The United States v Donald Trump

Posted by: NW Ponderer

The United States v Donald Trump - 09/09/18 12:14 AM

I wasn't sure where to start this thread, but I wanted to start this conversation. I do not believe that Trump will be impeached, nor do I think there will be an indictment while he is in office. I do, however, think he is guilty as hell of numerous criminal violations, and at some point will be held to account. The question is, where and for what?

I'm not aware of any incident where a former President has been prosecuted for a crime. More than one Vice President has been prosecuted (I'm aware of two, one for murder). So, when Trump is indicted, it will be an historic event. Nixon was pardoned, would Pence do the same for Trump?
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/09/18 03:39 AM

Hasn't that been the case in recent years.

Scott free ... maybe Mr Trump is the greatest human to have ever lived
Posted by: Greger

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/16/18 04:48 PM

Quote:
I'm not aware of any incident where a former President has been prosecuted for a crime.

I'm not aware of any president being elected who was so obviously a criminal.

I also doubt he will be impeached. But will he run again? Of course he claims he will and collects money for the 2020 campaign...but is he really enjoying this? Does he want to keep doing it for another 4 years? He's gonna be 75. The white house is a slum compared to his regular digs, Melania hates it, his personal entourage of sycophants has been devastated and even his family is avoiding him. The only thing keeping him sane is his trips to Mar-a-Lago.

Maybe Mueller is avoiding the low hanging fruit; the wire fraud, tax fraud, and money laundering, and will stick to collusion with Russia to influence the election. There may not be any "collusion". Mueller might not file anything more than some petty misuse of campaign funds and there will be no United Sates vs Donald Trump.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/16/18 05:49 PM

On January 21, 2020, I bet some state AGs file charges against Trump. It's very well documented and Mueller has shared this information with the appropriate AGs. Whoever the next President is, his pardon will have no effect on state charges. In fact, accepting a pardon requires an admission of guilt, so state prosecution gets much easier! It might not be US v Trump, but it will be at least New York v Trump. Maybe Florida v Trump for all the real estate money laundering for oligarchs.

Federal charges are not necessary. Most people are in state prison, not federal. Most executions are done by states, not the US. Of particular interest will be asset seizure: If all of his money has come from criminal activities, then it is subject to seizure! If all his kids money has come from those sources, bye bye money.

I bet Florida could use it's share of that money.
Posted by: jgw

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/16/18 06:51 PM

I suspect that all the state AG's are just waiting for Mueller to finish up before they start up. I also believe the claims that Russia owns Jackass, because they bailed him out when he was 4 billion in debt (I think that was the figure). According to a Trump interview "you really don't want to owe them any money" and he, apparently, owes them billions! Mueller has his accountant/manager who knows all about the money and now Manafort will probably validate the Jackass/Russian 'partnership' which he was probably involved with. If this is proven then its all over. The only question will be if they give him the Nixon options - go away or we file charges. Hopefully, no matter which is chosen he gets stripped of assets as I fully also believe that Jackass has run a criminal enterprise which makes his assets, basically, ill gotten gains.

Just saying.............
Posted by: Ken Condon

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/16/18 07:41 PM

Yet most of his fans will not accept this and will continue to believe DJT was indeed set up by the “Deep State” conspiracy. Trump continues to remind them of this “fact” almost daily.

Trump’s removal will be an ugly event indeed and I continue to ponder just how ugly this whole thing will get. Trumps fans continue to believe that their man is their lord and savior who is being set up to be unfairly crucified by the heathen unwashed cabal of librulz. And reasoned logic will never emanate from true believers. Never has, never will.

Batten the hatches.....
Posted by: Greger

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/16/18 08:31 PM

I'm still betting he skates.

Why would state AGs care one way or another? Every rich man is probably guilty of a multitude of crimes. They're handy for getting the Cohens and Manaforts to talk but Mueller is investigating Russian Collusion, not financial crimes.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/16/18 09:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I'm still betting he skates.

Why would state AGs care one way or another? Every rich man is probably guilty of a multitude of crimes. They're handy for getting the Cohens and Manaforts to talk but Mueller is investigating Russian Collusion, not financial crimes.


As for skating, it's a matter of degree.
Why would state AG's care? Because a con man at Trump's level can wind up costing states BILLIONS, and that's a mighty good motivator.
If you're a state AG, and you've learned the magnitude of Trump's crimes, you're not going to want him infecting your state at a lower level just because he walked on the federal level, or got pardoned.

Yes, of course your party affiliation MIGHT also be an influence, so some red states might welcome the man.
I wouldn't want to be a resident of any state that welcomed him, that's for sure.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/17/18 01:04 AM

The magnitude of Trump's crimes? As far as I know he's been charged with nothing and may never be charged with anything.

Ya'll practically got him tried, convicted, and behind bars.

I'll believe it when I see it.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/17/18 04:35 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
I'm not aware of any incident where a former President has been prosecuted for a crime.

I'm not aware of any president being elected who was so obviously a criminal.

I've always felt the the Intel community has known about Trump's crimes for a very long time and this presidency thingy was their way to round up the entire cabal and put an end to it.

That Donald Trump's election was allowed to happen for this very reason. Hmm

Then again, I could be wrong. gobsmacked But I seriously doubt it. smile
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/17/18 08:14 AM

I think the money laundering stuff is well documented. We're talking about real estate transactions that all got recorded by the state! And why on earth would the DEMOCRAT AG of New York not want to seize billions of dollars of dirty money? Or the treasurer of New York not want to have the state tax authorities prosecute tax fraud? Or even the Republican AG of Florida, if that person is a Republican.

Is that some kind of new Republican idea, not to seize assets from illegal activities? Like sending people who turn state's evidence to jail?
Posted by: Greger

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/17/18 05:41 PM

If all these "crimes" are so well documented then why wasn't Trump arrested years ago? Why hasn't Mueller swooped in and had him arrested?

Quote:
I've always felt the the Intel community has known about Trump's crimes for a very long time and this presidency thingy was their way to round up the entire cabal and put an end to it.


You've always felt this way? Since you were a child? You suspected there was a conspiracy in the intel community to have Donald Trump run for office, and arrange for him to win, so they could arrest him and others for well documented crimes that have taken place over decades...

I think ya'll done gone off the deep end and I'm just trying to push you back to shallow water.

Trump is guilty of being a rich assh0le. He's unethical and immoral, he's probably sold property to criminals or foriegn nationals, effectively laundering their money. He's probably cheated on his taxes. But generally speaking he's no worse than a thousand just like him.

Everybody has a pet theory, mine is that the whole presidential run was nothing but a PR run-up to his opening of the hotel in DC. It was a complete fluke that he won, surprising him more than anyone else in the country.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/17/18 07:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
If all these "crimes" are so well documented then why wasn't Trump arrested years ago? Why hasn't Mueller swooped in and had him arrested?
oh oh, I'll take this one!

Until Trump jumped into the national limelight, there wasn't much incentive to pursue an investigation against him. White collar criminals rarely get commensurate sentences, and financial cases are notoriously expensive to pursue. Consider Manafort's trials as an example. Also consider how long it took to bring Bernie Madoff to trial. Prosecutors' offices run on shoestring budgets.

Now, however, there is motivation, as his activities are affecting many more people, and are being conducted in the open. Mueller is careful, thorough, and fair. It takes a long time to put together a financial case, Trump's finances are deliberately opaque, and there are a lot of witnesses to corral. He's only been on the job for 18 months.

You can tell Trump and his Republican cohorts are feeling desperate. Have you seen the Trump TV breathless coverage of Lisa Page's testimony from May of last year? Once the November election is over, be prepared for hell to break loose. It will take time, but before the 2020 election there will be a fulsome public record of Trump misdeeds, from tax fraud to money laundering, and then some.

I'm still not sure there will be much stomach to prosecute, but the Trump organization will be in tatters. Too many cats are already out of their bags.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/17/18 08:44 PM

Mueller's investigation is not focused on Donald Trump's finances.

The investigation is into whether or not there was Russian interference in the election and if Donald Trump colluded with them.

They aren't building a long complicated financial case against Trump, they are investigating Russian interference.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/17/18 08:52 PM

Who has Mueller indicted? Real estate people in New York? Casino operators?

Nope, Russians. 12 Russian intelligence officers, 13 Russian nationals, and 3 Russian companies. Manafort is an expert on Russians and has lots of contacts. He's got info that Mueller wants...about Russians. Not Trump.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/17/18 09:11 PM

to further pursue in this speculation. see if this makes sense in any reasonable way.

The Russians were going to meddle in the 2016 anyway. They were under sanctions. There was a wildcard candidate who had interest in promoting Russian real estate ventures. Putin sees an opportunity to take advantage of this. Send Manafort to Mr Trump. Manafort could be actually representing Russian interests but with an eye to some how catapult Mr Trump into the presidency. Change the platform ... meet Russian dirt farmers ... back channel coms ... Trump Tower Moscow.

Could it be Manafort took advantage of a campaign to promote Russian interests hidden in the chaos without Trump people comprehending what was happening?

I think this could be the seed for an intriguing political thriller ... foreign power capturing the US presidency

wait a sec ... is that real or is that my imagination?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/17/18 09:20 PM

Well, my friend, we are all speculating. Yes, I agree, because that is the basis for his appointment, the primary concern for Mueller and his team is collusion with Russians. However, as with Manafort, it is hard to get at the nub of the problem without looking at finances. After all, the most common influence is financial. Trump's finances are undoubtedly messy - you can't be as scatterbrained as he is without having messy finances, and he is as corrupt as anyone in public life. It is not that Mueller is focusing on building a financial case, it is that it has been dropped into his lap. His mandate requires he look into it. Once that can of worms is opened, Katy, bar the door.
Posted by: jgw

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/17/18 09:29 PM

I just thought I would add an interesting site to this discussion (Trump rap sheet):
https://www.corp-research.org/trump-organization
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-scandals/474726/
Posted by: Greger

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/17/18 10:01 PM

Quote:
Well, my friend, we are all speculating.


It gets to be a little bit of a "Lock Her Up" chant sometimes. Trump has led a charmed life, everything he touches turns to gold. He has survived scandal after scandal, dodged bullet after bullet.

Do you think this will be the bullet that brings him down?

I don't.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/18/18 03:09 AM

There is one difference between then and now. Then he was a private individual and he was able to cow many people. Now he is a public figure and the people after him do not frighten and are people he has no power over. His underlings are more afraid of the people after him then they are of him.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/18/18 03:56 AM

35% of Americans apparently strongly support Mr Trump regardless of anything he may have done. I wonder what percent of Americans strongly oppose him?
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/18/18 06:42 AM

Prosecution Exhibit #1: In stunning move, Trump declassifies documents related to Russia probe - NBC. Amendment 25 is absolutely justified. This is the result of the NYT Op-Ed. Trump did this publicly and without consultation to prevent intelligence folks from weighing in. He's also pissed about Kavanaugh's anointment being delayed. This will backfire on the midterms "Bigly".
Posted by: Greger

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/18/18 04:27 PM

Quote:
This will backfire on the midterms

We'll see. I think people's minds are pretty much already made up.
The only thing that will change the inevitable outcome of the November elections will be something that brings more voters to the polls.

I don't think this qualifies as that. It's just Trump being Trump...another day another headline.

But it seems every time he tries to cover his ass he just exposes it more.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/18/18 06:17 PM

He's in a hole and won't stop digging. But clearly this declassification move is treason. Revealing all the redacted parts of that FISA warrant to the world's intelligence services betrays American intelligence sources inside Russia, and will do unfixable damage to American intelligence operations. It will also probably get people killed.

This order demands immediate Amendment 25 action, because carrying it out would do such great damage to America. The Supreme Court story is insignificant in comparison. The media needs to stop being distracted and focus on the real story. This is the big moment that we all feared: That loose-cannon Trump would stumble onto something that is deadly.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/18/18 07:36 PM

meh...3000 died in Puerto Rico.
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/19/18 12:17 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
He's in a hole and won't stop digging. But clearly this declassification move is treason. Revealing all the redacted parts of that FISA warrant to the world's intelligence services betrays American intelligence sources inside Russia, and will do unfixable damage to American intelligence operations. It will also probably get people killed.

This order demands immediate Amendment 25 action, because carrying it out would do such great damage to America. The Supreme Court story is insignificant in comparison. The media needs to stop being distracted and focus on the real story. This is the big moment that we all feared: That loose-cannon Trump would stumble onto something that is deadly.


The whole FISA process should be abolished. If you look at how it has been manipulated by the FBI, you understand why the whole process is a joke. Trump has the ability to release the documents, he has the right to do so, and he gets to play politics at the same time. This is taking a page out of the Dems playbook.

I like it!

Tim
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/19/18 01:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
He's in a hole and won't stop digging. But clearly this declassification move is treason. Revealing all the redacted parts of that FISA warrant to the world's intelligence services betrays American intelligence sources inside Russia, and will do unfixable damage to American intelligence operations. It will also probably get people killed.

This order demands immediate Amendment 25 action, because carrying it out would do such great damage to America. The Supreme Court story is insignificant in comparison. The media needs to stop being distracted and focus on the real story. This is the big moment that we all feared: That loose-cannon Trump would stumble onto something that is deadly.


The whole FISA process should be abolished. If you look at how it has been manipulated by the FBI, you understand why the whole process is a joke. Trump has the ability to release the documents, he has the right to do so, and he gets to play politics at the same time. This is taking a page out of the Dems playbook.

I like it!

Tim


"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA" Pub.L. 95–511, 92 Stat. 1783, 50 U.S.C. ch. 36) is a United States federal law which establishes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" suspected of espionage or terrorism.[1] The Act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. It has been repeatedly amended since the September 11 attacks. "

From Wikipedia link Enacted by Democrats and dismembered by Republicans with the U.S.A Patriot Act and subsequent FISA amendments.

So if now Republicans say FISA is a Joke then they own the joke.

Nixon was pardoned AFTER he resigned. He resigned after members of the Republican Party went to him and told him, he would be impeached.

Spiro T. Agnew also resigned. "Beginning in early 1973, Agnew was investigated by the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland on suspicion of conspiracy, bribery, extortion and tax fraud. Agnew had accepted kickbacks from contractors during his time as Baltimore County executive and Governor of Maryland. The payments had continued into his time as vice president. On October 10, 1973, after months of maintaining his innocence, Agnew pleaded no contest to a single felony charge of tax evasion and resigned from office. He was replaced by House Minority Leader Gerald Ford."

Spiro Agnew

As President, President Donald (Traitor, Putin's biotch, Draft dodger, Capt. Bone spurs, Coward, and many more) Trump does have the authority to declassify anything. However, in the authority is also the responsibility to not expose any National Security Information, sources, methods, and also to protect Privacy Information. He has already demonstrated that he can not keep his anus of a mouth closed when it come to National Security information. He has already demonstrated that he does not understand that leaders do not privately meet with the enemy. He has already demonstrated that he does not care about the US by his refusal to do anything about proven Russian hacking and interference in the 2016 elections. Need I go on?

Congressional Republicans have already proven they are complicit in President Donald (Grab'em by the p***y) Trump's actions by failing to perform their sworn duty to their constituents, to the country and to the constitution.

My how republicans revise history to obfuscate their own failings.


edited to delete a comment that should not have been made.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/19/18 03:12 PM

Quote:
The whole FISA process should be abolished.
.
Open the discussion. I have no real opinion nor have I derived any firm conclusions. It is the law.

Quote:
If you look at how it has been manipulated by the FBI
OK stop right there.

Please document as best you can (from memory is ok) how the FBI has manipulated FISA .... remember don't make statements you pull out of your patoot unless you have the facts to support your claim. I am really interested in this as none of the ultra right wing nut jobs who support Mr Trump have made it clear to me how the FBI was at a minimum unethical in behavior and at worst criminal.

Please ... go ahead

Quote:
Trump has the ability to release the documents, he has the right to do so,
I don't think anyone has ever said any president doesn't have the right. That is something right wing folks make up to incite their base (worked with you).

What Dems are saying is by de-classifying the docs he may as well be a Russian spy in plain view. Why would Putin need to infiltrate American intelligence when he has Mr trump doing all the heavy lifting. Maybe you are a Russian plant. I don't know, but real Americans should find this very distasteful to say the least. Is Mr Trump selling out America or just giving it away?

Quote:
and he gets to play politics at the same time. This is taking a page out of the Dems playbook.
Please educate me what that means.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/19/18 07:28 PM

I find it fascinating that Republicans, the ersatz "law and order" party, are now so anti law and order. The truth is, the party has never been into law and order, just into controlling the opposition - whether that be uppity blacks, non-whites of nearly any shade, Democrats, "pinkos", voters, whatever - through any means at disposal. Sometimes they use lawfare (manipulating legal processes to achieve political aims, such as voter suppression, highjacking court appointments, and gerrymandering), but as often it is just purely illegal means (as courts have frequently ruled - see, e.g., "Bridgegate").

So, it is not really surprising that they would adopt anti-law positions when legal process is inconvenient (like vetting Supreme Court nominees, or following warrant application processes, or due process). It's just illuminating that they do it out in the open. Trump is trying to out-Nixon Nixon in the sheer criminality department.
Posted by: jgw

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/19/18 08:00 PM

NWP
I agree with everything you said. The dems can claim to be the law and order party with a lot more justification. They can also claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility too. I just wish the Dems would call the Republicans on these sorts of claims as they are certainly vulnerable making such claims.

The Jackass, of course, when running, claimed to be "The Master of Debt". If you read some of the accounts of his business practices, and outstanding suits against him, it would seem that his solution to debt is to simply ignore and not pay any of his bills.

The Dems don't seem to want to mention any of this stuff - strange...........
Posted by: Greger

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/21/18 07:21 PM

Quote:
Trump has the ability to release the documents, he has the right to do so, and he gets to play politics at the same time.


Looks like he's walking back the demand to release the documents...
Just having the right, the ability, and the desire to play politics doesn't always make something right.

I had a feeling this was just bluster and wouldn't amount to anything.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/22/18 07:14 AM

Destroying the FISA Court system may have been just a bit much for Republican Congressmen to take. I would not be surprised if somebody sent word to Trump.
Posted by: jgw

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/22/18 08:54 PM

From what I have gathered the intelligence agencies themselves had a little talk with the jackass.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/22/18 09:17 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
From what I have gathered the intelligence agencies themselves had a little talk with the jackass.


Doesn't seem to have worked, because the jackass is braying louder than ever now.



Posted by: rporter314

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/23/18 04:10 AM

why would rational thought persuade an irrational person of anything? they must appeal to his delusion and then fold in the direction to push him.

O I just found this

How easy is it to manipulate a narcissist?
Quote:
The advantage to knowing that someone is a narcissist is that you can quite often anticipate their behaviour. People with Narcissistic Personality Disorder can be very predictable in their actions and reactions, so you could, if you wanted to, use this knowledge to your advantage.

Of course, each narcissist is an individual with their own unique traits. Maybe the one you know is invested in being seen as superior; maybe they always need to be right; maybe they need to be seen as a “good guy.”

Knowing what the narcissist in your life values and desires can enable you to be strategic in your dealings with them. You can use this knowledge to make certain choices that would evoke more optimal outcomes for you.

You must remember that the narcissist is never driven by love, compassion or empathy. They’re always self-focused and self-serving. If you let go of your hope that they behave like “normal” people and see that they march to the beat of a very different drummer, you can get the upper hand around the narcissist(s) in your life.

So the answer to this question is yes, a narcissist can be fairly easy to manipulate. If you understand what they want, how they typically respond and what they want to avoid, you could theoretically bring out behaviours in them that would suit your particular needs.


The bold was my editing and sorry if I quoted more than the standard number of words but I thought it was important to see the whole.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/24/18 03:35 AM

So maybe we should nominate Trump for "President of the World"?
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The United States v Donald Trump - 09/24/18 12:54 PM

always start with ... your holiness, savior of America ... then the question

How did the lesser leader Putin help you in pursuit of the public office for which you are entitled?

ahhh ... the secret to good cooking ... butter, butter, and more butter


butteremup to getwhatyouwant