You seem to be operating under the assumption I’m a fan of our current President. You could not be more wrong. There is little in this world that would delight me more than seeing DJT caught red-handed, up to his neck in this shit show and removed from office. But I doubt anything like this will happen.
If you would like to direct me to an article or something that demonstrates he is a detail oriented person who is deeply involved in the specific tasks needed to accomplish what he wants I would gladly read it. DJT, like any successful mafioso, knows to keep himself insulated from any criminal act that can be directly traced back to him.
Impeachment won’t happen, nor will resignation. The best I/we can hope for is that once he is out of office he will be convicted for a variety of financial crimes at the state level and die penniless. Hopefully in state prison.
Even if, himself is untouchable due to the office he holds, those around him, and his businesses are not.
He doesn’t have to resign or be impeached to have everything in the world taken away from him. His businesses dissolved, his friends and most of his family (I think Baron is mostly innocent at this point) in jail, and the US Marshals camping out on the white house lawn with a pair of handcuffs on January 20th 2020.
Kolak, I’m familiar with your posts and am aware you’re not a Trump supporter. I have an immense amount of anger about our current state of affairs, and sometimes (often?) it bleeds through in my posts. I am frustrated that people seem unable to recognize the true sociopath who occupies the Oval. You said you highly doubt Trump had knowledge of what the Russians were/are doing, when so many of his observable actions demonstrate the exact opposite:
[ul]
[li]“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails…”;[/li]
[li]Refusing to sit for an interview with Mueller;[/li]
[li]Disparaging the Mueller investigation at every opportunity;[/li]
[li]Refusing to criticize Putin, ever;[/li]
[li]As I pointed out before, taking matters into his own hands to craft the explanation for the Trump Tower meeting;[/li]
[li]The selection of the only Supreme Court nominee who has publicly declared the president is above the law, cannot be investigated, can fire a special counsel and cannot be prosecuted;[/li]
[li]Constantly trying to find ways to fire anyone in law enforcement who may bring charges against him;[/li]
[li]Not-so-surreptitiously offering pardons to those who can tie him to knowledge of the Russian attack in exchange for their silence;[/li]
[li]Ignores the overwhelming evidence of (successful) Russian subversion of an American election and refuses to take any steps to prevent such subversion in the future.[/li][/ul]
I could go on and on.
Let’s take the last point for a moment. If Trump was an unwitting co-conspirator as you believe, do you think his behavior is consistent with someone who only just learned he was badly used by the Russians in the 2016 election? Wouldn’t such a man be eager to make it clear that he had no idea this was happening, cooperate fully with the investigation into Russian interference? Meet with the special counsel, clear his name? Work arduously to support individual states to prevent such election interference in the future? Has Trump done any of these things?
There is a well-known concept in the legal world called ‘consciousness of guilt.’ If someone engages in a course of conduct that shows they are aware they did something wrong, like lying about obvious things and/or consistently trying to cover their tracks, it demonstrates they are more likely to be guilty. Sure, there can be other reasons why they act that way, but this is a concept permitted to be considered in making a determination of someone’s guilt or innocence. I’m sure you’ve heard this term referenced in describing some of Trump’s behaviors.
But wait, you say. It’s because he is afraid of getting caught for other illegal activity! That’s no doubt true. But I think his awareness goes deeper than that, and I think he has shown his consciousness of guilt about specific Russia involvement over and over again. I’m aware he runs his organizations like a Mafia don, never putting anything in writing, having conversations on the back stairs of Trump Tower with Manafort instead of emails, phone calls or texts, etc. (Reminds me of Paulie in Good Fellas.) But as careful as he thinks he is, he knows that Mueller has the goods.
Here is another morsel for thought: Mueller is not a guy to waste time. If he had determined to his satisfaction that Trump was merely an unwitting co-conspirator, he would come right out and say that. I recently heard it said by someone who worked with Mueller for years and knows him well that if you’re innocent, you could not have a better defender in your corner that Mueller. I believe that to be true. Likewise, if you are guilty, he will not stop until he has his man. Given Trump’s behaviors toward Mueller and his investigation, which thing do you think more likely to be true?
You asked for a cite to something written that asserts Trump is a details guy, and of course that would be a fiction. Trump’s brand is chaos, as is well known. What I’m asking you to consider is that there is a method to his madness. His chaos is extremely well targeted.
A good example is his ostensibly erratic behavior at the NATO summit and visit to the UK. Sure, it looks like he’s all over the map – but if you look a little deeper, it becomes frighteningly obvious that all his behaviors are intended to disrupt the NATO alliance, do everything that Putin would want him to do and throw red meat to his base.
Your opinions are based on what you’ve “seen and read,” and mine are, too. We’re not in Great Debates here.
If you felt I attacked you personally, I am sorry. I’m just so frustrated over all this. I’m watching my country being taken apart by a traitor while the Congress tasked with preventing such abominations stands by and looks at its collective watch. As I recently told a friend on this forum who knows me outside of it, I think I come off here as a humorless bitch most of the time. It’s not personal. Put it this way: If this turd isn’t the one for which the emoluments, impeachment, removal and conviction clauses were written, then we may as well just take them right the fuck out of the Constitution.
It’s possible he quits with 2-3 months left in his term and proclaims that he is the greatest president ever, having accomplished all his goals in under 4 years. He only needs to convince himself, which I would guess he already ahs. he then turns it over to Pence and heads outta town.
Context is all. Your failure to castle may have been significant in that it led to your checkmate seven moves later, but insignificant because who cares what happened in a casual game of chess that was played twelve years ago?
So the prediction is certainly not significant when placed in the context of the entire Internet, where this is merely a single message board.
But within the context of accurate predictions made on this board, the failure is significant.
No apology necessary Aspenglow, I share much or your frustration with the current situation. I appreciate all of the points in your post and actually agree with most of your conclusions. I realize Mueller is a hard ass when it comes to investigating crimes. I guess I’ve just lost hope in the system because it looks as if the most corrupt person to ever be elected POTUS is likely to get away with what he has done, whether Mueller comes up with rock solid evidence or not.
The GOP leadership has shown they value party over country very clearly. From what many who say they are GOP voters have said here and elsewhere it is clear they are of the same mindset so I don’t see any way Trump could ever be impeached and he certainly won’t resign. I also am pretty much without any hope that the Democrats can get their shit together and do anything about the current situation or are competent enough to successfully mount a serious challenge to the GOP in the midterms or 2020.
Thank you for being kind. Bit of a rarity around here.
I don’t think impeachment/removal from office is as remote as you do. I think Republicans are holding fast through the mid-terms because court appointments/Supreme Court/tear down as much of the government infrastructure as they possibly can. But… I see some signs that they may not stand with Trump after the mid-terms, especially if Dems take the House – and I believe they will.
First, note the (R) stampede for the doors.
Second, recent votes in the Senate and the House show Republicans are nervous about Trump’s reckless trade shenanigans and screwing around with NATO. They are also concerned about his relationship with Putin. Remember that hasty Senate vote last year to prevent Trump from removing Russian sanctions on his own.
Third, Pence is staying far away from Trump. He pretty much acts as President-Behind-the-Scenes, needed now by Trump only for the occasional Adoring Gaze. But he is quietly consolidating his power.
Behind Trump’s back, there is a lot of Republican grumbling and discontent. They know that if Dems take back the House, any Republican that ever put a foot wrong will be investigated within an inch of his/her life. (As he/she should be. My cynical take is that if you are a member of the Freedumb Carcass, you’re probably also in it up to your neck with the Russians.)
McConnell knows the jig is nearly up. If Dems take the House in November, I expect a sudden change of heart by Republicans: “My goodness, we had no idea!! Thank you, Director Mueller, for bringing this abhorrent corruption in the Oval Office to our attention!! Let us have a removal trial!!” Even John Roberts isn’t that much of a tool.
This is my two-bit prediction for after the mid-terms, but only if Dems prevail. Start practicing your “President Pence.”
IF the Dems take the House, and IF the GOP holds onto the Senate, and IF the House Dems vote to impeach Trump:
There will be no impeachment trial in the Senate.
The Constitution, Article I, Section 3, sixth paragraph, says, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” I don’t see where it says they have to use that power, even after the House has voted to impeach. Just like two years ago when Mitch decided ‘advice and consent’ could consist of acting as if Merrick Garland didn’t exist (I guess ‘fuck off’ constitutes ‘advice,’ so there is that), in the absence of an absolute, ironclad Constitutional requirement that the Senate must have a trial once the House votes to impeach, there will be no impeachment trial in the Senate as long as Mitch is still Senate Majority Leader.
I think it would be a bad idea for democrats to vote for impeachment without strong national sentiment for it. And by ‘strong national sentiment’ I mean approval ratings dipping down of < 20%. The only way Trump would be successfully impeached is some national disaster or crisis were attributed to his presidency, like a massive economic recession or a costly war, or if Putin goes wild and takes over much of Europe. Anything short of that, he goes nowhere, and he might actually feed off of the fight against him.
I think we’ve seen enough of Trump to know that he actually relishes the moment when people take the attack to him. He’s weaker when his opponents needle him and provoke him into an overreaction. I think an impeachment would annoy Trump, but it would potentially play into his hands, especially since he knows the Senate wouldn’t convict him.
If the Democrats get the House, they should dig and dig and investigate every whiff of wrongdoing, from cabinet and campaign officials to Trump himself, and if/when they find something that is egregious enough that it resonates with the public at large (and/or if Mueller’s findings are egregious and resonate with the public), then consider impeachment.
In America it is unconstitutional to investigate without evidence first.
My prediction is Trump for two terms. I take home an extra roughly $75 per paycheck, plus I save $700 per year from the Obamacare mandate being eliminated. MAGA.
His ace in the hole is the marijuana card. If he rightly makes it a state’s decision like he is leaning to do it will be all over for the liberals. MAGA.
As was the case with Nixon’s impeachment, the appropriate House committee is likely to receive relevant information from the Special Counsel. They won’t have a need to start from zero.
If we adopt this view, then no future prediction can be called out for being wrong. The prediction is, perforce, a forecast that some future event will occur. If the prediction fails to materialize, it seems obvious to me that pointing out the failure of accuracy is significant. Am I to believe that your position truly is that all of these predictions about how Trump will resign, Dems will take the House, are valid in the moment but “insignificant,” when considered after the actual event has happened??
No, no - that can’t be true. Surely one value of confidently asserting a prediction is a willingness to revisit the prediction after it has either dissipated or materialized. Otherwise we accept a world of John Edwards, Sylvia Browne, and James van Praagh: they get the benefit of perceived acumen by making confident predictions, and dodge any accountability for their failures.
Even worse: accepting this idea of yours would mean that these types of phony, cheating, despicable psychics could trumpet their successes and dismiss any discussion of failures as “in the past,” and “insignificant,” and excoriate the person who brings them up.
No! Bullshit on that idea! A person who offers a prediction, whether a despicable “psychic” preying on desperate families or a good-faith debater on a message board, is accountable for that prediction. I absolutely reject your attempt to sweep such accountability away.