Idi Amin went to Saudi Arabia. I believe tanTrump has been preparing the ground there from his first official visit abroad as a president.
This is what I think, too.
I would like to see him there, locked into an apartment of one of the Crown Princes. People can come to the apartment and pay a fee to look at him through one way glass.
Reagan’s reputation survived a deposition with over 100 I don’t remembers. Trump knows his way around a deposition and will just pretend any malfeasance was the work of underlings.
Make sure the floor is really squeaky outside Trumps room.
Yes, his support among those who already worship him as some sort of demi-entity will not change. And those who support him to attract the votes of his political following will handwave anything away.
But if he throws his underlings under a bus (and this is already pretty high in the Trump Org) will have zero reason NOT to testify against him. It’s not going to get any worse for them at that point. He’d be better off, as mentioned upthread, of showing up and stating that he’s pleading the 5th to literally everything and leave.
If he does that and later says in public that he did not do it because there was anything he might say that could incriminate him (ie just a big FU to the AG), can a judge hold him in contempt?
I assume he’ll say something along the lines that he did nothing wrong, after all, everything he does is ‘perfect’ but refuses to give his enemies (anyone not a sycophant) anything to take out of of context to use against him.
And I don’t see how a judge could hold him in contempt for that. Even if he is, literally, contemptuous of everyone and everything that doesn’t serve him and his whims.
But if he says under oath; “On the advice of counsel, I invoke my fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination and decline to answer your question …” and then says that there was nothing he could have said that would incriminate him, isn’t that contempt? I’m probably grasping at straws…
Your probably right, but then again Trump is the walking embodiment of the frog and the scorpion parable. Throwing his subordinates under the bus isn’t some he does as a strategy, it’s something he does as a reflex.
Pardon the snip. He doesn’t have to be clear - he can stick to the language used to date. Everything he does is ‘perfect’, but that doesn’t mean that people can’t try to use it against him. And he would be correct, for all the wrong reasons. It’s not that people are making up stuff to use against him, they just want to use his almost certain criminal actions to date against him. And yes, they’d use anything he said against him.
Just because he’s paranoid doesn’t mean we aren’t out to get him!
Oh, agreed 100%. As has been said, pretty much everywhere of note, loyalty is a one way street for Trump. But slowly, he’s running out of people who he can deflect too, and sooner or later, one who retains enough actual evidence is going to get tossed and decide to drag him down with them. May it be soon.
Thing is, that already happened with Michael Cohen, who is as knowledgeable about Trump’s malfeasance as anyone, and it hasn’t seemed to make a difference. The mobster’s method of giving direction through deniable implication has served Trump very, very well.
Heh. Quoth the judge, “To proclaim that that Mazars’ red-flag warning that the Trump financial statements are unreliable suddenly renders the OAG’s longstanding investigation moot is as audacious as it is preposterous.”
Which is why I specified ‘enough actual evidence’. Likely none of the big things we suspect will ever be provable, but just like a mobster, if you show 100 examples of where he said he needed ‘X’ done, and it was ‘Y’ criminal action that occurred, you can generally get a jury to agree that X = Y.
But yeah, it’ll take a lot of evidence, and that’s why I’m hoping the CFO or someone similar will cave and show evidence of Trump’s actual culpability. Plus, Trump dodged quite a lot while he had the presidency and the shields it provided to add in to his usual slow-roll and dodge tactics. Having lost them, it’s not going to go fast, but I think we’ll see things pick up.
Federal fallout has begun:
House committee asks government to end Trump hotel lease before Trump can sell it for $370 million
How the hell do you sell a lease?
I’m surprised at how few people picked up on the “election hacking” story that Cohen described in his book.
OK, it was more of an on-line poll than an election. A news channel, CNBC, maybe….I don’t remember which one, ran an online poll asking readers to pick the most influential businessman in the US, or something.
First, Trump asked all his employees to vote for him repeatedly, but that didn’t move the needle. So they hired an IT person to hack the poll so Trump won.
Someone at CNBC figured out something was up, and pulled Trumps name from the polls. Then Trump basically stiffed the IT guy, although the guy got a small percentage of the fee he’d been promised, in cash, delivered in a brown paper bag. It probably came out of Cohen’s pocket.
Legitimate businessman, my ass.
I found some of the story here, although I’ve added details from the book that didn’t appear in online summaries of the incident.
But they have a social club!
Thanks Ann_Hedonia! I haven’t read any of the books coming out of the Trump presidency, I just couldn’t take the damage to my blood pressure. Just reading the 'Dope, CNN, BBC and NPR is enough to have the ‘no news after 8pm’ rule in effect - or I would lie in bed steaming for hours.
I suspect a ton more ‘no one should do this stuff but is it actionable?’ is flying under the radar for His Orangeness, which is why I want someone up top to find himself under the bus (ideally, for maximum schadenfreude, one of the spawn) and drag the CFSG into the swamp of his own making - just with enough documentation to make it stick.
If you sell a property that is being leased, you are effectively selling the lease to someone else. If you own a rental property with a tenant, and you sell that property to someone else, they not only get your property, but they also get the income from the tenant.
Once upon a time I was looking to open up a store with a couple of buddies. One of the properties we looked at was an old coffee house that was for sale. It had attached storage that was being rented out by someone who had used it for years. The fact that a rental was in place was extremely attractive to us, because that represented immediate income that would offset some of the costs in starting our business. (Ultimately, we didn’t have enough collateral to offer to qualify for a small business loan, so never started the business, let alone bought any property.)
I presume that part of the reason why the hotel is being sold for the amount it is going for, is because it has the lease attached. I wouldn’t be surprised if the sale were to be called off if the lease was terminated.
Consider this scenario… Trump sells the hotel, the investigation subsequently finds that the lease had been violated while Trump was still the owner of the property, and as a result the lease is canceled. The new owner suffers for something Trump did. It absolutely makes sense to terminate the lease before Trump can basically take his money and run.