Trump/Russia/SDNY investigation

Raoul said:
Pence would be immensely better (which says how awful Trump has been). Foreign policy wise, we would revert back to standard operating procedure with Europe, Russia, China, North Korea, TPP would be back on the table. Domestically, the executive branch of government, the IC and justice sectors would be under less pressure to politicize, no more Twitter meltdowns, severely reduced Fox News douchbaggery with Hannity and friends behaving like a Pravda for the White House, democratic institutions like the media, rule of law, etc that Trump has spent time degrading would bounce back. Pence would of course still be a terrible President in the Ted Cruz vein, but he would be exponentially better than the utter Trash heap of a statesman that Trump is.
Click to expand...

This is assuming that Trumpism and the MAGA agenda dies with Trump, everything goes back to 'normal', and we all end up looking back on this episode as a bizarre but ultimately brief period when America went periodically nuts but managed to recover with no permanent damage done.

On the other hand, it seems like there's a case to be made that Trumpism is a product not of Trump but of the general state of politics and society in America, and so is here to stay.
 
2cents said:
This is assuming that Trumpism and the MAGA agenda dies with Trump, everything goes back to 'normal', and we all end up looking back on this episode as a bizarre but ultimately brief period when America went periodically nuts but managed to recover with no permanent damage done.

On the other hand, it seems like there's a case to be made that Trumpism is a product not of Trump but of the general state of politics and society in America, and so is here to stay.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I too believe this has become the new normal. The republicans have become some sort of sect, the only way Pence could satisfy them is by parroting the mesiahs words, if he didn't he'd be run out of D.C by the first person who did so (assuming they still can at that point).


That said, I'd still prefer Pence for the reasons @Raoul stated. Even if everything else stayed the same it would be worth it for not having to read the narcissists' tweets in the news all the time.
 
berbatrick said:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/23/the-danger-of-president-pence
Click to expand...


reads like a fluff piece.

Its almost a year old and all the fears of what a Pence Presidency would look like have basically come true with Trump only worse. Trump is already a champion for destroying womans rights, he's already overseen the complete dismantling of all enviromental protection policies , he's taken a dump on the LGBTQ community, trump is bascally a white nationalist, trump has the entire science devision of the white house unstaffed (kind of like his state dept but worse). Worset of all trump has already gotten rid of the individual mandate and passed tax legislation for the rich and delivered big time for them. more that they could have dreamed/


The article you posted even concedes that Trump has basically propped up all of the Koch brothers agenda to the fore front. And that was one year ago. He's done far more of their bidding since. The article warns that Pence would be a Koch brothers stooge, they already have their stooge. Trump has become more conservative, more racist and white nationalist, more enviromentally dangerous and more disasterous for minorities, women, LGBTQ than most could have fathomed. The "danger" of Pence in my opinion is already there for all to see in a giant manchild called Trump
 
At this point with Trump's obvious mental deteriation and legal desperation, getting him out of office is probably the most important thing, regardless of his successor. That doesn't alter the fact though that Pence would bring seriously dangers of his own. People call him a faux-Christian, but everything he's shown in the past suggests that he would absolutely push with all his might to make America as close to a theocracy as possible within the constitution. SCOTUS moving ever right also means the constitution might not be quite the defence it once was either.
 
Kentonio said:
At this point with Trump's obvious mental deteriation and legal desperation, getting him out of office is probably the most important thing, regardless of his successor. That doesn't alter the fact though that Pence would bring seriously dangers of his own. People call him a faux-Christian, but everything he's shown in the past suggests that he would absolutely push with all his might to make America as close to a theocracy as possible within the constitution. SCOTUS moving ever right also means the constitution might not be quite the defence it once was either.
Click to expand...

He would be completely feckless if he took over. The Dems would have the house so zero legislation would get through Congress. It would be a 24 or less months of lack duck status.
 
Raoul said:
He would be completely feckless if he took over. The Dems would have the house so zero legislation would get through Congress. It would be a 24 or less months of lack duck status.
Click to expand...

The GOP holding the senate would stop them being totally toothless. That's another 24 months of potential SCOTUS picks lets not forget, and that includes an 85 year old and an 80 year old. Two heavily religious conservative judges would throw the balance completely to the right.
 
Kentonio said:
The GOP holding the senate would stop them being totally toothless. That's another 24 months of potential SCOTUS picks lets not forget, and that includes an 85 year old and an 80 year old. Two heavily religious conservative judges would throw the balance completely to the right.
Click to expand...

They still wouldn't be able to get just anyone through the nomination process since there are GOP Senators who will vote against (for example) justices they think will reverse Roe v Wade. There's also no guarantee the GOP will hold onto the Senate. In either case, Pence wouldn't have any more support to govern than Trump does and would face similar investigations related to what he knew about Trump/Russia during and after the campaign, as well as get branded a religious nut which would severely curtain his ability to push the sort of agenda he would like, forward.
 
Raoul said:
They still wouldn't be able to get just anyone through the nomination process since there are GOP Senators who will vote against (for example) justices they think will reverse Roe v Wade. There's also no guarantee the GOP will hold onto the Senate. In either case, Pence wouldn't have any more support to govern than Trump does and would face similar investigations related to what he knew about Trump/Russia during and after the campaign, as well as get branded a religious nut which would severely curtain his ability to push the sort of agenda he would like, forward.
Click to expand...

You're assuming a lot of ifs though. I know we're all expecting a big blue wave in November, but it hasn't happened yet. One big unexpected event could throw that out of the window still.
 
Yep. War with Nambia, for instance.
 
Kentonio said:
You're assuming a lot of ifs though. I know we're all expecting a big blue wave in November, but it hasn't happened yet. One big unexpected event could throw that out of the window still.
Click to expand...

Nor has Trump getting removed from office. The House is looking good for the Dems so that will be enough to stop any sort of GOP agenda from moving forward over the next two years. As it stands now with Trump, he has both houses and still can't get anything passed so imagine how asphyxiating it would be with only one house. He would be a lame duck from day one.
 
Realistically now what are Trump's options. The evidence has been collated, testimony has already been given, deals have been struck at both federal level where he has influence and state level where he doesn't. If he shuts down the Mueller probe tomorrow evidence will be turned either to the FBI or relevant state DA's, or likely both. If the Democrats do well in the mid-terms he could find himself with a softening political support from fellow Republicans in Washington both worried about toxic association and also a natural loss of enthusiasm that is the inevitable consequence when a president goes from essentially controlling both houses to one that's going to find it difficult to get things done.

I don't see an out for him other than hope the charges don't stick. His hands are now effectively tied. His only protection is from the office itself and I think Mueller's perfectly willing to wait until that's no longer the case.
 
I think he's fuelled by his own myth-making, so will do something dramatic; a gamble, like firing Mueller.
 
SteveJ said:
I think he's fuelled by his own myth-making, so will do something dramatic; a gamble, like firing Mueller.
Click to expand...

He can't fire Mueller, but he can fire the guy who can fire Mueller until he gets someone who agrees to fires Mueller. It'll be the Saturday Night Massacre all over again. But that will probably kill him politically. He certainly can't do it before the midterms, or the wave will turn into a tsunami.
 
Mueller would have planned for this. I expect there are state district attorney's who have been (or quickly will be) entrusted with the information and evidence he's accumulated so the second Trump appoints a AG who closes down the investigation they can spring into action and about whom Trump can do absolutely nothing.
 
Can someone explain how the federal/state charges distinction works? Surely it's meaningless if a federal prosecutor can simply 'turn over' an investigation to the state if he/she feels that it's a better road to go down? Is it that there's often overlap between the two spheres, or what? All this talk of state charges makes me wonder why you'd bother making federal charges in the first place.
 
2cents said:
Can someone explain how the federal/state charges distinction works? Surely it's meaningless if a federal prosecutor can simply 'turn over' an investigation to the state if he/she feels that it's a better road to go down? Is it that there's often overlap between the two spheres, or what? All this talk of state charges makes me wonder why you'd bother making federal charges in the first place.
Click to expand...

I guess it would depend on which road the federal prosecutor felt there was a better chance of a conviction. Especially pertinent when the person you're investigating has the power to pardon on a federal level. I've no question Mueller is mindful of that. It's not his job to build cases against anyone at state level, however it is his duty to turn over anything of interest that he comes across.
 
2cents said:
Can someone explain how the federal/state charges distinction works? Surely it's meaningless if a federal prosecutor can simply 'turn over' an investigation to the state if he/she feels that it's a better road to go down? Is it that there's often overlap between the two spheres, or what? All this talk of state charges makes me wonder why you'd bother making federal charges in the first place.
Click to expand...

A special prosecutor or federal prosecutor can cooperate with state level officials to share some of the charges to prevent someone like Trump from obstructing his way out of someone like Cohen testifying against him. The only caveat is that the state in question can't have an existing double jeopardy law on the books, which apparently NY is considering getting rid of.

https://www.kgw.com/video/news/nation-now/cuomo-discusses-nys-double-jeopardy-loophole/465-8230637
 
If Pence becomes president, McConnell and whoever Ryan's successor ends up being will effectively be running the country. Sec. of State becomes all-powerful for foreign policy.
 
Raoul said:
The only caveat is that the state in question can't have an existing double jeopardy law on the books
Click to expand...

Which means what, they can't charge, say, Manafort for the same crime he's already been convicted of and pardoned for by the feds?
 
2cents said:
Which means what, they can't charge, say, Manafort for the same crime he's already been convicted of and pardoned for by the feds?
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't think they can charge Manafort for the same crimes in Virginia as he's currently being prosecuted for at the federal level. They (Mueller) can however hold back a series of charges that Manafort has yet to face and hand them over to VA attorney general for state level prosecution. That would allow Mueller and the feds to hedge against Trump dangling a potential pardon.
 
Raoul said:
Yes, I don't think they can charge Manafort for the same crimes in Virginia as he's currently being prosecuted for at the federal level. They (Mueller) can however hold back a series of charges that Manafort has yet to face and hand them over to VA attorney general for state level prosecution. That would allow Mueller and the feds to hedge against Trump dangling a potential pardon.
Click to expand...

So my question is, how do they distinguish between a federal crime and a state crime?
 
2cents said:
So my question is, how do they distinguish between a federal crime and a state crime?
Click to expand...

Its completely arbitrary depending on what the federal prosecutors want to give to the state, as long as the actual allegation being made is illegal at the state level. In Cohen's case for example, he could be tagged for financial crimes by the feds and taxi medallion scams by the NY AG. He could be tagged for not paying federal taxes by the Feds, and not paying state taxes by the state of NY. He could be hit for illegal campaign contributions by the feds and making illegal corporate contributions by the state of NY. As long as Cohen committed an alleged crime in the state of NY, the feds have the ability to outsource the case to the state to hedge against a Presidential pardon.
 
Raoul said:
As long as Cohen committed an alleged crime in the state of NY, the feds have the ability to outsource the case to the state
Click to expand...

Ah OK, this would be the crucial part. I was thinking that certain crimes can only be charged at the federal level, in which case there may be no state level charges to make. But that clears that up.
 
ChaddyP said:
Well that's not good
Click to expand...

It’s also worth remembering that it’s been clear for a while that Mueller and his team are actively playing down any evidence that is too close for comfort for Trump and his closest associates. The most recent set of indictments of the dozen or so Russians went to lengths to make clear that no Americans were implicated in that document however there was a line which strongly hinted that other sealed documents exist that did implicate Americans.

I think in this case it’s very possible that Cohen’s attorney has been asked to come out and play it down to sate Trump’s anxieties and discourage him from interfering.
 
Adisa said:
Mueller has several lines of enquiry. What's more, Mueller has not shown any interest in Cohen. He's too unreliable.
Click to expand...
More meant about the narrative that Trump and his cronies can use and spin to the public to further the no Collusion witch hunt propaganda. This Russia collusion is no longer in my view a legal matter its already proven that they were colluding with Russia. Its a political agenda now and this can help them further
 
ChaddyP said:
More meant about the narrative that Trump and his cronies can use and spin to the public to further the no Collusion witch hunt propaganda. This Russia collusion is no longer in my view a legal matter its already proven that they were colluding with Russia. Its a political agenda now and this can help them further
Click to expand...
The impact on Trump is certainly political. Mueller can't touch him since Mueller doesn't believe he can,while he is president.
However, there is serious legal risk to the Trump Organisation regardless of public opinion. I'll be gobsmacked if Jared, Jnr and people like Stone don't face criminal proceedings in the next 12/18 months.
I also think the chances of inpeachment are miniscule. Just hope the Dems make his life miserable when or if they take the House.
 
After seeing the Get me Roger Stone documentary some time ago it's hard to convince me there are few people who had a more damaging impact on politics in this country than that guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.