What is Trump covering up?
- Thread starter Rockfish1
- Start date
It's kind of like the difference between a pussycat and a lion? There's a big difference between the two,
Perversely, that could mean electoral victories for Democrats in 2018 and 2020 considerably greater than what they could have achieved had Hillary won the election. And each day that Republicans acquiesce to Trump going forward makes that more likely. I'm not sure they have a clear play to improve their trajectory at this point (or the institutional ability).
I'd take that forecast with a giant grain of salt, of course. After all, I wouldn't have predicted we'd come to this.
Yogi Berra is supposed to have said that it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. This is particularly so after 63 million Americans voted to elect an obviously unfit cartoon character President of the United States. Maybe some of them will wise up. Maybe some of the Democrats who stayed home will be motivated to get off their ass and vote. But even if I knew that Democrats would rebound from a Trump victory to greater heights than they'd have attained under Hillary, I'd still oppose Trump. His election, and the egregious responses of his enablers and defenders, are normalizing what ought to be aberrant. Much of this toothpaste will never go back in the tube.
Maybe voters will recoil from the electorate's historically bad choice. But there will be damage done even if they do.
Working with a foreign power to influence the outcome of an election is something far worse than just a simple crime. It's flat out treason- something that is specifically mentioned in our constitution.
However, I doubt that is ever proven. It's a tough thing to prove, and Trump will never confess and I doubt two people in his circle admit to colluding.
I do believe Trump will continue to think he's king instead of president, and will continue to obstruct justice. The guy just doesn't "get it", and doesn't seem to want to care to get it.
Obstruction of justice is definitely an impeachable offense. Remember, high crimes and misdemeanors (the removal part that happens after impeachment) aren't specifically defined. And, given who's running the investigation now and how broadly his domain is within it, there will be some serious dirt that comes out on Trump.
Ask Bill Clinton about how an investigation can quickly devolve into something else (the focus of the original probe was whitewater land dealings, and Monica Lewinsky wasn't even out of high school when the original probe started).
The one area that is basically completely ignored is the emoluments clause, which is essentially Trump putting himself and his financial interests above those of the country. He's essentially the ultimate fiduciary, and it wouldn't take much digging (after all the financial ties are discovered) to use this as a basis for impeachment/removal.
And, given that Trump is quickly losing support among the Republican Party, they'll discard him quickly. He's dangerously close to spending all his political capital/the party's political capital on non substantive matters. Once the republicans realize that he's standing in the way of their agenda being passed, he's gone. It would actually work out better for them if this happens quickly, because the longer it drags out the worse it is for the republican brand. And even if Pence somehow hangs on, they may not have control of the house/senate to get an agenda through on their terms.
Impeachment/removal are very serious things. But we've never had a president that is this much of a train wreck. It still blows my mind that so many things were overlooked.
*** it bothers me that it seems passing an agenda is more important than preserving the foundation of our republic. Had Obama, Clinton or Carter (insert random democrat president here) been involved with any of the stuff revolving around Trump, impeachment proceedings would've already begun. But, it appears that they're willing to put up with anything if it means getting their way politically. I truly never thought I'd see partisan politics get in the way of preserving the integrity of our elections/traditions. It's patently obvious that Trump has a serious financial mess with the Russians at this point. Either that or his continued lunacy (triggering the 25th amendment) will ultimately take him down.
It's a matter of time folks. The only question eventually is whether Pence is either taken down also (Flynn might do that to him) or resigns. And we end up with either Paul Ryan as president or some democratic speaker of the house after Trump drags down the republicans.
It's not treason, by definition. The Constitution specifically limits the definition of treason* for a reason, and this doesn't qualify.
* The Constitution doesn't define treason. Rather, it limits the maximum extent of the definition. Congress has the power to further limit that definition. The Constitution only defines its maximum extent.
I don't agree. Foreign governments hire lobbyists to influence our government. Our elected representatives, and other officials, not only receive the lobbyists and hear their requests, they actually intermingle with foreign governmental officials, as did Senator Sessions. Are you suggesting it is treason for a candidate to do what the law allows an elected official to do?
Still waiting on my checks. Went to another protest this evening, so he truly owes me a bunch!
It was a sincere question. Hacking is more than a dirty trick. A cybercrime is still a crime.
This goes to the heart of my question. If the information isn't already out there. If the information was stolen. Coordinating the timing of the release, would be criminal, I would guess? Accomplice?
Maybe that's why Stone and Rudy didn't get a gig in the administration? The only lapdog that leaves out is Christie and he was in the middle of Bridgegate.
It's amazing how cheaply, and incorrectly, that word is used.
Yeah, it used to be reserved for anti-war protesters and whistleblowers.
I thought that's why he dyed his hair yellow.
His hair is yellow from all the "leaking" he's into
This thread seems to have gone off the rails.
The original Marshall piece was about Trump's dealing with foreigners after his financial troubles in the late 1980's. The Russian contacts during the campaign are only a small part of the whole story of Trump and his cohorts reaching out to foreigners of questionable integrity. Let us face it, it is almost impossible to deal with Russians, for example, who aren't part of the Russian mafia which runs the country alongside Putin. American business ethics and the business ethics in many parts of the world have little in common.
The original Marshall piece was about Trump's dealing with foreigners after his financial troubles in the late 1980's. The Russian contacts during the campaign are only a small part of the whole story of Trump and his cohorts reaching out to foreigners of questionable integrity. Let us face it, it is almost impossible to deal with Russians, for example, who aren't part of the Russian mafia which runs the country alongside Putin. American business ethics and the business ethics in many parts of the world have little in common.
Similar threads
