Trump tweets about Russia probe spark warnings from lawmakers

[riclag]

5 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Seriously?

https://www.salon.com/2017/11/17/trump-lies-9-times-a-day-on-average-lately_partner/

 

As of 3am Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday, Donald Trump has told 1,628 lies since taking office. We know this because the Washington Post has been diligently watching the numbers, keeping tabs on Trump’s huge fibs and falsehoods. Over the 298 days since his inauguration, Trump has told an average of 5.5 lies every single day of the week, Monday to Sunday.

PT hasn't been proven to be lying about collusion or obstruction.

[craigt3365]

13 minutes ago, riclag said:

PT hasn't been proven to be lying about collusion or obstruction.

Not yet.

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Here you go .Here's one by the Congressional Research Service.Every incoming administration transition team talks to foreign countries on policy( routine diplomacy)  before the President is sworn in.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34722.pdf

It challenges credibility that you rely on two lengthy references without specific citations within them to support your position that “You don't have to be President to communicate with a foreign country, President elect is good enough.”

 

First, I read the Cotter Blog with specific focus on Part C, “International Relations”

 

In fact throughout Part C of the blog, Cotter criticizes president-elect Trump’s private contacts with foreign leaders without coordinating with the current President’s State Department, summarizing a couple of points:

 

• “His transition team has not commented, and there may be no record of what was said during them. …. Thus the foreign interlocutors are free to spin what was said and what commitments might have been made.”

 

• “…. these protocol issues may seem like small potatoes, but relations between countries often depend on such niceties. The most important country in the world simply cannot take a cavalier attitude toward them.”

 

Nowhere did I find specific support by way of authority for a president-elect to make unilateral and covert contacts with foreign leaders, ie., without the knowledge and support of the current presidential administration.

 

Second, I have scanned (bypassing many half-page footnotes) your 42-page reference "Presidential Transitions: Issues Involving Outgoing and Incoming Administrations" by L. Elaine Halchin, Coordinator, Specialist in American National Government ((May 17, 2017).

 

This dissertation appears to focus primarily on a current government’s responsibilities to the transition of the government to the president-elect under The Presidential Transition Act of 1963.  I specifically read the sections titled “Overview of Issues Related to Presidential Transitions” and “National Security Considerations and Options” with its subsections “Risks Accompanying the Presidential Transition Period” and “Establishing a Presidential Transition Framework” that I thought might present support for your position as you did not again provide any specific details to support your position.

 

My conclusion is that Halchin’s paper does not support by way of authority your position. In does however, seem to me from Halchin's paper that president-elect Trump violated at least the spirit if not the law prescribed by the Presidential Transition Act.

 

[Thaidream]

Your opinion is welcome but inaccurate and actually neither of our opinions matter- because the Articles of Impeachment is what will decide if Trump  survives. clinton was impeached for much less.   If the Mueller group find that there is a connection between Trump and a Russian attempt to subvert the American electoral process- even the Republicans in Congress will turn against him because the vast majority of Americans will see him as a pariah that has consorted with a foreign power to put himself into power  who is favorable towards Russia.

 

Remember. Trump does not have the mandate of the American people- he lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes and even now many who crossed over and voted for him have realized their mistake.  His core support is probably 25% of the electorate.

 

If things grind on through the 2018 election period- with constantly negative news coming out from the Mueller group and Trump with his constant irrational tweets- the Republicans will definitely lose the Senate and come very close to losing the House.  Remember an Impeachment can result in a majority of votes plus 1 in the House.  Then it goes to the Senate where a 2/3 majority is needed to convict. If the evidence is there and it doesn't even have to be legal evidence, but clear to the American people of wrongdoing- he will be impeached.

Conviction may be harder but Trump has angered many Senators on the Republican side and if the American people have had enough- he could well be convicted and removed.

 

I would expect that as the noose tightens and Trump becomes more stressed out and keeps making inane tweets which do not add up- he will resign around January of 2019 or at the worse if impeachment fails decide not to run in 2020 citing health reasons.

 

Unfortunately, for the country, there is a lot of time left for Trump to do more serious damage. I worry that he may start a war with NKorea and/or Iran and  anger more of the World in his insatiable grab for more wealth and power.

 

The Trump supporters really need to look at what this man continues to advocate and educate yourselves on what the true results of  his agenda are and will be. Everything he advocates is centered upon growing wealth for the 1%- which includes himself  using the middle class and poor to pay for it.  He is using pent up anger directed at immigrants and minorities to obscure the real issues that will make America a great country. Instead of bringing the Nation and the World together- his policies and rhetoric are causing separatism; hate and ignorance to thrive.

 

"A house divided against itself cannot stand"       Abraham Lincoln- 16th President

 

"Every Kingdom divided against  itself is brought to desolation"    -Jesus Christ

 

 

 

 

 

 

[riclag]

43 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

It challenges credibility that you rely on two lengthy references without specific citations within them to support your position that “You don't have to be President to communicate with a foreign country, President elect is good enough.”

 

First, I read the Cotter Blog with specific focus on Part C, “International Relations”

 

In fact throughout Part C of the blog, Cotter criticizes president-elect Trump’s private contacts with foreign leaders without coordinating with the current President’s State Department, summarizing a couple of points:

 

• “His transition team has not commented, and there may be no record of what was said during them. …. Thus the foreign interlocutors are free to spin what was said and what commitments might have been made.”

 

• “…. these protocol issues may seem like small potatoes, but relations between countries often depend on such niceties. The most important country in the world simply cannot take a cavalier attitude toward them.”

 

Nowhere did I find specific support by way of authority for a president-elect to make unilateral and covert contacts with foreign leaders, ie., without the knowledge and support of the current presidential administration.

 

Second, I have scanned (bypassing many half-page footnotes) your 42-page reference "Presidential Transitions: Issues Involving Outgoing and Incoming Administrations" by L. Elaine Halchin, Coordinator, Specialist in American National Government ((May 17, 2017).

 

This dissertation appears to focus primarily on a current government’s responsibilities to the transition of the government to the president-elect under The Presidential Transition Act of 1963.  I specifically read the sections titled “Overview of Issues Related to Presidential Transitions” and “National Security Considerations and Options” with its subsections “Risks Accompanying the Presidential Transition Period” and “Establishing a Presidential Transition Framework” that I thought might present support for your position as you did not again provide any specific details to support your position.

 

My conclusion is that Halchin’s paper does not support by way of authority your position. In does however, seem to me from Halchin's paper that president-elect Trump violated at least the spirit if not the law prescribed by the Presidential Transition Act.

 

It's commonsense  that all incoming administrations coordinate diplomacy with foreign countries.

 

"To further complicate matters, modern presidential transition activities are no longer constrained to the time between the election and inauguration.136 Some presidential historians argue that, “history tells us that any winning candidate who has not started [transition efforts] at least six months before the election will be woefully behind come the day after the election day.”137 While the exact time period and phases of a presidential transition are not statutorily or constitutionally defined, the presidential transition period could be seen as comprising five phases, extending from presidential campaign activities to the new President’s establishment of a national security team and development of accompanying strategies and policies.138"

 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34722.pdf

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, riclag said:

It's commonsense  that all incoming administrations coordinate diplomacy with foreign countries.

 

"To further complicate matters, modern presidential transition activities are no longer constrained to the time between the election and inauguration.136 Some presidential historians argue that, “history tells us that any winning candidate who has not started [transition efforts] at least six months before the election will be woefully behind come the day after the election day.”137 While the exact time period and phases of a presidential transition are not statutorily or constitutionally defined, the presidential transition period could be seen as comprising five phases, extending from presidential campaign activities to the new President’s establishment of a national security team and development of accompanying strategies and policies.138"

 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34722.pdf

It's one thing to establish contacts. It's quite another to keep meetings secret from the administration in office. 

It's one thing to talk to counterparts in foreign governments. It's quite another to ask them to act or refrain from acting.

[Thaidream]

The smoking gun is not what you are talking about-  did Trump have knowledge while he was running for the Presidency -of contacts between people in his 'group' and Russia?  In addition, was he aware of the Russians attempting to provide assistance to get him elected?  These are the real issues that can definitely get him out of office. The other issues of contact while in transition and how it was handled are secondary issues that will rest and fall on not whether they were legal but whether people lied to the FBI; the special counsel ; or others that have a right to know,

 

You can quote the constitution and other laws but in the end if all comes down to whether there is enough 'evidence' or reasonable doubt to convict in a court of law. If there was no 'evidence' or chance of conviction- Trump's already indicted co-conspirators would not be co-operating or have pleaded.

 

You can bet that they have been cornered and will squeal like the rats they are and soon the big rat-Trump will be cornered. Let's see how much bite he has when his Republican sycophants start to turn on him.  Rats know when a ship is sinking- they run like hell to get off of it. Trump's days are numbered- some of you just haven't realized it yet and accepted it.

[Srikcir]

23 minutes ago, riclag said:

It's commonsense

My conclusion remains that none of your references support by way of authority your position. None of your references refer to "common sense."

If you want to argue instead "It's common sense," I'd rebut that it's also common sense that a president-elect would consult and coordinate with the current president who is required to do so under the Presidential Transition Act."

 

 

[spidermike007]

They did it. Maybe they did not do it. There is no proof that they did it. I trust the Russians and my close brother Putin, alot more than I trust my own intelligence agencies. And you know how I feel about the media. Actually I like the media. At least I used to. I just do not like all of the criticism, therefore I have invented the narrative of the fake media. And you see how the people love it. So many of my followers (I actually consider them to be my devotees, since I am a Master) have responded to that. They can't get enough of it! People really love me alot. I just do not know why the media hates me so much. But, they are fake anyway, so it does not matter. All rantings of the lunatic mind of the deflector in chief. 

 

It is really beginning to appear that this is the most disorganized, chaotic, chaos driven, incompetent, unskilled, inexperienced, naive, soulless, vapid, pilotless White House staff, in the history of the US. Congratulation Trump. You are number 1 in chaos, and ineffectiveness. And it appears you have little in the way of policy, other than refilling the swamp with your own crocodiles, and handing over the remaining wealth in the US to the major corporations, and billionaires. Good work. Some of us can only hope you will eventually be convicted of just a few of the crimes you have committed, now, or throughout the course of your life and career. You are a felon. But, the sad reality is, that he will probably not be arrested. And if he is arrested he will not be charged. And if he is charged he will not go to trial. And if he goes to trial, he will not be convicted. And if he goes to trial, and in the incredibly unlikely event of him getting convicted, he will either be paroled immediately, or will not have to serve any time in prison. Guys like this do not go to prison. Period. Above the law. Any and all laws. With his cash in the US, he can buy his way out of nearly any crime. All he has to do is throw enough money at the lawyers, and they will create some doubt, in the minds of the jurors. The corrupt American judicial system at work. For the people. LOL.

Edited December 5, 2017 by spidermike007

[Thaidream]

Spidermike-    Brother , you have hit the proverbial nail on the head-  however, I am hopeful, even Trump will realize that at Age 71, all the trouble and expense to stay out of trouble is not worth the effort.  I am still predicting that once the noose really tightens- Trump will resign. He won't resign for the good of the country because he really doesn't care about the serfs and peasants below the income level of millionaire.  He will resign to save what little dignity he has left and to save his family.

 

The problem is though that if he does chose to stay and fight- those hard core, alt right minions will wreak havoc-especially if he takes to the airways and social media to propose that the system is stacked against him and all of us are liars or from the deep state. These are the same people who believe Obama wasn't born in America;  that 3 million illegal aliens voted for Clinton; and man never went to the moon.

 

I really wonder how locked in Spence is to the Trump train and if at some point he would  be a willinging participant in invoking the 25th Amendment. I feel reasonably sure if Pence got on board the others would follow but then doing it this way is not a sure thing as Trump has the option of bringing in his own doctors to testify.  Trump's billions can buy a lot of support.

 

 

[Scott]

An unsourced and false post and reply have been removed.   Continue and you will receive a suspension.  

[boomerangutang]

So-called 'lawmakers' in D.C. are polarized.   On the one side are Democrats who want Trump out.  On the other side are Republicans who don't like Trump, but want him to stay because they stand a chance to further their pamper-the-rich agenda.

[craigt3365]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/russia-mcfarland-flynn-trump-emails.html

While Mr. Trump has disparaged as a Democratic “hoax” any claims that he or his aides had unusual interactions with Russian officials, the records suggest that the Trump transition team was intensely focused on improving relations with Moscow and was willing to intervene to pursue that goal despite a request from the Obama administration that it not sow confusion about official American policy before Mr. Trump took office.

[riclag]

22 hours ago, Srikcir said:

My conclusion remains that none of your references support by way of authority your position. None of your references refer to "common sense."

If you want to argue instead "It's common sense," I'd rebut that it's also common sense that a president-elect would consult and coordinate with the current president who is required to do so under the Presidential Transition Act."

 

 

Obama Admin: "No Problem with Trump Contacting Russia During Transition of Presidency"

 

"In January, Obama State Department spokesman Mark Toner stated  that the department had “no problem” with Trump’s transition team contacting Russian or any other foreign officials. None of these discussions occurred before the election or involved information on candidate Clinton. Not one. As President Trump has maintained all along, after months of allegations and investigations by both the FBI and the special counsel, there is still no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to influence the election".

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/363070-this-investigation-into-trumps-campaign-is-way-out-of-control

 

How do you feel about this one ?It might not support your narrative .It is without doubt that the prior OBama Administration acknowledged that PT transition team had approval to Speak to other countries .

Edited December 6, 2017 by riclag

[riclag]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

And yet, in December, which is a month before January, Obama told Trump and his team not to cause problems.

 

How do you feel about this one? It might not support your narrative. It is without doubt that the Obama administration acknowledged that PT transition team did not have approval. Especially as they are now being charged for violating the Logan Act. LOL

Can you show which court of law (indictment )   that charges the PT transition team for  violating  the Logan Act? .Because I didn't know they where being charged . 

Edited December 6, 2017 by riclag

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Can you show which court of law (indictment )   that charges the PT transition team for  violating  the Logan Act? .Because I didn't know they where being charged . 

It's been proven. Waiting for the prosecution now.

[riclag]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

It's been proven. Waiting for the prosecution now.

 

 

4 hours ago, riclag said:

Especially as they are now being charged for violating the Logan Act

 It hasn't been proven that their was a violation of the Logan Act by virtue of no indictment  .It's people like you,  that give false accusations ,give rise to fake news.

[craigt3365]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/01/politics/michael-flynn-logan-act/index.html

Flynn's contact with the Russian ambassador "seems to violate what the Logan Act intended to prevent," Zeldin said. He added that even though the Logan Act hasn't been used successfully "it doesn't mean that Mueller wouldn't consider using it to pressure defendants."

The Logan Act, which was passed in 1799, forbids private citizens "without authority of the United States" from negotiating with foreign governments with an "intent to influence" measures or conduct of that government regarding any "disputes or controversies."

[craigt3365]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/28/democrats-think-donald-trump-just-violated-the-logan-act-what-is-that/?utm_term=.341122aef1d3

That sure sounds like it's possible Flynn or other Trump officials was trying to meddle in foreign affairs before he was a representative for the government, said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas. It's possible the special counsel could whack Flynn or other campaign officials with this charge to get them to cooperate in the investigation.

[riclag]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/01/politics/michael-flynn-logan-act/index.html

Flynn's contact with the Russian ambassador "seems to violate what the Logan Act intended to prevent," Zeldin said. He added that even though the Logan Act hasn't been used successfully "it doesn't mean that Mueller wouldn't consider using it to pressure defendants."

The Logan Act, which was passed in 1799, forbids private citizens "without authority of the United States" from negotiating with foreign governments with an "intent to influence" measures or conduct of that government regarding any "disputes or controversies."

You don't get it do you ! You made false statements in your previous comments.

"Especially as they are now being charged for violating the Logan Act"

"It's been proven. Waiting for the prosecution now". 

 

1 hour ago, riclag said:

 

 

[metisdead]

A post containing profanity has been removed as well as the replies. 

 

Nonsense posts and replies have been removed.