While there is some commentary on whether or not an innocent person would react in the way that trump has reacted, that is not the thrust of the argument. (Though I do think, IMHO, that his actions show a desperation to avoid consequence that the innocent do not usually display.)
That is that trump may have acted illegally in covering up activities that may or may not have been illegal.
And the defense of that, of ‘he doesn’t know any better than to obstruct justice*’[sup]1[/sup] is what is being discussed.
*his actions did certainly obstruct justice, if nothing else, the chaos of an unplanned director transition will inevitably mean that some cases fall behind or get dropped. Whether it raises to the level of criminal behavior is a different question.
[sup]1[/sup] I use " ’ " quotes, as no one has actually said those words, but that is how I see it summed up.
The context here is not what you consider “the thrust of the argument”. I brought up this particular argument in post #839, and it was in response to the two posts which preceded it. Both of these were addressing what you term “some commentary” and that’s what I was responding to.
They’re looking at money laundering and obstruction before we ever get into the increasingly likely issue of collusion.
The investigations are happening, and won’t be stopped until completed, and you seem to be going all in on the unlikely idea, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Trump has spent the last four decades being an honest businessman.
I hope so. And while I do think Trump is guilty of obstruction and probably financial crimes, the investigation may come to a different result. As we all know, investigation <> guilt. Just ask the Clintons.
Absolutely agree. But if I’m putting my chips on the table, I sure as hell wouldn’t want to have to take the Trump side of the question of whether his finances have been on the up and up.
When thinking about the “true” level of Its support, I recall that “Bernie BedHair town hall meeting with Trump supporters and the pencil necked weenie from MSNBC”.
A consistent theme seemed to arise where…what, maybe half? Forty percent? Dunno…of the Trumpick participantz laid out that they wanted to throw a protest bomb, shake things up. And, most surprisingly, thinking that he wouldn’t do the ridiculous shit he claimed he was going to do, because the sane Republicans and Dems would stop him. So, they can throw a bomb that wouldn’t actually wreck shit.
Makes sense, sorta kinda. I can relate to that sort of thinking, maybe because I come from people who marry their cousins. Question is, is that “support”? The other primary group didn’t have those kind of reservations, so calling them solid supporters is valid.
Now, let us stipulate that this is even less than a snapshot. But I think it throw some light on the question of counting supporters and measuring support. Like most all of the really interesting questions, it doesn’t seem to have any one answer.
The answer depends on how committed those particular ‘let’s shake things up’ individuals are to avoiding the knowledge that they made a mistake.
Unfortunately, many humans are quite deeply committed to avoiding the knowledge that they’ve made a mistake (and from this, of course, comes our species’ impressive talent at rationalizing).
Investigate what - financial crimes? Washington Post has reported Special Counsel is investigating financial crimes of Trump associates and New York Times is reporting money laundering specifically and it was tied to Russia (for his associates; neither article indicated Trump himself being investigated for such). Can’t swear that’s accurate - hasn’t been officially confirmed, but they are reputable newspapers, even if they are wrong sometimes.
*"Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller is investigating the finances and business dealings of Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, as part of the probe into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, according to officials familiar with the matter.
FBI agents and federal prosecutors have also been examining the financial dealings of other Trump associates, including former national security adviser Michael Flynn, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Carter Page, who was listed as a foreign policy adviser for the campaign."*
Yes, indeed, follow the money! What a splendid idea! Who’s got the popcorn?
Show him the instruments of torture that await him, the battalions of beady eyed and voracious accountants, keening to open his books, all of them, everything…
Then, the deal. Resign, and we’ll let you keep some. Bail out now, hit the silk, or we’ll take every dime you got, every dime your kids got, every dime you had or ever dreamed of having…or you can bail.
The next sound you will hear will be… “Geronimo!”.
donnies administration is a big honeypot for corrupt scumbags. They all are dirty and became part of this under the conviction that donald would lose and it would be operation normal in a few months. No questions to answer. Now that he’s won this is looking like a giant sting operation that just lured them out in the open.
I don’t like Pence. I’ve heard some concerning things on Pence (what did he know about Flynn?). But this just doesn’t work for me - innocent people most definitely need lawyers too.
