Consequences of Trump's Win - 4

User avatar
Gaybutton
Site Admin
Posts: 13743
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
Location: Thailand
Liked: 1 time
Been liked: 424 times

#211 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 4

Postby Gaybutton » Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:13 pm

Up2u wrote:Paul Manafort and Rick Gates surrender to FBI

May those be the first of many.

Trump is getting his wish. The swamp is being drained. Don't be surprised if Trump goes down the same drain.

User avatar
thaiworthy
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:46 pm
Location: Bang Na, Bangkok
Liked: 55 times
Been liked: 125 times

#212 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 4

Postby thaiworthy » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:12 pm

Gaybutton wrote:Don't be surprised if Trump goes down the same drain.

This video of Trump’s downfall went viral because it’s just so beautifully done.

Whenever you're feeling down, remember that you're the sperm that won.

User avatar
Smiles
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:12 am
Location: Hua Hin
Liked: 39 times
Been liked: 85 times

#213 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 4

Postby Smiles » Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:41 am

Another fascinating article by The New Yorker (arguably the most determined written-word medium regarding all aspects of Trumpism ... and if Trump turns classicly dictatorial it will probably be the first one banned :o ).

This piece is all about the options Trump has in order to fight back and save his presidency. Options abound, but mostly two camps seemed to be planted down: The "let's keep it low key and cooperate with Mueller as much as possible" camp ... and the "burn all the bridges, pull out the guns, cooperate no more" camp. The first group is mainly centered in the White House: lawyers by the dozens and numerous adminstration cadres. The second group is located outside government: Steve Bannon/Roger Stone and Co.,Breitbart, Fox News, rightwing radio, InfoWars etc etc.

Roger Stone has the most interesting option, though if it backfires Trump is gone.
A long but worthwhile read.

The past couple of days have proved that Steve Bannon was right when he said that Donald Trump’s decision to fire James Comey was the biggest mistake in “modern political history.” Speaking to “60 Minutes” in September, shortly after he left the White House, Bannon explained, “I don’t think there's any doubt that, if James Comey had not been fired, we would not have a special counsel.”

To be sure, the federal investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election represented a potential danger, and a great source of irritation, to Trump even when Comey was leading it. But the appointment of the special counsel Robert Mueller elevated the threat level to existential. If there were any lingering doubt of this, it has been dispelled by the indictment of Paul Manafort, a former chairman of the Trump campaign, and Rick Gates, Manafort’s longtime associate, and by the plea deal that Mueller’s team reached with George Papadopoulos, a foreign-policy adviser to the campaign.

These developments suggested that, as Mueller tries to build criminal cases against others in the Trump world—including, quite possibly, the President himself—he will employ the kinds of aggressive tactics that the F.B.I. uses when it goes after drug dealers and mobsters: staging dawn raids; offering plea deals to peripheral figures and sending them out to gather more information; and investigating the personal finances, including tax affairs, of uncoöperative witnesses. To be sure, Mueller hasn’t, so far, revealed positive evidence of collusion between senior figures in the Trump campaign and Russia. (Although the contents of the plea agreement with Papadopoulos are certainly suggestive.) But any hopes that Trump might have had of Mueller’s probe wrapping up quickly, and amounting to nothing, have been shattered.

If Mueller does uncover concrete evidence of collusion, he could well recommend impeachment, which would obviously be disastrous for Trump. But, even if Mueller fails to substantiate the collusion accusation, Trump won’t necessarily be in the clear. He could still be vulnerable to obstruction-of-justice charges stemming from what he said to Comey about false statements made by Michael Flynn, his former national-security adviser—“I hope you can let this go”—and, indeed, from his firing of Comey. The President is facing a lengthy war of attrition that is likely to be marked by more indictments of people who worked for him, and in which a favorable outcome is far from guaranteed.

Given this grim prospect, it is no surprise that there are already signs of dissension in the Trump ranks about how he should proceed. Some of Trump’s advisers advocate sticking with the White House’s current strategy of coöperating with Mueller, avoiding any overt criticisms of him, and hoping he exonerates the President. “I think the reaction of the Administration is let the legal justice system work, everyone’s innocent until—presumed innocent—and we’ll see where it goes,” John Kelly, the White House chief of staff, told Fox News’s Laura Ingraham on Monday night. Kelly’s words echoed a statement that Ty Cobb, one of Trump’s lawyers, made on Sunday, in which he said, “There are no discussions and there is no consideration being given to terminating Mueller."

Bannon evidently holds a different view. He doesn’t appear to be encouraging Trump to order the Justice Department to fire Mueller. If Trump took this step, it would likely backfire in much the same way that Comey’s firing did. (Congress might well use its authority to replace Mueller with another independent prosecutor.) But, according to several different reports, Bannon isn’t willing to sit back, either. “I’m told Bannon pushing trump to be more aggressive against Mueller: urge gop to cut funding, withhold document production and more.” CNN’s Dana Bash tweeted. The Daily Beast’s Lachlan Markay and Asawin Suebsaeng reported that Bannon had spoken with Trump by phone on Monday and urged him to hire some new lawyers. One source told Markay and Suebsaeng that Bannon believes Cobb and John Dowd, Trump’s current lawyers, are “asleep at the wheel.”

Even if firing Mueller isn’t currently an option, one longtime Trump confidant, the Republican political consultant Roger Stone, thinks there is a more indirect, and less risky, way for the President to get rid of him: by appointing a special prosecutor to investigate a Russian firm’s purchase, in 2013, of Uranium One, a Canadian energy company that controlled about twenty per cent of America’s uranium supply. During the 2016 election, Trump and other Republicans claimed that Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the Uranium One deal in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation. In fact, nine government departments signed off on the transaction, and the State Department officials involved have said that Clinton played no role.

A couple of weeks ago, the conservative media returned, en masse, to the Uranium One story after The Hill, a news organization that covers Capitol Hill, reported that the F.B.I., in 2009, “gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States.” In Stone’s mind, a new Trump-appointed special prosecutor would investigate everybody connected to Uranium One, including Mueller, who was the director of the F.B.I. from 2001 to 2013. And that would make Mueller’s position untenable. “Mueller can’t be a special prosecutor when he himself is under investigation,” Stone told the Daily Caller, a conservative Web site. “Mueller is guilty of obstruction and cover up in Uranium One.”

Now, Stone is a dedicated troublemaker and controversialist. Over the weekend, Twitter suspended him after he attacked some media figures in a series of expletive-laden tweets. But while it is perhaps tempting to dismiss his proposal as half-baked fantasizing, he isn’t the only person in Trump’s orbit calling for an independent probe of the Uranium One deal. Indeed, the idea now has Kelly’s support. When Ingraham asked him if he supported the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate both Uranium One and the infamous opposition-research dossier that a former British spy, Christopher Steele, produced about Donald Trump’s ties to Russia, Kelly replied, “I guess so . . . I think, probably, as a layman looking at this type of thing, we need to find someone who is very, very objective, who can get to the bottom of these accusations.”

If we take Kelly’s words seriously (and there doesn’t seem any reason not to), Trump may be about to adopt a dual strategy. Officially, he would continue to coöperate with Mueller’s investigation, avoiding any overtly critical comments about it. At the same time, though, he would look to create a huge distraction in the form of a new probe targeting Democrats—one that could even raise questions about Mueller’s continued role. This wacky scheme would represent a Hail Mary pass rather than a fully thought-out strategy, but desperate times call for desperate measures. In his comments to the Daily Caller, Stone said that his plan represents Trump’s “only chance for survival.”
For Stone’s plan to go into effect, the Justice Department and Congress would have to go along with it. Since Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from matters relating to Russia, the onus would fall on Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who appointed Mueller. In a properly functioning democracy, the leaders of the legislature would come out and provide some political cover for Rosenstein, making it clear that they wouldn’t countenance such a blatantly political exploitation of the special-counsel statute. But when was the last time that anyone in the Republican leadership stood up to Trump?


https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colu ... nald-trump

By the way, have anyone seen or heard of VP Pence lately? Not me.
Seems to be oddly NOT rushing to his boss' defence these days.
Praticing perhaps?
Cheers ... ( and just one more reason why I love living in Thailand )

Image

User avatar
Smiles
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:12 am
Location: Hua Hin
Liked: 39 times
Been liked: 85 times

#214 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 4

Postby Smiles » Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:53 am

Just watched Thaiworthy's YouTube post above. Quite hilarious. So its come to this then.
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase " ... off with their heads! ...
Cheers ... ( and just one more reason why I love living in Thailand )

Image

User avatar
Smiles
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:12 am
Location: Hua Hin
Liked: 39 times
Been liked: 85 times

#215 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 4

Postby Smiles » Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:43 pm

More block buster news from Mr Borowitz:

WASHINGTON

In what might be his most startling allegation against his former election opponent, Donald Trump on Wednesday accused Hillary Clinton of deliberately losing the 2016 election just so that he could be impeached.
“How could one of the most experienced politicians in history lose to the most unfit candidate ever?” Trump asked reporters. “Crooked Hillary lost on purpose because she wanted me to be impeached.”
Explaining Clinton’s motives for intentionally sabotaging her quest for an office she had coveted for decades, Trump said, “Hillary Clinton is more than a nasty woman. She is an evil woman, and her sick mind is capable of anything.”
Trump said that instead of reporting the “fake story” of his campaign’s collusion with the Russians, the media should focus on Clinton’s “diabolical scheme to lose the election.”
“I don’t know if Hillary Clinton lost the election on her own,” Trump said. “Maybe she asked the Russians to help her lose. But the fact is, Hillary Clinton deliberately plotted to put me in the White House, and the American people should be very angry about that.”

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowit ... g-election
Cheers ... ( and just one more reason why I love living in Thailand )

Image

fountainhall
Posts: 768
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:45 am
Location: Bangkok
Liked: 79 times
Been liked: 238 times

#216 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 4

Postby fountainhall » Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:20 pm

We know Trump is close to becoming unhinged, but it's only fair to add that that article is headed "Satire"!

User avatar
Smiles
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:12 am
Location: Hua Hin
Liked: 39 times
Been liked: 85 times

#217 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 4

Postby Smiles » Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:50 pm

Well, the provided URL address includes the word "humour" in it. Also I've often posted ~ at least a dozen times ~ that Borowitz's New Yorker stuff is, of course, satire . . . but not all the time, as I've been assuming that most folks get that by now.
Also, if one opens up the URL he'll notice the phrase "Satire from The Borowitz Report"
Anyway ... what kind naive reader would believe that his writings are not the infamous Fake News, but real. Come on ...
Cheers ... ( and just one more reason why I love living in Thailand )

Image

Brooklyn Bridge
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:53 am
Been liked: 5 times

#218 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 4

Postby Brooklyn Bridge » Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:27 pm

As I recall, there were some on this thread who wanted to attack North Korea. You might want to think about this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... f9ef57e12e

User avatar
Gaybutton
Site Admin
Posts: 13743
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
Location: Thailand
Liked: 1 time
Been liked: 424 times

#219 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 4

Postby Gaybutton » Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:23 pm

Brooklyn Bridge wrote:You might want to think about this.

I wish I had the magic answer, but I'm among those who think, one way or another, North Korea has to be stopped. In my opinion, just permitting North Korea to continue to build and build these kinds of weapons and threaten other countries is the worst possibility and totally unacceptable. The sanctions don't seem to be having any kind of serious effect, at least so far.

Military action would be terrible. Nobody in their right mind wants to have to resort to military action. I think the only way to stop North Korea is for China and Russia to join with the USA, Japan, and South Korea in refusing to do any business with North Korea, somehow convincing them to sit down for good faith talks, and come up with an acceptable resolution. I also believe those same countries need to make it clear to North Korea that if they refuse to do that, then they risk military action from all those countries in a coalition.

Why do I think if North Korea ever starts threatening China and/or Russia the way they threaten the USA, a military response would quickly become a much greater likelihood?

Whatever can bring an acceptable outcome, it would be a miracle if Trump is the one who pulls it off. If I were Trump, I would not be trying to get North Korea to sit down with the USA when it is obvious they won't. Instead I would be trying to get China to be the country to sit down with North Korea and work out a solution tolerable to all parties.

User avatar
Captain Kirk
Posts: 461
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 2:48 am
Location: Pattaya
Been liked: 15 times

#220 Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 4

Postby Captain Kirk » Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:46 am

Brooklyn Bridge wrote:As I recall, there were some on this thread who wanted to attack North Korea. You might want to think about this.

NK is issuing threats at a time when it does not yet have the military power to back up its claims and nobody is doing anything to stop it. How much harder will they be to deal with once they DO have a nuclear threat?


Return to “Everything Else”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests