Trump calls special counsel Russia probe 'greatest witch hunt' in U.S. history

[mtls2005]

According to WH leaks, all of the staff except Jared advocated for a measured response to the naming of Mueller. And that's more or less what the WH issued as a statement. But Jared (AKA Sonny Corleone) evidently had Trump's ear later on and voila, counter-productive tweets.

 

Hopefully his soon to be named private attorney can convince his client to to stop talking, and tweeting, about the Russian thing. 

[Credo]

3 minutes ago, Yann55 said:

... A significant percentage of whom must be masochists, then, since they elected their persecutor to his present position.

 

After only a hundred days of Trump-at-the-White-House, I wonder how many of those who voted for him are now biting their nails in anger, frustration and regret.

 

I do understand that a large proportion were just voting against Hillary, and I certainly don't blame them for that, but when you choose the devil to avoid the devil, you still end up electing the devil.

No, there were people voting against Hillary, but there are plenty of people who just dislike gov't and Trump shared that view.   They voted against gov't.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Credo said:

No, there were people voting against Hillary, but there are plenty of people who just dislike gov't and Trump shared that view.   They voted against gov't.

They certainly didn't vote against the so-called intrusion of government into everyone's lives. If that were the case, Rand Paul would should have won the nomination. Trump campaigned on protecting entitlements.

[mtls2005]

1 minute ago, Credo said:

No, there were people voting against Hillary, but there are plenty of people who just dislike gov't and Trump shared that view.   They voted against gov't.

45% of eligible voters chose, for various reasons, not to vote.

 

That's almost criminal, as criminal as the Russian activities to sway and suppress voters, and needs to be addressed. We should be making it easier for people to vote rather than harder. Holding an election on a weekend alone might result in a 10% increase.

[Berkshire]

3 hours ago, tonray said:

I disagree but really the DEMS would do far better with Trump at the helm in blunting the right's agenda. With him gone and Pence in place...if they cannot wrest control in 2018, the agenda will be implemented at lightening speed. Trump's ineffectiveness and impulsiveness are the DEM's main weapon against policy right now.

I actually thought about this and yes, I agree that a President Pence "could be" worse in terms of his extreme right-wing position on a great many issues.  But consider the hardcore Trump supporters and what they're going to do if Trump is ousted.  I doubt they would instantly warm up to Pence.  Not sure how this would play out, but I don't think you can assume that the GOP will automatically become one big happy family with Pence as President.

[Peterw42]

Yes, if only the President had the power to stop legislation from passing.  Maybe we could call it the veto.  That would give him lots of leverage. If only the USA had a constitution and in that document he was given such a power.  

A two thirds majority of Congress overides a presidents veto, a good clause to have in hindsight

[ilostmypassword]

Trump's claim to executive privilege could be jeopardized.

Trump needs private attorney to navigate complex probe, his ex-lawyer says

Trump’s constant tweeting about subjects under investigation — as well as his claim that then-FBI Director James B. Comey assured him in three conversations that he was cleared — could undermine efforts to cite executive privilege, analysts said.

“It makes it extremely hard for him to make a claim of executive privilege after he has already put it out there publicly,” said Mark J. Rozell, dean of the Schar School of Public Policy at George Mason University and author of a book on executive privilege. “He is just not careful. ”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-needs-private-attorney-to-navigate-complex-probe-his-ex-lawyer-says/2017/05/18/f8dd81e0-3bf7-11e7-a058-ddbb23c75d82_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_privilege-9pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.05a110f195d4

Edited May 19, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Peterw42 said:

 

A two thirds majority of Congress overides a presidents veto, a good clause to have in hindsight

 

And given the current makeup of the House and Senate, is an override likely on any of the major issues pending?

[Langsuan Man]

Trump calls special counsel Russia probe 'greatest witch hunt' in U.S. history

 

[iReason]

Trump denies collusion with Russia but says I 'speak for myself'

The president, at a remarkable press conference, was forced to deny he had done anything worthy of criminal charges – calling Russia crisis ‘a witch hunt’ (sub-title) 

 

"Donald Trump denied any collusion with Russia in the 2016 election but said on Thursday he spoke “for myself”, leaving open for the first time the possibility that some of his staff may have been involved."

 

T"here is no collusion – certainly myself and my campaign – but I can always speak for myself and the Russians – zero,” he said at a joint press conference with the Colombian president, Juan Manuel Santos."

 

 

"Trump’s embattled presidency, which has invited increasingly frequent comparison with Richard Nixon and Watergate, passed a new landmark at the press conference when he was asked bluntly, in front of a foreign head of state, whether he recalled anything he had done that “might be worthy of criminal charges in these investigation or impeachment”.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/trump-strays-white-house-message-mueller-witch-hunt

 

The screws are tightening now, and the inept one opens the door to throw his surrogates under the bus...

 

On a lighter note:

 

 

[Jingthing]

trump ain't no history good ...

 

 

 

 

[iReason]

Chaff-outz

"Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House oversight committee, announced his resignation, effective June 30."

"In a letter to constituents, Chaffetz said he wanted to spend more time with his family."

Read the letter

 

Trumptanic survivor.

 

Jason Chaffetz announces early resignation from Congress

 

"Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House oversight committee, announced on Thursday that he'll be leaving office on June 30, 18 months before the end of his congressional term."

 

"Chaffetz has faced criticism recently for his role in investigating President Donald Trump and his administration."

 

"In February, he met a packed townhall in his Utah district, filled with constituents chanting, "do your job." 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/jason-chaffetz-resign-from-congress-2017-5

 

[55Jay]

More filler, but again, it's the chickens coming home to roost.  Trump is waaayy out of his league now, these DC sharks are going to rip him to shreds and the media will bury the remains.  I don't expect there will be any real barn burners, not on Trump specifically, but even if he does survive, he'll be full on radioactive and might as well resign.

 

Coulda shoulda woulda..... had he not conducted himself like a douche bag after winning the R nomination, he could of gotten some things accomplished and maybe done some good.  In some areas, broad strokes, he's not wrong, but nobody likes an <deleted>. 

[Srikcir]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

"This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!"

My vote would be the McCarthy hearings. http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/army-mccarthy-hearings

McCarthy left a string of innocent victims in his path. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~lillsie/McCarthyism/Victims.html

 

[iReason]

 

 

[Srikcir]

5 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

Where has democracy gone ?

Apparently around Trump's neck like a noose.

[tonray]

1 hour ago, iReason said:

Chaff-outz

"Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House oversight committee, announced his resignation, effective June 30."

"In a letter to constituents, Chaffetz said he wanted to spend more time with his family."

Read the letter

 

Trumptanic survivor.

 

Jason Chaffetz announces early resignation from Congress

 

"Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House oversight committee, announced on Thursday that he'll be leaving office on June 30, 18 months before the end of his congressional term."

 

"Chaffetz has faced criticism recently for his role in investigating President Donald Trump and his administration."

 

"In February, he met a packed townhall in his Utah district, filled with constituents chanting, "do your job." 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/jason-chaffetz-resign-from-congress-2017-5

 

Some say he has been offered high paying hack job at Faux News

[Pat in Pattaya]

Would you still buy US stocks?

[Srikcir]

3 hours ago, smotherb said:

You seem to have missed the obvious; part of this investigation surrounds whether or not the election was adversely influenced and whether Trump's actions are counter to his constitutional obligations.

Mueller will conduct an investigation into “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,” along with “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/doj-special-counsel-russia-trump_us_591cbfa2e4b03b485cae5465

So start with the possible links and collusion, then anywhere else deemed to be a criminal issue, ie., Executive Branch (ie., POTUS and Cabinet) obstruction of justice, money laundering, unregistered foreign agent, bribery, lying to federal investigators, etc.

[elgordo38]

I know which side I am on.

[elgordo38]

9 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump also said he was close to selecting a new FBI director to replace James Comey, who he fired last week, and that former senator and one-time Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman was among the top candidates.

He has been advised and I think the advise is sticking which is unusual that he should pick from outside the swamp and Republican party for a change. I like Joe but he may have the same problem Comey had with pledging loyalty to Trump. If the Donald screws this one up its the beginning of the end for him. 

[elgordo38]

23 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Mueller will conduct an investigation into “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,” along with “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/doj-special-counsel-russia-trump_us_591cbfa2e4b03b485cae5465

So start with the possible links and collusion, then anywhere else deemed to be a criminal issue, ie., Executive Branch (ie., POTUS and Cabinet) obstruction of justice, money laundering, unregistered foreign agent, bribery, lying to federal investigators, etc.

Let me catch me breath

[tonray]

44 minutes ago, Pat in Pattaya said:

Would you still buy US stocks?

Making investment decisions based upon your personal bent on future politics is never a good idea. If you have a valid financial need that buying American companies can fill, you should do so, irregardless of politics 

[Jingthing]

11 minutes ago, tonray said:

Making investment decisions based upon your personal bent on future politics is never a good idea. If you have a valid financial need that buying American companies can fill, you should do so, irregardless of politics 

Political instability would fundamentally be a downward influence on the U.S. stock market and dollar. So considering that factor is entirely rational.

The trump bump was largely about market expectations that trump would succeed in business friendly taxation changes. But if (I said if) the government is stalled in trump scandals for many months or years, that damages his political capital to actually pass such legislation. 

It's not a matter of pro or anti trump in this case. Just looking at fundamentals and risk factors. 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Jingthing

[boomerangutang]

                        I con't think the FBI or the special counsel will pursue every lead.  It's too easy for whomever is leading the probes to say "no, don't pursue that lead" if he so chooses.  Yes, high-level investigations usually follow leads, but they're often immersed in partisanship.  I heard an interview today with a former AG and he was treading so carefully with his words, that I had to switch it off.  We don't need namby pambies tip-toeing through land mines.  We need tough-minded prosecutors who aren't afraid to pursue leads - wherever they lead.

 

6 hours ago, jerojero said:

No waiting for 2020. Impeachment will happen before end of this year. Trump will continue to shoot off his mouth and himself in the foot. He's an absolute disgrace.

I don't think impeachment will happen before the Dems regain majorities in Congress in 2019.  Simple reason:  Republicans will have majorities in both houses, and with ass-lickers like Ryan and McConnell ruling the roost, partisanship will trump what's-good-for-America.

[Jingthing]

A possibly depressing thing to consider.

I'm reading sources stating that these kinds of investigations can typically take YEARS. I suppose that means it could still be going on even after trump leaves office (for whatever reason including losing reelection). 

Impeachment is in no way a certainty, and trump doesn't seem to be the resigning type, unless there is a fun way for him to spin quitting into winning (wouldn't rule that out). 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Jingthing

[boomerangutang]

                            Congressional members 'ooh and aah' whenever a Trump appointee gets shot down, as happened with Flynn, and will soon happen with Sessions.   YET, TRUMP NOMINATED THOSE PEOPLE.

                           Pence also has one foot in hot water.  He has been in charge of vetting all nominees, and by any account, has been doing an abysmal job of it.  Pence has also been lying like a flea-infested rug.

                         Message to Congressional Republicans who voted in lockstep to approve Trump's nominees:  How does it feel to be such partisan A-holes?   All of you voted for seriously flawed candidates.  You can say you didn't know, when you voted, but then you're lying SOB's, because anyone who followed the news at that time, knew.  I knew.  So that makes me smarter than all of you.   So if you, Republican politicians, knew you were voting for law-breakers, then that makes you lower than dried shit on the soles of my shoes.

                 And the handful of Dems who voted for Sessions and Flynn and De Vos and other severely flawed candidates.   You're even worse.  You can't use the excuse of blind partisanship.    Your only excuse is profound ass-licking ignorance.   

 

[boomerangutang]

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

A possibly depressing thing to consider.

I'm reading sources stating that these kinds of investigations can typically take YEARS. I suppose that means it could still be going on even after trump leaves office (for whatever reason including losing reelection). 

Impeachment is in no way a certainty, and trump doesn't seem to be the resigning type, unless there is a fun way for him to spin quitting into winning (wouldn't rule that out). 

                                Well, one of his great supporters (and a fellow America-debilitator who also can't speak/write a legible sentence) quit political office, so maybe there's hope Trump will also.  I'm referring to Palin.

[RobFord]

No, there were people voting against Hillary, but there are plenty of people who just dislike gov't and Trump shared that view.   They voted against gov't.

What ever you think of Michael Moore, he got it right.

https://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[tonray]

32 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Political instability would fundamentally be a downward influence on the U.S. stock market and dollar. So considering that factor is entirely rational.

The trump bump was largely about market expectations that trump would succeed in business friendly taxation changes. But if (I said if) the government is stalled in trump scandals for many months or years, that damages his political capital to actually pass such legislation. 

It's not a matter of pro or anti trump in this case. Just looking at fundamentals and risk factors. 

It's a huge mistake to try and handicap the effect of events (politics, terrorism) etc etc. You very limited options for keeping your assets growing faster than inflation. Having worked in and around the investment community for many years, I have seen people who pulled their money out of stocks in 2000, 2009, after 9-11, after Obama's election, etc etc. The one thing they have in common is that they are big losers. Perhaps changing the mix of investments (ie focus on income rather than growth) but staying away is a proven failed strategy tested over time and again and again and again.