All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Seabass]

You understand what a conflict of interest is, correct?

Yes.

The New York Times reported in 2015 that "shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock, and in total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum.

Clear up for me whether that constitutes a conflict of interest. I don't think so, but perhaps you know better.

Also, what about if Trump explored a deal to build a building in Moscow, but the deal never went through, and had already fallen through by the end of 2015, and no deal was ever completed. Is that wrong? Why? What's the conflict? That Trump might one day again want to build a building in Russia which he isn't now building and does not now have a deal to build?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hilla ... ssia-deal/
https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fac ... anium-rus/

Quote where those sources state Bill Clinton did not receive $500,00 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One Stock.

That speech was in 2010, ffs. That's hardly equivalent to actively trying to get a skyscraper built in the middle of Moscow while running for president.

Quote where those sources state that $145 million did not go to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One.

The Uranium One Deal Was Not Clinton’s to Veto or Approve

[Seabass]

Oh look, conditional morality at it's finest. Thank you for telling what my argument is, but actually I can do that for myself. Trump lied about his dealing in Russia - deeply and frequently. But there's nothing illegal about lying eh, and everybody does it right(?)

You know you've got a truly great president when they can get away with all manner of shady shit without going to prison for it!

[Brian Peacock]

You have to remember that doing a bad thing is not actually a bad thing if you fail at doing it.

[Joe]

Nobody cares about lying to the public. After all, Obama lied and said we could keep our doctors under the ACA.

Nobody got upset about that, dido they?

Do we not remember the pre-Obamacare conversations about this? Oh, it would reduce costs, reduce fraud, streamline the administrative processes, and reduce premiums across the board, except for the very wealthy. If you like your doctor, you can keep him or her. If you like your plan, you can keep it. All bullshit. Unadulterated bullshit.

Okay, but that doesn't count.

[Seabass]

The Mueller Report Was My Tipping Point
I was a Trump transition staffer, and I’ve seen enough. It’s time for impeachment.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... nt/587785/

Let’s start at the end of this story. This weekend, I read Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report twice, and realized that enough was enough—I needed to do something. I’ve worked on every Republican presidential transition team for the past 10 years and recently served as counsel to the Republican-led House Financial Services Committee. My permanent job is as a law professor at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, which is not political, but where my colleagues have held many prime spots in Republican administrations.

...

I wanted to share my experience transitioning from Trump team member to pragmatist about Trump to advocate for his impeachment, because I think many other Republicans are starting a similar transition. Politics is a team sport, and if you actively work within a political party, there is some expectation that you will follow orders and rally behind the leader, even when you disagree. There is a point, though, at which that expectation turns from a mix of loyalty and pragmatism into something more sinister, a blind devotion that serves to enable criminal conduct.

The Mueller report was that tipping point for me, and it should be for Republican and independent voters, and for Republicans in Congress. In the face of a Department of Justice policy that prohibited him from indicting a sitting president, Mueller drafted what any reasonable reader would see as a referral to Congress to commence impeachment hearings.

Depending on how you count, roughly a dozen separate instances of obstruction of justice are contained in the Mueller report. The president dangled pardons in front of witnesses to encourage them to lie to the special counsel, and directly ordered people to lie to throw the special counsel off the scent.

This elaborate pattern of obstruction may have successfully impeded the Mueller investigation from uncovering a conspiracy to commit more serious crimes. At a minimum, there’s enough here to get the impeachment process started. In impeachment proceedings, the House serves as a sort of grand jury and the Senate conducts the trial. There is enough in the Mueller report to commence the Constitution’s version of a grand-jury investigation in the form of impeachment proceedings.

The Founders knew that impeachment would be, in part, a political exercise. They decided that the legislative branch would operate as the best check on the president by channeling the people’s will. Congress has an opportunity to shape that public sentiment with the hearings ahead. As sentiments shift, more and more Republicans in Congress will feel emboldened to stand up to the president. The nation has been through this drama before, with more than a year of hearings in the Richard Nixon scandal, which ultimately forced his resignation.

full article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... nt/587785/

[L'Emmerdeur]

Expressing his autocratic tendency, Trump is saying that current and former members of his administration don't need to testify in Congress. One has already ignored a congressional subpoena, while the detestable Mnuchin has decided that he needs another two weeks to consider whether to comply with the law which clearly states that the IRS shall turn over tax returns of any citizen to the House Ways and Means Committee Chairman. Constitutional checks and balances? Fuck that shit.

'Trump says aides need not testify to Congress amid growing power struggle'

Donald Trump has said he is opposed to current and former White House aides testifying to congressional committees about special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian election interference, the Washington Post reported.

In an interview with the newspaper, the US president claimed his administration cooperated with Mueller’s investigation and did not need to comply with congressional committees examining possible obstruction of justice on his part.

“There is no reason to go any further, and especially in Congress where it’s very partisan – obviously very partisan,” Trump told the Post. “I don’t want people testifying to a party, because that is what they’re doing if they do this.”

The House oversight committee has been investigating security clearances issued to senior officials, including Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former White House aide Rob Porter.

The committee subpoenaed Carl Kline, a former White House personnel security director, following testimony from a whistleblower that dozens of people in the administration were granted security clearances despite “disqualifying issues” in their backgrounds. But on Tuesday Kline, following White House instructions, did not turn up for a scheduled deposition.

Congressman Elijah Cummings, chairman of the committee, said the administration has adopted the “untenable” position that it can ignore requests from Democrats, who assumed the majority in January.

“It appears that the president believes that the Constitution does not apply to his White House, that he may order officials at will to violate their legal obligations, and that he may obstruct attempts by Congress to conduct oversight,” Cummings said in a statement.

[JimC]

It seems to me that the current situation has shown that the whole American political system is riven with the possibility of unresolvable conflict between its various branches, which in the end could lead to a paralysis of national government. The possible opponents to the US will not suffer from this debilitating paralysis. So ends empires...

[rainbow]

Is it wrong to do business in Russia, or not? Is it wrong to invest in a building construction in Moscow?

No. It is wrong to divert the direction of this thread with your non-sequitur arguments.

Open a new thread on the morality of doing business in Russia in general, if you think it will spark an interesting conversation.

[Brian Peacock]

“A cloud of critics, of compilers, of commentators, darkened the face of learning, and the decline of genius was soon followed by the corruption of taste.”
― Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

[Seabass]

It seems to me that the current situation has shown that the whole American political system is riven with the possibility of unresolvable conflict between its various branches, which in the end could lead to a paralysis of national government. The possible opponents to the US will not suffer from this debilitating paralysis. So ends empires...

Well, Trump is commander in chief of the armed forces, he also controls federal law enforcement agencies, and Trumpzis are better armed and more prone to violence than the rest of us. So yeah, I don't think paralysis is our biggest worry at this point...

[JimC]

My point was simply that I think I've never seen a powerful nation so divided, with parts of its government (congress and presidency) so at loggerheads with each other. Not a situation which faces the Chinese government, for instance...

[Seabass]

My point was simply that I think I've never seen a powerful nation so divided, with parts of its government (congress and presidency) so at loggerheads with each other. Not a situation which faces the Chinese government, for instance...

Sure, I'm just sayin', Trump is a reckless and impulsive authoritarian without morals or conscience and he controls the military and cops, so the situation might be worse than you think. He's already tried to have some of his political rivals arrested. It looks like he has no intention of complying with Congress' demands for various financial documents. What happens when he refuses? How will Congress enforce the law when the guy who controls the military and law enforcement is the one breaking it?

[Tero]

Christian concerned about all them atheist candidates
https://mobile.twitter.com/72ps/status/ ... 5314586625
From there

Felicia
@Felicia1669


@Lrihendry
and
@realDonaldTrump
Actually one Dem 2020 candidate IS talking about faith. Yes, he talks about Christianity specifically. He's called Mayor Pete. He's the gay one. So there you go! There's your Christian.

[Tero]

Oh and Paul who made up Jesus for the Bible was gay.

[Forty Two]

Is it wrong to do business in Russia, or not? Is it wrong to invest in a building construction in Moscow?

No. It is wrong to divert the direction of this thread with your non-sequitur arguments.

This is a generalized thread -- and not limited to the topics you deem most relevant. If you don't want to talk about Trump-Russia, don't. But, you can hardly say the question of whether it is wrong to do business in Russia is irrelevant to "All things Trump..." thread, given that a major allegation leveled against him, in this thread, is how wrong it is for him to have run for President while his companies had an interest in potentially building a building in Russia.

Open a new thread on the morality of doing business in Russia in general, if you think it will spark an interesting conversation.

Perhaps you should talk to the mods and suggest that they not demand that threads be entire clearinghouses of topics and subtopics related to Trump. Whether it is moral or immoral to do business in Russia is being discussed here in relation to Trump. Whether there is a different standard on that for Trump, as opposed to "in general" is relevant to that discussion.

Obviously, if the Democrats were encouraging American businesses to do business in Russia, make investments in Russia, open stores in Russia, make loans to Russion businesses, build things in Russia, etc. - and they were -- it stands to reason that one might reasonably question why they believe it's treasonous or a moral or legal failing in some way for a Trump company to have explored doing just that.