Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1939 of 4573 (828561)
02-21-2018 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1937 by NoNukes
02-20-2018 8:12 PM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
NoNukes writes:
Where is the illegality? Releasing dirt is not illegal. If the dirt was illegally obtained, then you'd have something... on the Russians. But where is the American participation in an illegal activity?
FEC regulations prohibit any value provided by a foreign national. Then by derivative liability the Trump campaign becomes connected to the whole Russian conspiracy, especially the tremendous value provided by release of hacked emails and by manipulation of social media.
From the Cornell Law Library (52 U.S. Code 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals):
quote:
(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
...
...
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

The document passed from the Russians to Donald Jr. represents an "other thing of value". A crime was committed at that meeting, the meeting represents a conspiracy, and derivative liability makes the Trump campaign complicit in all the crimes described in the recent indictment.
Just what is publicly known places the Trump campaign in dire straights, and obviously Mueller knows much more than we do. Trump's continual denials of collusion is a) a lie; and b) for public political consumption to try to render impotent any Mueller charges.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1937 by NoNukes, posted 02-20-2018 8:12 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1942 by NoNukes, posted 02-21-2018 8:47 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1940 of 4573 (828562)
02-21-2018 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1938 by PaulK
02-21-2018 12:56 AM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
PaulK writes:
I think that you are stretching. Is handing over information illegal in itself ?
Yes. See Message 1939.
As I say it looks bad but it doesn’t rise to the level of proving conspiracy.
That may be true since whether there was a conspiracy is for a jury to decide, or if Trump is impeached then it's for the Senate to decide. But it does rise to the level of indictments charging conspiracy.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1938 by PaulK, posted 02-21-2018 12:56 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1941 by PaulK, posted 02-21-2018 8:41 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1943 of 4573 (828628)
02-21-2018 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1941 by PaulK
02-21-2018 8:41 AM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
PaulK writes:
I’ll just point out that there seem to be serious questions over whether a document alleging misconduct by a Clinton donor should really be included.
If you read the rest of the section (Trump campaign—Russian meetings, only three paragraphs) in addition to the small portion I quoted you'll see that it wasn't merely an allegation of "misconduct by a Clinton donor." It was an allegation that the Clinton campaign was accepting foreign campaign donations, a violation of federal campaign laws. So Donald Jr., a Trump campaign aide, accepted something of value from a Kremlin agent. Even Trump, usually unafraid to appear cozy with the Russians, realized the dangers on this one and drafted an innocuous meeting description.
Or using the title as the link, Can it be a crime to do opposition research by asking foreigners for information? by conservative columnist Eugene Volokh. Yes, that's the Trumpian view, and maybe a foreshadowing of how Trump campaign aides will argue in court, and maybe Trump himself before the Senate if it ever comes to that.
I do think that Volokh has a point when he describes federal campaign law as too overly broad. For example, the Hillary Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS (a U.S. firm) to do opposition research, something all presidential campaigns do. But was it a violation of federal campaign law when Fusion GPS hired a foreign national to do some of the research?
But I don't think any U.S. courts will find problems with federal campaign laws in the case of a U.S presidential campaign gleefully ("I love it") accepting information from Kremlin agents, especially not after Trump's campaign solicitation of Russian help in tracking down the missing Clinton emails. Courts have treated what Trump said on the campaign trail regarding Muslims very seriously, and I suspect they'll do the same regarding the possibility of Russian collusion. Here's another coincidence that is unlikely to really be a coincidence: Within an hour of Donald Jr.'s meeting with the Russians, Trump tweeted about missing Clinton emails. What we know publicly about that meeting is bad enough, but what really happened at that meeting is probably devastating.
In my little experience with the legal system I think what surprises me most is the pragmatism of most courts in interpreting poorly worded portions of laws. They usually go straight for what was actually intended and ignore any spurious interpretations. Regardless of the overly broad expression of federal campaign laws criticized by Volokh, I think courts will have a pretty good idea of just the kind of thing these laws were intended to prohibit, like the Donald Jr. meeting with the Russians.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1941 by PaulK, posted 02-21-2018 8:41 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1944 of 4573 (828637)
02-21-2018 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1942 by NoNukes
02-21-2018 8:47 AM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
NoNukes writes:
The document passed from the Russians to Donald Jr. represents an "other thing of value"
Is that your best argument? That is a serious stretch, but at least your position is out there, and we all understand it. I'm not convinced.
I'm not clear on what you mean. That the document was not "an other thing of value"? That Donald Jr. didn't ask for the document, so it doesn't matter? Something else?
We may never know whether what is publicly known right now is sufficient for the courts to consider it a crime, because I think Mueller knows much more, and that's what the courts will actually consider.
Next in an AbE you respond to my Message 1940 to PaulK:
Percy writes:
That may be true since whether there was a conspiracy is for a jury to decide
This is probably not true.
Sure it is.
Issues of law for always decided by the court, meaning the judge.
I wasn't posing an "issue of law." I only meant the prosecutor charges the defendants with conspiracy to defraud the United States, and the jury decides whether the defendants are guilty of the charge.
The judge will interpret the law. He will either do it prior to trial or after the presentation of the case in instructions to the jury. Whether or not passing on information is included as "value" under the statute would certainly be a question of law and not a question of fact.
Oh, that's what you're referring to as an "issue of law," the "other things of value." I don't recall "other things of value" ever coming up in the messages between me and PaulK, but sure, I guess I can see how whether the document constitutes an "other thing of value" is an issue of law for the judge to decide, and that it could be grist for an appellate court.
...while they are supposed to give deference to the lower court's decision on fact issues.
Off-topic, but this is a pet peeve of mine. I understand the need for finality regarding facts, especially in an era of endless appeals and and "new" facts and witnesses recanting and so forth, but I've read too many examples in the news of cases of the courts sticking with the original facts way beyond the point of reasonability. Worst one for me is still the Fells Acre Day Care case. Scott Harshbarger probably still believes there was a nationwide outbreak of Satanic ritual abuse of children in the 1980's, but he has to because he built his career upon it (see Harshbarger and the Amiraults and Fells Acres Day Care Center preschool trial).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1942 by NoNukes, posted 02-21-2018 8:47 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1945 by NoNukes, posted 02-21-2018 6:28 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1946 of 4573 (828682)
02-22-2018 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1945 by NoNukes
02-21-2018 6:28 PM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
NoNukes writes:
I am not going to pretend that the current process is ideal. I know that some folks get the shaft because of desire for finality of judgment. But there are reasons why there are limits on what courts can do.
It's not that the current process isn't ideal. I actually think the process when considered in isolation is pretty good. The problem is that people run the process, people aren't perfect, and we need a process that takes that into account.
Again using the example of the Fells Acres Day Care Center preschool trial, District Attorney Scott Harshbarger prosecuted the case and put three innocent people in jail. As the appeals wended their way through the courts Harshbarger became Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (very much on the reputation he established by convicting the Amiraults) and was influential in causing the courts to deny appeals over and over again.
When Gerald Amirault was finally released from prison in 2004, one of the more likely reasons it wasn't challenged was because the then DA had no stomach for marching into a courtroom armed with the childrens' "expert child psychologist" extracted testimonies about magic rooms and rapes using knives and forks (no medical evidence supported any rapes) and assaults by clowns and being tied to trees and so on. Back in 1984 it wasn't understood how children responded to leading questions, especially when pressured with tactics like (I'm recollecting here, not quoting), "But I thought you wanted to help us? Sally helped us by telling us what happened. Don't you want to help us, too?" By 2004 it was understood all too well that such pressure combined with suggestive questions could cause 4-year olds to come up with wild fantasies.
The Amirault case is one I use as an example of extreme injustice because I'm so familiar with it. It occurred in the state where I worked and was in the news a lot, plus Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal took up the cause in a years-long series of articles (for which she won a Pulitzer) that kept the Amirault's plight in the news long after it might have been forgotten.
You probably have your own examples of extreme injustice, and I think such examples show that our confidence in the ability of our legal process to mete out justice is unwarranted because it doesn't take into sufficient account that the people running it are only people, with all the biases and weaknesses and egos and so forth that accompany.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1945 by NoNukes, posted 02-21-2018 6:28 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1948 of 4573 (828852)
02-25-2018 12:15 PM


Speaker Booed at CPAC for Criticizing Trump
This past week was the annual meeting of CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), and many prominent conservative have addressed the meeting this week. Yesterday in a four woman panel National Review columnist Mona Charen criticized the Republican Party for tolerating harassers and abusers of women. She was booed and provided a security escort out after the panel (which she said she thought unnecessary). Here are some of her words from the New York Magazine article CPAC Speaker Needed Security Escort After Flagging Trump’s Sexual Misconduct. What she said on the panel:
quote:
I’m disappointed in people on our side for being hypocrites about about sexual harassers and abusers of women who are in our party, who are sitting in the White House, who brag about their extra-marital affairs, who brag about mistreating women. And because he happens to have an R after his name, we look the other way we don’t complain. This is a party that was ready to endorse Roy Moore for the Senate in the state of Alabama even though he was a credibly accused child molester. You cannot claim that you stand for women and put up with that.
Charen wrote about her experience at the CPAC conference in an op-ed piece in the New York Times (I’m Glad I Got Booed at CPAC). Here are some excerpts from that:
quote:
I’ve been a conservative my entire life. I fell hard for William F. Buckley as a teenager and my first job was as editorial assistant at Buckley’s National Review, followed by stints writing speeches for first lady Nancy Reagan and then working for the Gipper himself. Looking toward the 1988 race, Vice President George H.W. Bush wasn’t conservative enough for me. I went to work as a speechwriter for Representative Jack Kemp in 1986.
So you’d think that the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, would be a natural fit. It once was. But on Saturday, after speaking to this year’s gathering, I had to be escorted from the premises by several guards who seemed genuinely concerned for my safety.
What happened to me at CPAC is the perfect illustration of the collective experience of a whole swath of conservatives since Donald Trump became the Republican nominee. We built and organized this party but now we’re made to feel like interlopers.
...
But this time, and particularly in front of this crowd, it felt far more urgent to point out the hypocrisy of our side. How can conservative women hope to have any credibility on the subject of sexual harassment or relations between the sexes when they excuse the behavior of President Trump? And how can we participate in any conversation about sexual ethics when the Republican president and the Republican Party backed a man credibly accused of child molestation for the United States Senate?
I watched my fellow panelists’ eyes widen. And then the booing began.
I’d been dreading it for days, but when it came, I almost welcomed it. There is nothing more freeing than telling the truth. And it must be done, again and again, by those of us who refuse to be absorbed into this brainless, sinister, clownish thing called Trumpism, by those of us who refuse to overlook the fools, frauds and fascists attempting to glide along in his slipstream into respectability.
I spoke to a hostile audience for the sake of every person who has watched this spectacle of mendacity in disbelief and misery for the past two years. Just hearing the words you know are true can serve as ballast, steadying your mind when so much seems unreal.
For traditional conservatives, the past two years have felt like a Twilight Zone episode. Politicians, activists and intellectuals have succumbed with numbing regularity, betraying every principle they once claimed to uphold. But there remains a vigorous remnant of dissenters. I hear from them. There were even some at CPAC.
So there *are* conservatives with a conscience out there. Let us hope that their voices are heard and that the debate returns to left versus right instead of left versus mindless toadyism for Trump's parade of racist, misogynistic, xenophobic comments and actions.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 1949 by PaulK, posted 02-25-2018 1:38 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1951 by NoNukes, posted 02-25-2018 9:42 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1954 of 4573 (828922)
02-27-2018 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1945 by NoNukes
02-21-2018 6:28 PM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
An editorial in today's New York Times (Either a Conspirator or a Sucker) calls attention to the order of events that makes the Donald Jr./Kushner/Mannafort/Russians meeting in Trump Tower more problematic. It could (and will) be argued that the document the Russians passed to Donald Jr. was not "an other thing of value" or at least not sufficiently "an other thing of value", so leave that aside for the moment as an issue to resolve in the future.
But the editorial notes that the Schiff memo, the recently released response to the Nunes memo (Nunes is the majority head of the House Intelligence Committee, Schiff is the ranking minority member), tells us that George Papodopoulos had already been briefed by Russian agents about the stolen Clinton campaign emails when he set up that meeting at Trump Tower.
No publicly available information tells us that Papodopoulos told Donald Jr, Jared Kushner or Paul Mannafort about the Clinton campaign emails the Russian had stolen, but we can be sure that a climber like Papodopoulos told at least one of them and probably all of them (directly or indirectly) of what he had learned. Given this, it seems very unlikely that the Trump Tower meeting was a "nothing meeting" (Reince Priebus, Trump's former Chief of Staff in July of 2016), especially since Trump himself wrote the false description of what the meeting was about.
Every time Mueller takes public action we learn that he knows far more than anyone guessed he knew, and I think this pattern is likely to continue. That is, I think Mueller knows what was said at the meeting, and he knows about other meetings that aren't currently public knowledge and what was said at them. And the testimonies he is gathering from both those indicted and those merely interviewed have probably given him a wealth of conflicting information that at some point many people associated with Trump are going to become highly motivated to get straight in order to avoid jail time. There will be a scramble to tell Mueller their story.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1945 by NoNukes, posted 02-21-2018 6:28 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1955 by NoNukes, posted 02-27-2018 2:17 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1957 of 4573 (828964)
02-27-2018 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1955 by NoNukes
02-27-2018 2:17 PM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
NoNukes writes:
I agree regarding the likelihood that the meeting was not a "nothing meeting", but to date, we have nothing other than speculation about any illegal activity that might have occurred at the meeting. At least with regards to that document, we have some concrete evidence about how it related to the discussion.
One thing about the meeting that doesn't often get mentioned is that though the Donald Jr./Kushner/Mannafort/Russians meeting took place in June of 2016, it didn't come to light until June of 2017. This means that when Trump drafted the misleading description of the meeting on July 8, 2017, aboard Air Force One, he did so as president. Lying to the press is not a crime, but a conspiracy to cover up a conspiracy to collude *is* a crime.
Donald Jr.'s account of the meeting, from a July 8, 2017, article in the Washington Post: Trump Jr. says he, Kushner and Manafort met with lawyer tied to Kremlin
But the account was actually drafted by President Trump, from a July 31, 2017, article in the Washington Post: Trump dictated son’s misleading statement on meeting with Russian lawyer
I (and you too, I expect) lived through Watergate. Nixon wasn't directly implicated in the break-in (though a host of dirty tricks efforts by the Nixon administration were uncovered) but was guilty of efforts to cover up the break in. Throughout most of the reporting, investigations, and hearings leading up to the resignation few expected Nixon would be found so directly involved, but he was. In his contempt for and arrogance regarding the rule of law as it applies to him, Trump seems Nixon's equal.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1955 by NoNukes, posted 02-27-2018 2:17 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1967 by Percy, posted 03-01-2018 9:31 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1967 of 4573 (829042)
03-01-2018 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1957 by Percy
02-27-2018 8:27 PM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
And now we have more evidence of a direct connection between the Trump Campaign and the Russians though the person of Roger Stone, advisor to the Trump campaign in 2016. Stone is suspected of coordinating the WikiLeaks release of Podesta and DNC emails public during the 2016 presidential campaign. Sources for this post:
The events implicating Roger Stone are:
  • On Wednesday, July 22, 2016, Wikileaks begins the release of DNC emails, just after the Trump campaign fired campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and was in tumult over Trump's tweets about the Orlando nightclub massacre and his earlier racial attacks on U.S. district judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is Hispanic, and just days before the Democratic National Convention. During this period Roger Stone is in contact with DNC email hacker Guccifer 2. He also alludes publicly to an upcoming October Surprise.
  • On Sunday, October 2, 2016, five days before the WikiLeaks release of the Podesta emails, Roger Stone tweeted, "Wednesday Hillary Clinton is done. #Wikileaks." He was off by only two days. The release of Podesta emails actually began on Friday, October 7, 2016, the day the Access Hollywood tape was revealed by the Washington Post.
Roger Stone's accounts of his involvement in the release of the DNC and Podesta emails are so full of lies and contradictions and changing stories that one cannot rely upon him as a source. What we do know is this:
  • Guccifer 2 is a fictional character created by the Russians to hide their involvement in the hacking of the DNC emails. So when Roger Stone was in contact with Guccifer 2, he was actually in contact with Russian operatives while he was an advisor to the Trump campaign.
  • Roger Stone said he was only in indirect contact with Wikileaks, but it was later discovered that he was in direct contact with them (see The Atlantic account) while he was an advisor to the Trump campaign.
Both Stone and Wikileaks deny having direct contact with each other, but The Atlantic's documentation reveals this to be a falsehood. While the smoking gun of direct coordination between Stone and Wikileaks of the email releases does not exist publicly, unless one believes in incredible consecutive coincidences (read the Atlantic article) coordination must have been a factor in the timing.
That is, Roger Stone, an advisor to the Trump Campaign, engaged in a conspiracy with Russian operatives to defraud the United States by coordinating the release of hacked emails by Wikileaks to do maximum damage to the Clinton campaign. Just by what we know publicly it is already apparent that Mueller has multiple avenues for pursuing conspiracy charges against members of the Trump campaign and, I believe, Trump himself.
I'm aware that there's a "wishful thinking" aspect to my views, but again, think Nixon, whose detractors saw their fondest wishes come true, at least until Gerald Ford issued a "full, free and absolute pardon".
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1957 by Percy, posted 02-27-2018 8:27 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1968 by jar, posted 03-01-2018 9:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1969 by NoNukes, posted 03-01-2018 12:11 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1970 by Percy, posted 03-02-2018 3:09 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1970 of 4573 (829076)
03-02-2018 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1967 by Percy
03-01-2018 9:31 AM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
Jennifer Rubin, op-ed columnist for the Washington Post, writes a mean editorial. Here she is in today's Post sort of summarizing where things stand in the Trump administration. Some excerpts (all the links work):
quote:
In the course of a week, President Trump convulsed the markets and American business with a protectionist initiative which, if carried out, risks setting off a trade war; he scrambled Republicans by promising to back a bunch of gun measures he probably doesn’t intend to back once his aides explain that the National Rifle Association and his base oppose most of what he embraced; and he refused to empower his national security team to protect our election system against future manipulation by Russia.
...
Even more alarming given Trump’s invitation for Russia to hack into Hillary Clinton’s emails, and the attendees of the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower designed to get dirt on her one source suggested that a new indictment could include unnamed American co-conspirators as part of a strategy to pressure those involved to cooperate. Collusion, in other words, may begin to show up in indictments.
Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner (who attended that Trump Tower meeting with Russians) lost his top-secret-level interim security clearance, and was found to have received hundreds of millions of dollars ($184 million from Apollo Global Management and $325 million from Citigroup) in business loans after meeting with top executives at the White House.
We also learned that Israel, United Arab Emirates, Mexico and China are plotting to manipulate Kushner, using his finances as leverage. Speaking of which, the supposedly successful real-estate mogul is in debt to the tune of $1.2 billion. In no other administration would such a character...be let in the door, let alone invested with such a mammoth portfolio.
...
Now Ivanka is potentially in hot water as well. CNN reports:...
...
Hope Hicks, Trump’s longtime aide, is leaving and H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, is reportedly on his way out. Senior economic adviser Gary Cohn, distressed by Trump’s plunge into protectionism, might now go as well.
...
Now, anyone who is surprised by the utter chaos, the ethical sleaze, the policy incoherence and the nepotism/cronyism was not paying attention during Trump’s career in real estate or during his campaign. This is how Trump ran his family operation, stumbling through one failed venture after another. This is how Trump wound up declaring bankruptcy multiple times. No one...can keep him on task. Trump is still indifferent to learning policy and is prone to prattle in public about subjects he doesn’t bother to study. No one else can make up for his lack of diligence, ethics and decency. This is not so much as an administration as a weird fusion of the court of Louis XIV and the Mafia, all built around a cult of personality that lacks any self-restraint or awareness.
...
Trump will either be compelled to leave office or will continue to spin out of control. Aides tell the press this is a new level of chaos. Don’t worry it’ll get worse. It always does.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1967 by Percy, posted 03-01-2018 9:31 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1971 by Percy, posted 03-02-2018 3:46 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1971 of 4573 (829077)
03-02-2018 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1970 by Percy
03-02-2018 3:09 PM


Re: Collusion by the Trump Campaign Proven Six Months Ago?
Another good opinion piece appears in today's Washington Post: Mueller’s net is tightening around Trump’s inner circle and maybe Trump himself by Randall D. Eliason who teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School. Instead of quoting from it I'll just summarize his points. I'll may occasionally use his language without quotes:
  • Mueller is turning up the heat on Trump
  • There are three tracks to Mueller's investigation (we already knew this, but just to make sure it's clear):
    1. Russian interference with the 2016 election and any involvement by the Trump campaign.
    2. Obstruction of justice of the Mueller investigation.
    3. Ancillary crimes uncovered during the investigation (e.g., Manafort/Gates money laundering)
  • Mueller may now be focusing on Trump campaign involvement with the stolen Podesta/DNC emails with an eye on potential conspiracy (what did the president know and when did he know it).
  • CNN reports that Mueller is also investigating Trump's business ties to Russian before the 2016 presidential campaign, and whether a quid pro quo was involved (a possible quid pro quo came up earlier in this thread). Recall that Trump has declared this area out of bounds.
  • "As Watergate taught us, sometimes it’s the coverup that gets you."
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Formatting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1970 by Percy, posted 03-02-2018 3:09 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1985 of 4573 (829848)
03-15-2018 8:03 AM


Question About Trade With Canada
There are at least several articles about this, but this one's from the Washington Post: In fundraising speech, Trump says he made up trade claim in meeting with Justin Trudeau
In a meeting with Trudeau Trump claims Trudeau was wrong about who had a trade deficit with who. The conversation went like this:
quote:
Trudeau came to see me. He’s a good guy, Justin. He said, ‘No, no, we have no trade deficit with you, we have none. Donald, please,’ Trump said, mimicking Trudeau, according to audio of the private event in Missouri obtained by The Washington Post. Nice guy, good-looking guy, comes in ‘Donald, we have no trade deficit.’ He’s very proud because everybody else, you know, we’re getting killed.
... So, he’s proud. I said, ‘Wrong, Justin, you do.’ I didn’t even know. ... I had no idea. I just said, ‘You’re wrong.’ You know why? Because we’re so stupid. And I thought they were smart. I said, ‘You’re wrong, Justin.’ He said, ‘Nope, we have no trade deficit.’ I said, ‘Well, in that case, I feel differently,’ I said, ‘but I don’t believe it.’ I sent one of our guys out, his guy, my guy, they went out, I said, ‘Check, because I can’t believe it.’
‘Well, sir, you’re actually right. We have no deficit, but that doesn’t include energy and timber. And when you do, we lose $17 billion a year.’ It’s incredible.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative says the United States has a trade surplus with Canada.
Summarizing, Trump's and Trudeau's guys go off and figure out who has the deficit, and Trump says that once energy and timber is taken into account that the US runs a deficit with Canada. The Post says that the Office of the United States Trade Representative says the US runs a surplus with Canada. But does that take energy and timber into account? Is energy and timber some special category between the US and Canada by which we agree not to count it in trade figures?
Whatever direction the deficit runs, it is small by the standards of countries, in the $0-20 billion range. My guess is that which direction the deficit runs varies with fluctuating oil and gas prices. When the price of oil is high the US runs a deficit, when low Canada runs a deficit.
My further guess is that the $17 billion/year deficit Trump claims we're running with Canada is the figure based on the price of oil that day and then annualized.
If I've got this right then Trump is going to run to our various trading partners claiming ill treatment every time the price of some commodity we sell them or they sell us changes in a direction unfavorable to us. What a way to run a country!
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 1986 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2018 9:07 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1987 of 4573 (829865)
03-15-2018 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1986 by PaulK
03-15-2018 9:07 AM


Re: Question About Trade With Canada
Found some more information. This is from U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services January 2018. I assume this is the latest month for which figures are available (Canada is 4th from last in the list):
quote:
The January figures show surpluses, in billions of dollars, with Hong Kong ($2.6), South and Central America ($2.4), Singapore ($0.9), Brazil ($0.5), and United Kingdom ($0.3). Deficits were recorded, in billions of dollars, with China ($35.5), European Union ($15.0), Germany ($6.3), Mexico ($5.6), Japan ($5.6), Italy ($2.8), OPEC ($2.5), India ($1.8), Taiwan ($1.5), Canada ($1.5), South Korea ($1.5), France ($1.4), and Saudi Arabia ($0.6).
Naturally Trump doubled down on his lie earlier today, tweeting:
quote:
We do have a Trade Deficit with Canada, as we do with almost all countries (some of them massive). P.M. Justin Trudeau of Canada, a very good guy, doesn’t like saying that Canada has a Surplus vs. the U.S.(negotiating), but they do...they almost all do...and that’s how I know!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1986 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2018 9:07 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1988 by NoNukes, posted 03-16-2018 12:21 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1996 of 4573 (830193)
03-24-2018 3:30 PM


Trump Sued in Civil Court for Constitutional Violations
Trump is being sued in civil court for violations of the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses of the constitution by the attorneys general for Maryland and Washington D.C.: President Trump receives court summons at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 1997 by jar, posted 03-24-2018 3:50 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2001 of 4573 (830985)
04-09-2018 8:15 PM


Trump Bullies Panama
Just now saw this news: Warning of ‘repercussions,’ Trump company lawyers seek Panama president’s help. Trump has, in my view, just threatened the Panamanian government to interfere in his favor in a legal dispute between the Trump Organization and the owner of one of his branded hotels (the Trump International Hotel in Panama City), or else. Panama maintains independence of their executive and judicial branches, just as in the United States.
This is (again, in my view) the worst single thing Trump has done. Agree or disagree with his actions on healthcare, tax cuts, trade, environment, etc., he did nothing improper. He may be involved in obstruction of justice, but that hasn't been demonstrated yet, so so far nothing improper. But pressuring a foreign government to intervene on behalf of his business, that is clearly an improper conflict of interest and is why presidents should divest their ownership in any enterprise, public or private, commercial or nonprofit. I include nonprofits because of all the trouble surrounding the Clinton Foundation.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 2002 by NoNukes, posted 04-09-2018 8:23 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024