it is bipartisan, it is not going to actually result in impeachment and will simply be even more divisive. This is utterly pragmatic.

I have a different interpretation.

The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump committed any crimes much less an impeachable offense.

I really hope they make Mueller's findings public for all of us, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I think Pelosi and company are setting the stage for when Mueller does present his final assessment. And I think that is also why Schiff is suddenly now pushing for more investigations into Trump's private business dealings. If Mueller had solid evidence then this wouldn't be necessary.

Would this then mean that Trump was utterly clueless about everything that was going on around him?

You'll have to be more specific. Do you have an example?

[sherr]

The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump committed any crimes much less an impeachable offense.

Except for his kids meeting with Russian agents to discuss dirt on Hillary and his campaign manager giving internal polling data to the Russians so that they can more effectively target their misinformation campaigns? And that's just what we know about currently.

Oh you mean Trump himself, that we can prove? How about asking Russia to hack the DNC to find "Hillary's missing emails" on TV?

Then you add in his obvious pattern of behavior or kowtowing to Putin at every opportunity and refusing to implement the sanctions that Congress places on Russian companies or people and the bizarre Helsinki joint speech where Trump essentially said "I asked him about interference and he says he didn't do it and I believe him over our all our own intelligence agencies" and on and on and on.

Come on.

[thd7t]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-s-impeachment-skepticism-draws-little-pushback-fellow-dems-n982191

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country," she said in an interview with the Washington Post published Monday. "And he's just not worth it."

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., agreed with Pelosi.

“I certainly agree that in the absence of very compelling evidence that either Mueller produces or we’re able to find, gaining the bipartisan support necessary, impeachment, to be successful, would be enormously difficult,” Schiff told reporters Monday night. “While I don’t exclude that possibility, I don’t think we should put the country through impeachment without that amount evidence.”

Many Democrats said that Pelosi has not changed her tune on impeachment, pointing out that she has not yet ruled it out.

“She said essentially what I’ve been saying. We’re not nearly there yet. We may or may not get there,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.

Impeachment seems to be off the table at the moment. Ah well.

I read this as saying that until it is bipartisan, it is not going to actually result in impeachment and will simply be even more divisive. This is utterly pragmatic.

I have a different interpretation.

The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump committed any crimes much less an impeachable offense.

I really hope they make Mueller's findings public for all of us, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I think Pelosi and company are setting the stage for when Mueller does present his final assessment. And I think that is also why Schiff is suddenly now pushing for more investigations into Trump's private business dealings. If Mueller had solid evidence then this wouldn't be necessary.

Would this then mean that Trump was utterly clueless about everything that was going on around him?

You'll have to be more specific. Do you have an example?

During his campaign, he hired a (now convicted) criminal to run the campaign, his deputy campaign manager was actively involved in a criminal conspiracy (now plead guilty), his top foreign policy advisor (and first Sec. Def.) was an unregistered foreign agent and lied to the FBI about contacts with Russia (now plead guilty), another campaign aide pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about contacts with Russia.  He alleges that he didn't know about meetings taken by his campaign with representatives of foreign governments.  He had his personal lawyer appointed deputy finance chair of the RNC.  The same lawyer pursued Trump's business interests in Russia throughout the campaign.

That's a lot that was going on around him.  All of the aforementioned worked for his campaign and some worked directly for him.  The assumption that he was unaware of all of this would be ridiculous, even if Trump had not admitted (after some of these were made public) that he was aware of several parts of it.  These were some of his top people.

[sherr]

The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump committed any crimes much less an impeachable offense.

Except for his kids meeting with Russian agents to discuss dirt on Hillary and his campaign manager giving internal polling data to the Russians so that they can more effectively target their misinformation campaigns? And that's just what we know about currently.

Oh you mean Trump himself, that we can prove? How about asking Russia to hack the DNC to find "Hillary's missing emails" on TV?

Then you add in his obvious pattern of behavior or kowtowing to Putin at every opportunity and refusing to implement the sanctions that Congress places on Russian companies or people and the bizarre Helsinki joint speech where Trump essentially said "I asked him about interference and he says he didn't do it and I believe him over our all our own intelligence agencies" and on and on and on.

Come on.

This is a relevant and worthwhile article @Versatile, I suggest you read it.

No, there hasn't been any video proof of Trump saying "I colluded with Russia to win the election." But there has been a ton of evidence, and any naked and unsupported claim to the contrary is pretty ridiculous. Especially considering that the Mueller investigation hasn't, you know, finished yet.

[JLee]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-s-impeachment-skepticism-draws-little-pushback-fellow-dems-n982191

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country," she said in an interview with the Washington Post published Monday. "And he's just not worth it."

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., agreed with Pelosi.

“I certainly agree that in the absence of very compelling evidence that either Mueller produces or we’re able to find, gaining the bipartisan support necessary, impeachment, to be successful, would be enormously difficult,” Schiff told reporters Monday night. “While I don’t exclude that possibility, I don’t think we should put the country through impeachment without that amount evidence.”

Many Democrats said that Pelosi has not changed her tune on impeachment, pointing out that she has not yet ruled it out.

“She said essentially what I’ve been saying. We’re not nearly there yet. We may or may not get there,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.

Impeachment seems to be off the table at the moment. Ah well.

I read this as saying that until it is bipartisan, it is not going to actually result in impeachment and will simply be even more divisive. This is utterly pragmatic.

I have a different interpretation.

The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump committed any crimes much less an impeachable offense.

I really hope they make Mueller's findings public for all of us, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I think Pelosi and company are setting the stage for when Mueller does present his final assessment. And I think that is also why Schiff is suddenly now pushing for more investigations into Trump's private business dealings. If Mueller had solid evidence then this wouldn't be necessary.

Would this then mean that Trump was utterly clueless about everything that was going on around him?

You'll have to be more specific. Do you have an example?

1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, was arrested in July 2017 and pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. He got a 14-day sentence.

2) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted on a total of 25 different counts by Mueller’s team, related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances. He had two trials scheduled, and the first ended in a conviction on eight counts of financial crimes. To avert the second trial, Manafort struck a plea deal with Mueller in September 2018 (though Mueller’s team said in November that he breached that agreement by lying to them).

3) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But in February 2018 he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.

4) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI.

5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.

21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months of home detention in October 2018.

22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and has completed his sentence.

23) Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who’s currently based in Russia, was charged alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort’s pending case last year.

24-35) 12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia’s military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails in 2016.

36) Michael Cohen: In August 2018, Trump’s former lawyer pleaded guilty to 8 counts — tax and bank charges, related to his finances and taxi business, and campaign finance violations — related to hush money payments to women who alleged affairs with Donald Trump, as part of a separate investigation in New York (that Mueller had handed off). But in November, he made a plea deal with Mueller too, for lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

37) Roger Stone: In January 2019, Mueller indicted longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone on 7 counts. He accused Stone of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to get in touch with WikiLeaks during the campaign, and tampering with a witness who could have debunked his story.

source

[GuitarStv]

Yeah, but isn't it also possible that Trump is so extraordinarily and massively incompetent (as well as self absorbed) that he simply missed all of that stuff?  Being an idiot, he hired all of these people, and being a stupid he simply failed to realize what they were doing.  Maybe that's what Versatile is arguing . . .

[JLee]

Yeah, but isn't it also possible that Trump is so extraordinarily and massively incompetent (as well as self absorbed) that he simply missed all of that stuff?  Being an idiot, he hired all of these people, and being a stupid he simply failed to realize what they were doing.  Maybe that's what Versatile is arguing . . .

Would this then mean that Trump was utterly clueless about everything that was going on around him?

;)

[nereo]

Much like the word "collusion", what is an impeachable offense is largely ambiguous.  There is no legal statute for 'collusion' (only 'conspiracy'). 

As for an impeachable offense, the constitution defines it as "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".  Short a conviction on treason or bribery (and many legal scholars will say that a sitting president cannot be indicted, only impeached) then the people who get to decide whether or not a particular action or series of actions warrants impeachment are the legislature.  In a kind of circular logic, a crime is only impeachable after a president gets impeached for doing it.

So supporters of DJT can shout "no collusion" and "none of it is impeachable" and technically be correct - unless the House votes to impeach. Nothing Nixon did was impeachable because he left office.  Now with Pelosi's statement and 2020 just around the bend it seems likely that nothing DJT has done will be impeachable either.

[Versatile]

Yeah, but isn't it also possible that Trump is so extraordinarily and massively incompetent (as well as self absorbed) that he simply missed all of that stuff?  Being an idiot, he hired all of these people, and being a stupid he simply failed to realize what they were doing.  Maybe that's what Versatile is arguing . . .

I'll let you know what I am arguing or better yet explaining tomorrow. Keep in mind I want to answer your guys questions as best I can but I fear that the mods are going ban me or put up walls to prevent me from doing so. But I will continue to be respectful and answer as truthfully as I can.

[gentmach]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-s-impeachment-skepticism-draws-little-pushback-fellow-dems-n982191

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country," she said in an interview with the Washington Post published Monday. "And he's just not worth it."

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., agreed with Pelosi.

“I certainly agree that in the absence of very compelling evidence that either Mueller produces or we’re able to find, gaining the bipartisan support necessary, impeachment, to be successful, would be enormously difficult,” Schiff told reporters Monday night. “While I don’t exclude that possibility, I don’t think we should put the country through impeachment without that amount evidence.”

Many Democrats said that Pelosi has not changed her tune on impeachment, pointing out that she has not yet ruled it out.

“She said essentially what I’ve been saying. We’re not nearly there yet. We may or may not get there,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.

Impeachment seems to be off the table at the moment. Ah well.

I read this as saying that until it is bipartisan, it is not going to actually result in impeachment and will simply be even more divisive. This is utterly pragmatic.

I have a different interpretation.

The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump committed any crimes much less an impeachable offense.

I really hope they make Mueller's findings public for all of us, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I think Pelosi and company are setting the stage for when Mueller does present his final assessment. And I think that is also why Schiff is suddenly now pushing for more investigations into Trump's private business dealings. If Mueller had solid evidence then this wouldn't be necessary.

Would this then mean that Trump was utterly clueless about everything that was going on around him?

You'll have to be more specific. Do you have an example?

1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, was arrested in July 2017 and pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. He got a 14-day sentence.

2) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted on a total of 25 different counts by Mueller’s team, related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances. He had two trials scheduled, and the first ended in a conviction on eight counts of financial crimes. To avert the second trial, Manafort struck a plea deal with Mueller in September 2018 (though Mueller’s team said in November that he breached that agreement by lying to them).

3) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But in February 2018 he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.

4) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI.

5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.

21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months of home detention in October 2018.

22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and has completed his sentence.

23) Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who’s currently based in Russia, was charged alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort’s pending case last year.

24-35) 12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia’s military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails in 2016.

36) Michael Cohen: In August 2018, Trump’s former lawyer pleaded guilty to 8 counts — tax and bank charges, related to his finances and taxi business, and campaign finance violations — related to hush money payments to women who alleged affairs with Donald Trump, as part of a separate investigation in New York (that Mueller had handed off). But in November, he made a plea deal with Mueller too, for lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

37) Roger Stone: In January 2019, Mueller indicted longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone on 7 counts. He accused Stone of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to get in touch with WikiLeaks during the campaign, and tampering with a witness who could have debunked his story.

source

We had a thread going over this. It seems to have lost steam after the Cohen testimony. Cohen seemingly making Trump look incompetent and over his head.

Personally the nail in the coffin was when Democrats gave Trump the FISA act without amending it so the FBI  would be required to obtain a warrant to search the gathered intelligence. Giving a traitorous potential dictator the capability to comb through people's electronic communications seems like a very, very bad idea, but it made sense to enough people to take the risk.

[GuitarStv]

Yeah, but isn't it also possible that Trump is so extraordinarily and massively incompetent (as well as self absorbed) that he simply missed all of that stuff?  Being an idiot, he hired all of these people, and being a stupid he simply failed to realize what they were doing.  Maybe that's what Versatile is arguing . . .

I'll let you know what I am arguing or better yet explaining tomorrow. Keep in mind I want to answer your guys questions as best I can but I fear that the mods are going ban me or put up walls to prevent me from doing so. But I will continue to be respectful and answer as truthfully as I can.

I have it on good authority (the best really) that any walls moderators erect on this forum will be paid for by Mexico.

[tralfamadorian]

Trump is proposing eliminating the PSLF in his latest budget.

[talltexan]

@Versatile, I hope you'll give some consideration to the ideas here. I feel like there's a very high bar for you to believe that these investigations into Trump are anything other than a witch hunt. I, too, have often wondered why I dismissed books by obvious political hacks like Clinton Cash and The Amateur so readily.

While I don't exactly know your background, my guess is that you believe that the media are only ganging up on Trump now that he's threatening them with real political power. When he was merely rich and famous, they loved him. Perhaps you're jaded by political correctness and feel like a lot of glue that held society together has melted in the face of Chinese imports. I'd encourage you to go into more detail about why you're so skeptical of the Mueller investigation.

[GuitarStv]

Trump is proposing eliminating the PSLF in his latest budget.

Makes sense.

Everyone's dad pays for schooling.  And then when you can't cut it, your dad just makes multi-million dollar contributions to the school until your failures go away magically, right?

[sol]

Makes sense.

Everyone's dad pays for schooling.  And then when you can't cut it, your dad just makes multi-million dollar contributions to the school until your failures go away magically, right?

Does the current college admissions scandal also lead back to Trump?  You know, like every other scandal in the country seems to these days?

Like how the Patriot's team owner was caught patronizing a handjob parlor, and everyone was like "oooh, dirty sex scandal in the NFL!"  And then it turns out that the person who owned the chain of handjob parlors was actually running a sex slavery ring and was close enough friends with Donald Trump that she was literally selling access to the Trump family to Chinese investors?  That's another case where a seemingly unrelated case of morally reprehensible illegal activity ties back to the Trumps in a seemingly inevitable circle-jerk of corruption and graft, with spokes all connected to DJT.

Maybe this college cheating/bribery scam also ties back to Trump?  Did his parent's buy his way into college?  Did he buy his own children's way into college?  Did he personally start the current scandal-ridden process by opening negotiations with colleges to circumvent their admission policies?  These days, every time a new scandal hits the news cycle I just sort of automatically assume the Trumps are involved somehow even if it's not immediately obvious how.

[Cool Friend]

Makes sense.

Everyone's dad pays for schooling.  And then when you can't cut it, your dad just makes multi-million dollar contributions to the school until your failures go away magically, right?

Does the current college admissions scandal also lead back to Trump?  You know, like every other scandal in the country seems to these days?

Like how the Patriot's team owner was caught patronizing a handjob parlor, and everyone was like "oooh, dirty sex scandal in the NFL!"  And then it turns out that the person who owned the chain of handjob parlors was actually running a sex slavery ring and was close enough friends with Donald Trump that she was literally selling access to the Trump family to Chinese investors?  That's another case where a seemingly unrelated case of morally reprehensible illegal activity ties back to the Trumps in a seemingly inevitable circle-jerk of corruption and graft, with spokes all connected to DJT.

Maybe this college cheating/bribery scam also ties back to Trump?  Did his parent's buy his way into college?  Did he buy his own children's way into college?  Did he personally start the current scandal-ridden process by opening negotiations with colleges to circumvent their admission policies?  These days, every time a new scandal hits the news cycle I just sort of automatically assume the Trumps are involved somehow even if it's not immediately obvious how.

Well, if Cohen's recent testimony is to be believed, Trump ordered him to threaten the schools he attended in order to cover up his records.  So he would definitely have something to hide where his education is concerned.

[JLee]

Makes sense.

Everyone's dad pays for schooling.  And then when you can't cut it, your dad just makes multi-million dollar contributions to the school until your failures go away magically, right?

Does the current college admissions scandal also lead back to Trump?  You know, like every other scandal in the country seems to these days?

Like how the Patriot's team owner was caught patronizing a handjob parlor, and everyone was like "oooh, dirty sex scandal in the NFL!"  And then it turns out that the person who owned the chain of handjob parlors was actually running a sex slavery ring and was close enough friends with Donald Trump that she was literally selling access to the Trump family to Chinese investors?  That's another case where a seemingly unrelated case of morally reprehensible illegal activity ties back to the Trumps in a seemingly inevitable circle-jerk of corruption and graft, with spokes all connected to DJT.

Maybe this college cheating/bribery scam also ties back to Trump?  Did his parent's buy his way into college?  Did he buy his own children's way into college?  Did he personally start the current scandal-ridden process by opening negotiations with colleges to circumvent their admission policies?  These days, every time a new scandal hits the news cycle I just sort of automatically assume the Trumps are involved somehow even if it's not immediately obvious how.

https://www.thedp.com/article/2016/11/trumps-history-of-donating-to-penn

This string of donations Trump may have made in the late nineties roughly coincides with his children’s enrollment at Penn. Donald J. Trump Jr. began classes at Penn in 1996 and Ivanka Trump in 2000.

and: https://theweek.com/speedreads/828809/donald-trump-jr-tried-mock-hollywood-college-admissions-bribery-scandal-didnt-well

[Davnasty]

@Versatile, I hope you'll give some consideration to the ideas here. I feel like there's a very high bar for you to believe that these investigations into Trump are anything other than a witch hunt. I, too, have often wondered why I dismissed books by obvious political hacks like Clinton Cash and The Amateur so readily.

While I don't exactly know your background, my guess is that you believe that the media are only ganging up on Trump now that he's threatening them with real political power. When he was merely rich and famous, they loved him. Perhaps you're jaded by political correctness and feel like a lot of glue that held society together has melted in the face of Chinese imports. I'd encourage you to go into more detail about why you're so skeptical of the Mueller investigation.

Doesn't look like Versatile will be responding on account of the new 100 post policy to participate in "Off Topic"

[JLee]

@Versatile, I hope you'll give some consideration to the ideas here. I feel like there's a very high bar for you to believe that these investigations into Trump are anything other than a witch hunt. I, too, have often wondered why I dismissed books by obvious political hacks like Clinton Cash and The Amateur so readily.

While I don't exactly know your background, my guess is that you believe that the media are only ganging up on Trump now that he's threatening them with real political power. When he was merely rich and famous, they loved him. Perhaps you're jaded by political correctness and feel like a lot of glue that held society together has melted in the face of Chinese imports. I'd encourage you to go into more detail about why you're so skeptical of the Mueller investigation.

Doesn't look like Versatile will be responding on account of the new 100 post policy to participate in "Off Topic"

They're at 101 posts now, could be back at any moment!

[Davnasty]

@Versatile, I hope you'll give some consideration to the ideas here. I feel like there's a very high bar for you to believe that these investigations into Trump are anything other than a witch hunt. I, too, have often wondered why I dismissed books by obvious political hacks like Clinton Cash and The Amateur so readily.

While I don't exactly know your background, my guess is that you believe that the media are only ganging up on Trump now that he's threatening them with real political power. When he was merely rich and famous, they loved him. Perhaps you're jaded by political correctness and feel like a lot of glue that held society together has melted in the face of Chinese imports. I'd encourage you to go into more detail about why you're so skeptical of the Mueller investigation.

Doesn't look like Versatile will be responding on account of the new 100 post policy to participate in "Off Topic"

They're at 101 posts now, could be back at any moment!

The requirement is for 100 posts in threads that are not "off topic". Since Versatile was posting in off topic before the rule was implemented, most (all?) of their posts are in the off topic section. Not sure how closely or strictly mods will look at that, but I for one don't mind if Versatile wants to participate in this thread. I think they've shown they're not here just to stir things up and gave a decent explanation for reading but not participating in other threads - already financially independent.

[JLee]

@Versatile, I hope you'll give some consideration to the ideas here. I feel like there's a very high bar for you to believe that these investigations into Trump are anything other than a witch hunt. I, too, have often wondered why I dismissed books by obvious political hacks like Clinton Cash and The Amateur so readily.

While I don't exactly know your background, my guess is that you believe that the media are only ganging up on Trump now that he's threatening them with real political power. When he was merely rich and famous, they loved him. Perhaps you're jaded by political correctness and feel like a lot of glue that held society together has melted in the face of Chinese imports. I'd encourage you to go into more detail about why you're so skeptical of the Mueller investigation.

Doesn't look like Versatile will be responding on account of the new 100 post policy to participate in "Off Topic"

They're at 101 posts now, could be back at any moment!

The requirement is for 100 posts in threads that are not "off topic". Since Versatile was posting in off topic before the rule was implemented, most (all?) of their posts are in the off topic section. Not sure how closely or strictly mods will look at that, but I for one don't mind if Versatile wants to participate in this thread. I think they've shown they're not here just to stir things up and gave a decent explanation for reading but not participating in other threads - already financially independent.

Ahh, interesting. Probably for the best...I've always been suspicious of people who have shown up in the past arguing specific political viewpoints here while having nearly zero contribution or history for the rest of the forum.

[OtherJen]

Makes sense.

Everyone's dad pays for schooling.  And then when you can't cut it, your dad just makes multi-million dollar contributions to the school until your failures go away magically, right?

Does the current college admissions scandal also lead back to Trump?  You know, like every other scandal in the country seems to these days?

Like how the Patriot's team owner was caught patronizing a handjob parlor, and everyone was like "oooh, dirty sex scandal in the NFL!"  And then it turns out that the person who owned the chain of handjob parlors was actually running a sex slavery ring and was close enough friends with Donald Trump that she was literally selling access to the Trump family to Chinese investors?  That's another case where a seemingly unrelated case of morally reprehensible illegal activity ties back to the Trumps in a seemingly inevitable circle-jerk of corruption and graft, with spokes all connected to DJT.

Maybe this college cheating/bribery scam also ties back to Trump?  Did his parent's buy his way into college?  Did he buy his own children's way into college?  Did he personally start the current scandal-ridden process by opening negotiations with colleges to circumvent their admission policies?  These days, every time a new scandal hits the news cycle I just sort of automatically assume the Trumps are involved somehow even if it's not immediately obvious how.

Well, if Cohen's recent testimony is to be believed, Trump ordered him to threaten the schools he attended in order to cover up his records.  So he would definitely have something to hide where his education is concerned.

Fordham University confirmed that it received such a letter in 2015. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fordham-university-confirms-cohen-warned-it-not-to-disclose-trumps-grades

Wasn’t Trump clamoring for Obama’s school transcripts during the birther bullshit? Oh, the irony.

[Versatile]

All:

Some of you want to discuss the Mueller investigation which I'll be happy to discuss with you but first let me clear the air because some of you are speculating.

I am not a Republican, or a Democrat. I have voted both party's in past presidential elections. I am an Independent through and through and I try to sift through all of the noise to come to logical conclusions. I am not a Trump fanboy, as he has many, many faults, but I don't hate him either as he has done some good. And let's be honest here, the Democrats gave this country a horrible choice in 2016. What fascinates me are the incredible over-reactions of his haters, it's a little bit scary to be honest.

I entered these forums because of how I perceived unfairness toward anyone that didn't tow the line as far as hating Trump. Look at this thread alone, there are over 5,000 responses in which 99.9% are negative towards Trump. And there are other threads with similar ratios.

But that is not what truly bothers me, it's the fair amount of you that treat others with contempt and open hostility because they believe differently than you. Some of you have made blanket statements that ALL Trump supporters (tens of millions) are racist, monsters, dumbasses, etc. This is a very unhealthy relationship to have with your countrymen or anybody for that matter and as MMM adherents, I would think that some of you would have to know that these statements of contempt are extremely damaging for future membership in the club. Surely the mods understand this? If the goal is inclusivity regardless of political party than why do some of you have carte-blanche to say virtually anything if you hate Trump? I can show you multiple examples if you want proof.

Alright, off my soapbox, but I do want to say if the mods ban me, which is likely unless they face-punch themselves, and I disappear that will have been the reason. I am not afraid to tackle difficult subjects with respect and reason, and my goal is to get everyone to understand why someone would think differently than you. More than likely, it's not because they are evil.