Former President Trump

[jeremyp]

My doubt is that in the absence of anything that isn't a watertight case, no intentions work. I see no case so how can he be impeached.  No one will touch it without that.

My only disagreement is in your use of the term "watertight". The case has to be strong, but not necessarily watertight.

If there is a case to answer, he must be impeached otherwise that would throw the whole machinery of government into disrepute.

[Nearly Sane]

My only disagreement is in your use of the term "watertight". The case has to be strong, but not necessarily watertight.

If there is a case to answer, he must be impeached otherwise that would throw the whole machinery of government into disrepute.

This may well just be semantics. I can't see it working if this takes x years and we don't understand the charge and the evidence clearly.  Currently there is nothing.

[jeremyp]

This may well just be semantics. I can't see it working if this takes x years and we don't understand the charge and the evidence clearly.  Currently there is nothing.

Well if Mueller does discover evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians, he will have to be impeached. If evidence comes to light that Trump fired James Comey to obstruct the FBI investigation, he will have to be impeached. If there is evidence he is guilty of corruption, he will have to be impeached.

Impeachment, it should be said, is just the first step in the process of removal of the president. He then has to be convicted. Bill Clinton, for example, was impeached for perjury but then acquitted. I guess, on that basis, a Republican congress could impeach in the knowledge that they would then be acquitting the president.

[Nearly Sane]

Well if Mueller does discover evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians, he will have to be impeached. If evidence comes to light that Trump fired James Comey to obstruct the FBI investigation, he will have to be impeached. If there is evidence he is guilty of corruption, he will have to be impeached.

Impeachment, it should be said, is just the first step in the process of removal of the president. He then has to be convicted. Bill Clinton, for example, was impeached for perjury but then acquitted. I guess, on that basis, a Republican congress could impeach in the knowledge that they would then be acquitting the president.

Both of those seem incredibly difficult to prove. If that's what an impeachment is based on unless you get a video of Trump stating that is what he is doing ( which given he has admitted to sexual assault is possible) then nothing, and given he is recorded as admitting or falsely 'claiming' sexual assault not seeing why he doesn't easily survive.

[jeremyp]

Both of those seem incredibly difficult to prove.

A single email would be enough to sink him in the Mueller case or testimony from somebody in the know trying to save themselves.

[Nearly Sane]

A single email would be enough to sink him in the Mueller case or testimony from somebody in the know trying to save themselves.

Would it? And the evidence for that is?

[jeremyp]

Would it? And the evidence for that is?

An email showing that that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians is, by definition, evidence that Donalds Trump colluded with the Russians. Testimony by somebody who witnessed Donald Trump colluding with the Russians is, by definition, evidence that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians.

[Nearly Sane]

An email showing that that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians is, by definition, evidence that Donalds Trump colluded with the Russians. Testimony by somebody who witnessed Donald Trump colluding with the Russians is, by definition, evidence that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians.

What sort of email would that be that is that clear? That isn't questionable? That doesn't have the question about colluded as a subjective term?

[jeremyp]

What sort of email would that be that is that clear?

From: donald.trump@trumptowers
To: vladimir.putin@the.kremlin

Subject: The election

Hi Vlad,

Just to let you know, I won the primary so now is the time to start rigging the election. I'm going to be an awesome president. Great.

[Nearly Sane]

From: donald.trump@trumptowers
To: vladimir.putin@the.kremlin

Subject: The election

Hi Vlad,

Just to let you know, I won the primary so now is the time to start rigging the election. I'm going to be an awesome president. Great.

Which would then have to be proved as real, and tons of his voters would assume it was a conspiracy

[jeremyp]

Which would then have to be proved as real, and tons of his voters would assume it was a conspiracy

Proving it real wouldn't be too difficult. If such an email were found, it would almost certainly be in some archive whose providence could be traced.

I think it's more likely that somebody else in the frame for prison time would blab, to be honest.

[Harrowby Hall]

I see Trump might get his tax legislation through congress seeing the Senate has passed it. It is more likely to benefit the rich rather than those of much more modest means!

True, Petites Eglantines, no doubt he will argue that the better off will use their increased income to employ more of those of modest means. Wasn't this one of the basic principles of Reaganomics?

[Aruntraveller]

True, Petites Eglantines, no doubt he will argue that the better off will use their increased income to employ more of those of modest means. Wasn't this one of the basic principles of Reaganomics?

I believe it also had the term "Trickledown" attached to it.

It may be just me but that particular theory seems mightily flawed.

[Nearly Sane]

Some dreadful weather in the US and some dreadful thinking in the White House.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42506726

[Aruntraveller]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-42549687

"My nuclear button is bigger than your nuclear button." YE GODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aye. I was chatting with an American friend of mine yesterday evening and she was so apologetic about Trump - she still can't believe he is president. She says there are at least 60% of the population now going around wondering what the fuck they've done.

Things are bad - my friend Mary Ann never swears. I mean in the 40 years I have known her -  never.

[Harrowby Hall]

Trump and his playground pal will probably be comparing the size of their manhood next, nothing would surprise me!

Yes.    Who's is the smaller ...

[ekim]

He does it this way..... https://tinyurl.com/ydx9e2q7

[JP]

20 Iranian dead according to the BBC and Trump is the only one to say anything.

[JP]

Trump moving the US embassy triggers howls from world leaders. Twenty deaths in Iran protests, silence.

I wonder how many Iranians are currently locked up, facing beatings and trumped up charges.

Never mind, Trump was once seen putting ketchup on a steak.

[JP]

Trump is such a cretin he makes a bad situation worse with his words and actions.

In what way could he make things in Iran worse?

Had he been speaking to the Poles protesting in the communist era, or the protests against apartheid South Africa would it be any different?

[jeremyp]

There's a new book coming out in the USA on 9/1/2018. This excerpt makes it sound very interesting

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book-donald-trump.html

[Nearly Sane]

There's a new book coming out in the USA on 9/1/2018. This excerpt makes it sound very interesting

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book-donald-trump.html

Maybe not,


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42570555

[Sriram]

I agree that Trump does not present a very sophisticated, intelligent and statesman like image. He is brash, has knee jerk reactions, populistic and so on.

But on the plus side, he is spontaneous, says what he thinks and takes a common sense approach.  That has its freshness and usefulness....however uncomfortable it may make some people feel.

Cautious diplomacy, political correctness, sweet talk and impotent intellectualism can be tiresome. 

[Nearly Sane]

Common sense and Trump are an oxymoron!

I suspect that depends on whether you agree with him or not. Common sense is so often simply 'what I think'.

[jeremyp]

Maybe not,


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42570555

Yes, I read about all that. It's interesting because the author must have been given permission by the Trump team to access all the people he interviewed. Furthermore, quite a lot of the book has already been published. I suspect we have the beginnings of another Streisand effect example here.