TrumPutinGate

[FLVOL_79]

I don't think they're going to find anything of significance regarding collusion with Russia..... however..... won't be shocked at all if some types of financial improprieties are.... racketeering, money laundering, etc...

Then you have statute of limitations. I know money laundering has a small window for charges to be filed, not sure about RICO stuff.

I have a feeling anything found will be distant. The investigation should soley focus on two things: obstruction of justice and Russian collusion in the 2016 campaign. Eating caviar while money laundering rubles through a strip club in the 90's isn't collusion..

 

[lawgator1]

Maybe this will make LG happy but I would support impeachment if Trump cans Mueller (assuming no new reason to can him emerges such as direct conflict of interest).

He's not going to fire him without having some thing to rely on. Whether it's legitimate is going to be open for debate.

 

[golfballs]

Hillary deserves the same level of scrutiny that Trump is under plus some. There existed MUCH more actual evidence that suggested foreign collusion than Trump.

If you're really serious about the "integrity" of our elections, then you couldn't possibly be opposed to it.

 

[hog88]

They haven't moved on. Mueller's investigation has been divided between 2 Areas. Russian Collusion with the Trump campaign and financial crimes, fraud, organized crime and foreign bribery and connections with Russia. The FBI has appointed 20 agents from FBI Counterintelligence to help Mueller's team with the Russian Collusion part of the investigation.

Awfully knowledgeable about the internal workings of this investigation.

 

[Grand Vol]

What would it take?

Let me give you the following hypotheticals and see which ones would tip the scales. Let's say Mueller finds evidence of any of the following, would you say it is time for Trump to be ousted?

1) Trump knew in advance of the June 2016 meeting with the Russian government liaison, and that the purpose was to get Russian government help in defeating Clinton. It'd best be ironclad proof and not some halfazzed "insider source" nonsense. Like Trump admitting on record he knew.

2) Trump was told that there was info coming in from Russian government to help him beat Clinton, and that is why he made the speech wherein he promised to have new explosive info on her after the meeting. This is a crime? To believe someone when they say they have "damaging info" on a political opponent?

3) Trump was aware of Russian hacking of DNC system and giving info to wikileaks as cover. Maybe. But until the US Government actually gets to see the evidence firsthand and not rely on a third party source, good luck proving this one. Even a second rate night school lawyer could sew doubt into any jury by asking the question "did you actually see the evidence or just accept another person's information?" The company used certainly can be impeached in a court of law

4) Trump promised any Russian agent that he would assist in removing sanctions. I can't think of how this would be a crime except in exchange for say, damaging info (which he didn't get) or financial incentives (good luck proving that one). I'd bet promises like that are made more often than you think

5) Trump has significant financial ties to Russia and they have have been in touch with him to obtain favors. I think you're going to have to define "significant" and in context. I'd imagine he already has financial ties to Russia, but whether he was allowed to "keep" them in exchange for special favors, I would agree is worthy of a serious investigation.

6) Trump has laundered money for Russian interests. Dude, you're reaching

7) Trump fired Comey, or tries to fire Mueller prospectively, to prevent investigation into either he or his family's finances on a good faith basis to review any of the above. The FBI Director as well as this special counsel serves at the pleasure of the President. You'd have to have some hard evidence to prove they were fired because they were poking into the wrong places.

But hey, at least they'd be alive. I mean, if it was the Clintons, poor Mueller would be the unfortunate victim of a suicide by flinging himself out of an airplane at 30,000 feet.

8) The purpose of the back channel Kush was setting up, using Russian system, was to hide their communications with the Russians from US intelligence agencies. With the way the intelligence agencies were acting and have acted? Not a bad idea.

But Presidents use back channels and non-traditional personnel all the time. Hell, JFK used Bobby Kennedy to help settle the Cuban Missile Crisis and used a newspaper reporter to set the meeting up. Don't recall any griping about that except in the intelligence and military circles that wanted war with Cuba and the Soviets.

Not really giving these "back channel" communications a whole lot of emphasis

My objective answers in red.

For me, a yes to any one of the eight is impeachable and will render him in any event completely illegitimate as President. But that's me. How about you Trump nuthuggers? Which of those eight would do the trick?

The fact he got elected President in the first place gave you an "impeachable" offense. Please don't even act like you have ever suggested otherwise.

 

[golfballs]

What would it take?

Let me give you the following hypotheticals and see which ones would tip the scales. Let's say Mueller finds evidence of any of the following, would you say it is time for Trump to be ousted?

1) Trump knew in advance of the June 2016 meeting with the Russian government liaison, and that the purpose was to get Russian government help in defeating Clinton.

2) Trump was told that there was info coming in from Russian government to help him beat Clinton, and that is why he made the speech wherein he promised to have new explosive info on her after the meeting.

3) Trump was aware of Russian hacking of DNC system and giving info to wikileaks as cover.

4) Trump promised any Russian agent that he would assist in removing sanctions.

5) Trump has significant financial ties to Russia and they have have been in touch with him to obtain favors.

6) Trump has laundered money for Russian interests.

7) Trump fired Comey, or tries to fire Mueller prospectively, to prevent investigation into either he or his family's finances on a good faith basis to review any of the above.

8) The purpose of the back channel Kush was setting up, using Russian system, was to hide their communications with the Russians from US intelligence agencies.


For me, a yes to any one of the eight is impeachable and will render him in any event completely illegitimate as President. But that's me. How about you Trump nuthuggers? Which of those eight would do the trick?

Show me a high crime related to "Russian collusion", and I'll tell you Trump needs to go. Collusion itself is not.

 

[hog88]

My objective answers in red.



The fact he got elected President in the first place gave you an "impeachable" offense. Please don't even act like you have ever suggested otherwise.

He hasn't responded to anyone that answered so LG just being LG.

 

[lawgator1]

My objective answers in red.



The fact he got elected President in the first place gave you an "impeachable" offense. Please don't even act like you have ever suggested otherwise.

I'll deal with a few.

On # 1, I agree, has to be reasonably reliable proof he knew, such as testimony either from himself or from one of the meeting participants. That could largely be what the Grand Jury is about. Will Manafort, for example, say he told Trump they were meeting with an attorney from the Russian government with dirt on Clinton.

You have to admit, his comments that week certainly give the impression he had reason to think they were about to get some info on her. Right now, the only thing we know that would be the source of that is this meeting.

On # 4, I am assuming that is as payback for something they did for him. The evidence of it being direct quid pro quo I admit my threshold for that is certainly lower than yours. But knowing how Trump loves to brag, I do think it likely he would have made comments or left a paper trial about how brilliant a deal he struck.

On # 5, you want me to define significant, but remember Trump has already gone on record adamantly denying ANY involvement with them except for the Miss Universe pageant. So no, I'm not talking about them having some tiny interest in a bank that gave him a small loan. But if he is tied financially to Russians, or a one cut-out go between for millions to sustain a deal or buy a building, I would hope you consider that significant.

On # 8, okay, you made your point that the intelligence services are not fans of his. But remember, their mission is to detect exactly this sort of thing. Whether you think it is ultimately innocent is irrelevant. The fact that it occurred, under circumstances evincing a desire to evade scrutiny from obvious places, is highly suspicious. And we still have very little information on it.

Bottom line is that the WH says it is eager to cooperate so as to bring this to a conclusion. That seems at odds with Trump's comments that Mueller cannot go into Trump's finances. I suspect that the tension between those two statements is going to come to a head in the next 30 to 60 days.

We'll then see how eager he is to cooperate. I'm going to go out on a limb and say "not very."

 

[hog88]

I'll deal with a few.

On # 1, I agree, has to be reasonably reliable proof he knew, such as testimony either from himself or from one of the meeting participants. That could largely be what the Grand Jury is about. Will Manafort, for example, say he told Trump they were meeting with an attorney from the Russian government with dirt on Clinton.

You have to admit, his comments that week certainly give the impression he had reason to think they were about to get some info on her. Right now, the only thing we know that would be the source of that is this meeting.

On # 4, I am assuming that is as payback for something they did for him. The evidence of it being direct quid pro quo I admit my threshold for that is certainly lower than yours. But knowing how Trump loves to brag, I do think it likely he would have made comments or left a paper trial about how brilliant a deal he struck.

On # 5, you want me to define significant, but remember Trump has already gone on record adamantly denying ANY involvement with them except for the Miss Universe pageant. So no, I'm not talking about them having some tiny interest in a bank that gave him a small loan. But if he is tied financially to Russians, or a one cut-out go between for millions to sustain a deal or buy a building, I would hope you consider that significant.

On # 8, okay, you made your point that the intelligence services are not fans of his. But remember, their mission is to detect exactly this sort of thing. Whether you think it is ultimately innocent is irrelevant. The fact that it occurred, under circumstances evincing a desire to evade scrutiny from obvious places, is highly suspicious. And we still have very little information on it.

Bottom line is that the WH says it is eager to cooperate so as to bring this to a conclusion. That seems at odds with Trump's comments that Mueller cannot go into Trump's finances. I suspect that the tension between those two statements is going to come to a head in the next 30 to 60 days.

We'll then see how eager he is to cooperate. I'm going to go out on a limb and say "not very."

Ok LG, what happens if Muller concludes that there wasn't collusion between Trump/his campaign and the Russians but he found financial improprieties unrelated to the election. What should happen? Impeachment and charges?

 

[InVOLuntary]

They haven't moved on. Mueller's investigation has been divided between 2 Areas. Russian Collusion with the Trump campaign and financial crimes, fraud, organized crime and foreign bribery and connections with Russia. The FBI has appointed 20 agents from FBI Counterintelligence to help Mueller's team with the Russian Collusion part of the investigation.

Oh, I think they're running dry on the collusion thing. That's why they are expanding to other areas. They are determined to find something. May even manufacturer it.

 

[Grand Vol]

LG, reference #4:

If I'm Trump and I tell the Russians I'm going to help remove the sanctions...

Then turn around and sign even tougher sanctions into law. Am I guilty of lying to the Russians? And don't play this "well, he really didn't want to..." nonsense. They are signed, they will be enacted into law and your point would be moot.

 

[hog88]

LG, reference #4:

If I'm Trump and I tell the Russians I'm going to help remove the sanctions...

Then turn around and sign even tougher sanctions into law. Am I guilty of lying to the Russians? And don't play this "well, he really didn't want to..." nonsense. They are signed, they will be enacted into law and your point would be moot.

But what about all of the other things he's done to help the Russians and end the sanctions?

 

[Grand Vol]

But what about all of the other things he's done to help the Russians and end the sanctions?

He's waiting. He'll have more flexibility after the election.

 

[lawgator1]

Ok LG, what happens if Muller concludes that there wasn't collusion between Trump/his campaign and the Russians but he found financial improprieties unrelated to the election. What should happen? Impeachment and charges?

Depends on what you mean by "financial improprieties."

If you mean he underreported taxable wages to his employees, if it was innocent of the order of magnitude that the industry sees when errors on that are made, then no.

If its some sort of overuse of a tax shelter, no.

If its overstating expenses to his corporation to get some relatively small non-taxable income, no.

If its sheltering money for organized crime, yes. If its any sort of abuse of a charity, and its significant and intentional, yes. If its tax evasion on a repeated and large scale, probably so, yes.

Just depends on the nature and extent of it.

LG, reference #4:

If I'm Trump and I tell the Russians I'm going to help remove the sanctions...

Then turn around and sign even tougher sanctions into law. Am I guilty of lying to the Russians? And don't play this "well, he really didn't want to..." nonsense. They are signed, they will be enacted into law and your point would be moot.

I confess that I do not know how those are actually executed, so I'm not sure whether Trump has the wherewithal to in some way dilute or block them.

I'm not sure how they go into effect and are actually enforced. I think we need to see that. And if Trump says he's not going to, and Congress has to take him to court given their built-in authority on that, it will be very interesting.

Remember, he built a multi billion company and Congress can't even pass health care repeal. So that must mean he, and he alone, should have all the power.

 

[golfballs]

There's are constitutional standards for impeachment. Butthurt and hysteria are not mentioned.

 

[37L1]

Depends on what you mean by "financial improprieties."

If you mean he underreported taxable wages to his employees, if it was innocent of the order of magnitude that the industry sees when errors on that are made, then no.

If its some sort of overuse of a tax shelter, no.

If its overstating expenses to his corporation to get some relatively small non-taxable income, no.

If its sheltering money for organized crime, yes. If its any sort of abuse of a charity, and its significant and intentional, yes. If its tax evasion on a repeated and large scale, probably so, yes.

Just depends on the nature and extent of it.




I confess that I do not know how those are actually executed, so I'm not sure whether Trump has the wherewithal to in some way dilute or block them.

I'm not sure how they go into effect and are actually enforced. I think we need to see that. And if Trump says he's not going to, and Congress has to take him to court given their built-in authority on that, it will be very interesting.

Remember, he built a multi billion company and Congress can't even pass health care repeal. So that must mean he, and he alone, should have all the power.

Just like Congress took Obama to court for not enforcing immigration law?

You are a hoot LG, are you really an attorney or do you play one on TV?

 

[golfballs]

Depends on what you mean by "financial improprieties."

If you mean he underreported taxable wages to his employees, if it was innocent of the order of magnitude that the industry sees when errors on that are made, then no.

If its some sort of overuse of a tax shelter, no.

If its overstating expenses to his corporation to get some relatively small non-taxable income, no.

If its sheltering money for organized crime, yes. If its any sort of abuse of a charity, and its significant and intentional, yes. If its tax evasion on a repeated and large scale, probably so, yes.

Just depends on the nature and extent of it.




I confess that I do not know how those are actually executed, so I'm not sure whether Trump has the wherewithal to in some way dilute or block them.

I'm not sure how they go into effect and are actually enforced. I think we need to see that. And if Trump says he's not going to, and Congress has to take him to court given their built-in authority on that, it will be very interesting.

Remember, he built a multi billion company and Congress can't even pass health care repeal. So that must mean he, and he alone, should have all the power.

How do you dream up this stuff?

Besides, even in your wildest dreams this does not qualify as a high crime and misdemeanor.

 

[lawgator1]

How do you dream up this stuff?

Besides, even in your wildest dreams this does not qualify as a high crime and misdemeanor.

That phrase is poorly defined.

However, if Mueller discovers that Trump has been engaged in large scale and systemic tax evasion, I am quite confident that the Republicans in Congress will not only impeach Trump, but will personally hire the moving vans to show up the next day to get his arse out of there, before he embarrasses them even more.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Yeah! More unconditional legislation.

What is unconditional about it?

 

[golfballs]

That phrase is poorly defined.

However, if Mueller discovers that Trump has been engaged in large scale and systemic tax evasion, I am quite confident that the Republicans in Congress will not only impeach Trump, but will personally hire the moving vans to show up the next day to get his arse out of there, before he embarrasses them even more.

They'll try to justify any reason to impeach him. Doesn't make it right.

 

[theFallGuy]

That phrase is poorly defined.

However, if Mueller discovers that Trump has been engaged in large scale and systemic tax evasion, I am quite confident that the Republicans in Congress will not only impeach Trump, but will personally hire the moving vans to show up the next day to get his arse out of there, before he embarrasses them even more.

"show me man and I'll show you the crime"

 

[Grand Vol]

I confess that I do not know how those are actually executed, so I'm not sure whether Trump has the wherewithal to in some way dilute or block them.

I'm not sure how they go into effect and are actually enforced. I think we need to see that. And if Trump says he's not going to, and Congress has to take him to court given their built-in authority on that, it will be very interesting.

Remember, he built a multi billion company and Congress can't even pass health care repeal. So that must mean he, and he alone, should have all the power.

So, running your mouth without actually knowing the facts.

I understand completely.

 

[theFallGuy]

Oh look Maxine Waters wants to go after Pence too. I wonder what kind of crime she can drum up.

"On Friday’s broadcast of ABC’s “The View,” Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) stated that after President Donald Trump is impeached, Vice President Mike Pence won’t be a better president than Trump and should be impeached as well.

One of the show’s hosts, Joy Behar asked, “Do you think Pence will be better than Trump if he were impeached? ”

Waters answered, “No. And when we finish with Trump, we have to go and get Putin. He’s next.”

Behar then asked Waters if she meant Putin or Pence, and Waters clarified that she meant Pence.

 

[theFallGuy]

Funny the party that is suddenly so anti-Russia seems to be perfectly okay with using Russian political tactics

 

[golfballs]

She at least is fully transparent on the impetus behind this. She wants to use impeachment as a way to undo the will of the American people and serve out her own political agenda. They're treating it as if it's a check and balance between voters and the DC establishment.