The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)

[EnochRoot]

So, House Intel Committee ends their Russia investigation. Schiff had a statement about it.

Pompeo shifts to Secretary of State.

Sessions to CIA director.

Then Trump puts who as AG to fire Rosenstein so that Mueller gets fired?

Then how many take to the streets and riots begin?

Glad I'm in Afghanistan.

??

[Johnnie]

Baseless speculation

Edit:

Nevermind. It's Gina Haspel. I thought this shifting of stuff was prelude to something bigger.

Also, Mattis is in Afghanistan right now. He'll be speaking here tomorrow, I'm thinking. He was in Kabul already.

[Joe K]

Eh, that just seems too complex. I think he's either financially reliant or is rock-solid blackmailed. Or, probably, both.

Also, while I realize that Russiagaters aren’t exactly known for internal consistency, I thought the conspiracy theory back in 2016 was that Trump *chose* TIllerson at Putin’s beck and call. In fact, here’s a Tweet from just 8 days ago from some “Resistance” Tweeter with over 30K followers:


Kind of like how Comey was “working for Putin” — until he wasn’t.

[Joe K]

ETA: Bengal, if you want to keep personally calling me out, here’s what you yourself wrote about TIllerson:

I have no doubt that we will never know the full story (or maybe any of it, really) but the actions of the Trump campaign, a fair number of his cabinet, the majority leader of the US Senate, and the Republicans themselves in changing their platform out of nowhere, for instance, prior to RNC, point to collaboration as a starting point with the Russians in swinging the campaign. And, really, I suspect it goes deeper than that with Trump and others like Tillerson with potential either financial interests in Russia or, in Trump's case, owing money, say.

Maybe Trump is an impulsive guy who likes firing people as opposed to a Russian operative? Also, it was reported back in November, and discussed on this board, that Trump wanted to replace TIllerson with Pompeo so it’s misleading for anyone to act like this came out of the nowhere.

[Steve of phpBB]

Eh, that just seems too complex. I think he's either financially reliant or is rock-solid blackmailed. Or, probably, both.

I think this is it, mixed with Trump's ego - he seems like the kind of guy that if he feels he's being publicly pressured into something, he'll do the opposite. So public pressure to condemn Russia for its assassination in England will lead him to refuse, even if he otherwise would.

I can't see there being an explicit agreement between Trump and Russia. (Which is why I am pissed that the Dems and media are setting the bar at "collusion".) I think they have information on him that compromises his loyalty to the US. Which in my mind is more than enough to impeach.

[EnochRoot]

ETA: Bengal, if you want to keep personally calling me out, here’s what you yourself wrote about TIllerson:

I have no doubt that we will never know the full story (or maybe any of it, really) but the actions of the Trump campaign, a fair number of his cabinet, the majority leader of the US Senate, and the Republicans themselves in changing their platform out of nowhere, for instance, prior to RNC, point to collaboration as a starting point with the Russians in swinging the campaign. And, really, I suspect it goes deeper than that with Trump and others like Tillerson with potential either financial interests in Russia or, in Trump's case, owing money, say.

Maybe Trump is an impulsive guy who likes firing people as opposed to a Russian operative? Also, it was reported back in November, and discussed on this board, that Trump wanted to replace TIllerson with Pompeo so it’s misleading for anyone to act like this came out of the nowhere.

I get why you're pounding your chest at the chaos Trump's inflicting here because somehow it vindicates your name against the speculation raised by other posters, but the bolded are entirely mutually exclusive.

[Steve of phpBB]

Maybe Trump is an impulsive guy who likes firing people as opposed to a Russian operative?

It's hard for me to keep track, but has Trump impulsively fired any other cabinet members? And what would be the reason for Trump to impulsively fire Tillerson, other than the criticism of Russia? It can't be for a general lack of competence.

[tennbengal]

ETA: Bengal, if you want to keep personally calling me out, here’s what you yourself wrote about TIllerson:

I have no doubt that we will never know the full story (or maybe any of it, really) but the actions of the Trump campaign, a fair number of his cabinet, the majority leader of the US Senate, and the Republicans themselves in changing their platform out of nowhere, for instance, prior to RNC, point to collaboration as a starting point with the Russians in swinging the campaign. And, really, I suspect it goes deeper than that with Trump and others like Tillerson with potential either financial interests in Russia or, in Trump's case, owing money, say.

Maybe Trump is an impulsive guy who likes firing people as opposed to a Russian operative? Also, it was reported back in November, and discussed on this board, that Trump wanted to replace TIllerson with Pompeo so it’s misleading for anyone to act like this came out of the nowhere.

I'm not so much calling you out as checking you as a barometer. Nothing that has transpired since the Republicans mysteriously changed their platform re: Russia at the convention up to now has changed my suspicion that Trump is figuratively in the bag for Russia/Putin. For whatever reason. You have always resisted that. Wondering if you still do. The timing of the firing is more than weird, after yesterday's events.

And nothing in what you quoted from me seems to be a "gotcha".

[brian]

We can't at least admit that the timing of Tillerson's firing is a little fishy?

[Pruitt]

We can't at least admit that the timing of Tillerson's firing is a little fishy?

I can admit it.

[Brontoburglar]

ETA: Bengal, if you want to keep personally calling me out, here’s what you yourself wrote about TIllerson:

I have no doubt that we will never know the full story (or maybe any of it, really) but the actions of the Trump campaign, a fair number of his cabinet, the majority leader of the US Senate, and the Republicans themselves in changing their platform out of nowhere, for instance, prior to RNC, point to collaboration as a starting point with the Russians in swinging the campaign. And, really, I suspect it goes deeper than that with Trump and others like Tillerson with potential either financial interests in Russia or, in Trump's case, owing money, say.

Maybe Trump is an impulsive guy who likes firing people as opposed to a Russian operative? Also, it was reported back in November, and discussed on this board, that Trump wanted to replace TIllerson with Pompeo so it’s misleading for anyone to act like this came out of the nowhere.

hasn't it been written -- and experienced -- that Trump doesn't like firing people? he likes talking trash and humiliating people, but he made Schiller deliver the Comey news, Kelly allegedly told Tillerson of this news, and he hasn't exactly gone out and fired Sessions.

Trump may be an impulsive guy, but there's no evidence outside of the staged Apprentice studio that he enjoys firing people himself

[L-Jam3]

Of course that cunt doesn't fire people in person. The cowardly way is to have a subordinate do the dirty work.

[Joe K]

Maybe Trump is an impulsive guy who likes firing people as opposed to a Russian operative?

It's hard for me to keep track, but has Trump impulsively fired any other cabinet members? And what would be the reason for Trump to impulsively fire Tillerson, other than the criticism of Russia? It can't be for a general lack of competence.

Multiple outlets are suggesting that it’s because Trump wants to tear up the Iran nuke deal and that Pompeo is more of an Iran hardliner than TIllerson. Trump himself told the press earlier today that he disagreed with TIllerson about Iran. And if this were about Russia, why appoint Pompeo, who has gone on the record as saying he agrees with the Intelligence Community’s assessment?

[Steve of phpBB]

Maybe Trump is an impulsive guy who likes firing people as opposed to a Russian operative?

It's hard for me to keep track, but has Trump impulsively fired any other cabinet members? And what would be the reason for Trump to impulsively fire Tillerson, other than the criticism of Russia? It can't be for a general lack of competence.

Multiple outlets are suggesting that it’s because Trump wants to tear up the Iran nuke deal and that Pompeo is more of an Iran hardliner than TIllerson. Trump himself told the press earlier today that he disagreed with TIllerson about Iran. And if this were about Russia, why appoint Pompeo, who has gone on the record as saying he agrees with the Intelligence Community’s assessment?

Isn't Pompeo the guy who falsely said that the intelligence community concluded that Russian interference had no effect on the outcome of the election?

[Johnnie]

We can't at least admit that the timing of Tillerson's firing is a little fishy?

To take the attention away from the special election in Pennsylvania right now?

Edit:

Democrat Conor Lamb with the slight advantage, btw.

[Nonlinear FC]

The Russians engaged in a 4 or 5 year kompromat effort with Trump and his family, dating at least back to the Moscow Miss Universe pageant. It probably goes back further than that, as we know that the Trump family was seeking cash from Russian oligarchs for over a decade.

Here's the thing, Putin sits on top of the whole thing and the Russians are very well coordinated. The sanctions imposed by Obama on Russia were extremely harsh to the oligarchs, WHICH INCLUDES PUTIN. He is reportedly one of the richest men on the planet, because he consolidated power among the oligarchs, which included taking a cut of their vast wealth.

So, of course Putin and the oligarchs wanted a Russia-friendly (if not compromised) Trump to win. If nothing else, they wanted to make Clinton's victory Pyrrhic by further dividing the citizens with a nasty and ugly campaign. They had already used this tactic in W. Euro elections and then again in Ukraine.

With all of that said, the Trump's are a shitshow. Their campaign was a shitshow, for the most part. Their transition was an absolute shitshow, and their administration is off to a historically shitshow level of competence.

During the campaign, they had people Page and Manafort and Steele running around trying to cut deals, thinking they'd never have to face any scrutiny for their Russian dealings. You had Junior courting meetings to get dirt and others likely working with Wikileaks, who was working directly with the Russians to share/spread dirt.

Was it collusion or just a bunch of disorganized one-offs? Does it matter? I'm 100 percent convinced that Russians had a multi-pronged effort in place to disrupt our elections, that evolved into trying to get Trump in office, with the win-win of further dividing Americans in the process.

I am mostly convinced that Trump and Co. only saw a sliver of this Russian play and naively thought they could just accept "passive" assistance, not knowing that some elements of their operations were in much deeper with the Russians than anyone knew.

Trump's too arrogant to believe or even intellectually explore the idea that he was played royally by Putin and the Russians.

[degenerasian]

All the Clinton and Russia stuff aside. Yes Trump got played and the Russians wanted anyone but Hillary. Or a Hillary with controversy.

I'm still shocked that Trump won the Republican Primary. Was there no one else? Even Cruz getting 2nd place was a shock. At that point the Russians wouldn't have been involved yet? Were the Russians hacking GOP candidates?

[mister d]

Yes Trump got played and the Russians wanted anyone but Hillary.

I don't think that's right at all; the Russians wanted Trump or who cares. Why would they have any preference between Cruz and Hillary?

[Nonlinear FC]

And by the way, while it will likely take years to get to the bottom of the collusion (and I truly believe it will come out sooner than many think), people keep focusing on the wrong legal area.

I know you guys know this, but they're all gonna be fucked for obstruction and fraud. Again, too many of these guys fall into "think they're too smart for their own good." We all know this. And who are the absolute Alpha examples of this?

I think it's going to take an election to get him out of office. But that family and most everyone associated with it is going to be fucked when Mueller starts lowering the boom.

[Steve of phpBB]

I'm still shocked that Trump won the Republican Primary.

I sincerely hope that the events of the last two years have disabused you of any notion that the Republican party acts in good faith. Trump won the Republican primary because he best represents the Republican party, i.e., motivated by hostility to liberalism and a fear of America being opened up to folks who aren't straight white "Christians".

Obviously there are some individual Republicans who act in good faith and are sincerely motivated by things other than base resentment. But they do not represent the party.

[L-Jam3]

While I agree that there was a quid pro quo between Russia and Trump because I'm not a fucking idiot, I think he would've won regardless due to latent racism.

[P.D.X.]

Of course that cunt doesn't fire people in person. The cowardly way is to have a subordinate do the dirty work.

Not the first time he's done it when that person was traveling as well. Like he couldn't wait until RT was done with his Africa trip? (Yes, the cunt tries to fuck people when they're away from home, like he did Comey. Haha look at them try to scramble to get home!)

[Nonlinear FC]

Yes Trump got played and the Russians wanted anyone but Hillary.

I don't think that's right at all; the Russians wanted Trump or who cares. Why would they have any preference between Cruz and Hillary?

First, they were going to fuck with our elections regardless of who was in the race on either side. Laying aside that Putin has a personal hatred for Hillary, Putin/Russia wants anti-immigration, populism, racism and homophobia injected into western politics as much as possible. Look at his statement this week, pointing to Jews and Tatars(?!) as being behind our political unrest. Beyond the fact that those are his personal prejudices, he knows that this kind of talk roils the populace.

The Russians are interested in promoting candidates and parties that are "populist" in nature and that would overall disrupt NATO and other western alliances. They'd likely put their thumb on the scale of whatever candidate they thought would at least be amenable and that's going to be a GOP candidate more often than not.

They have a rationale for what they are doing, and the bottom line priority is to disrupt the West as much as possible. It's not overly complicated in terms of broad strokes

And where I really get annoyed with people that think there's NOTHING to all of this (call it whatever the fuck you want - collusion, sympathizing, passive cooperation): The fact that Trump hasn't moved the intelligence community forward to do any kind of meaningful work to counter act what Russia is doing is borderline treasonous. It is unconscionable and is possibly the biggest dereliction of duty of any sitting president in modern history. This is the rough equivalent of watching the Russian navy take up posts in most of our key harbors without any kind of response.

[mister d]

But why would the GOP fight this when the GOP sees how much this benefits them? They couldn't give less of a shit about the long term ramifications.

[degenerasian]

I'm still shocked that Trump won the Republican Primary.

I sincerely hope that the events of the last two years have disabused you of any notion that the Republican party acts in good faith. Trump won the Republican primary because he best represents the Republican party, i.e., motivated by hostility to liberalism and a fear of America being opened up to folks who aren't straight white "Christians".

Obviously there are some individual Republicans who act in good faith and are sincerely motivated by things other than base resentment. But they do not represent the party.

Isn't Cruz more representative of the Republican Party. He doesn't even pretend to support immigration, wants to deport everyone. Pro religion, pro abortion, anti healthcare, flax tax for the rich, guns, death penalty, everything!

Cruz is more of a slime ball then Trump is!

[duff]

I'm still shocked that Trump won the Republican Primary.

I sincerely hope that the events of the last two years have disabused you of any notion that the Republican party acts in good faith. Trump won the Republican primary because he best represents the Republican party, i.e., motivated by hostility to liberalism and a fear of America being opened up to folks who aren't straight white "Christians".

Obviously there are some individual Republicans who act in good faith and are sincerely motivated by things other than base resentment. But they do not represent the party.

Isn't Cruz more representative of the Republican Party. He doesn't even pretend to support immigration, wants to deport everyone. Pro religion, pro abortion, anti healthcare, flax tax for the rich, guns, death penalty, everything!

Cruz is more of a slime ball then Trump is!

But he is a Washington insider. Trump is an outsider and is going to change everything about Washington.

[EnochRoot]

Why'd Trump fire Tillerson now?

That suspicion was accelerated by the president’s words to the White House press corps before stepping aboard Marine One:

"As soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with them, we will condemn Russia or whoever it may be.”

That is not support for Britain. It is the direct opposite.

Britain and the United States share intelligence information fully, freely, and seamlessly. It’s inconceivable that the U.S. government has not already seen all the information that Theresa May saw before she rose in the House of Commons to accuse Russia.

If the U.S. government had a serious concern about the reliability of that information, it would have expressed that concern directly and privately to the U.K. government before May spoke. But the U.S. had no such concern—that’s why the now-fired secretary of state and the U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom both endorsed May’s words. When Trump raises doubts about the facts, about American agreement with its British ally, about the accuracy of the British accusation against Russia, Trump is not expressing good-faith uncertainty about imperfect information. Trump is rejecting the consensus view of the U.K. and U.S. intelligence communities about an act of Russian aggression—and, if his past behavior is any indication, preparing the way for his own determination to do nothing.

It echoes the approach he took toward Russian intervention in the U.S. election to help elect him in 2016: Feign uncertainty about what is not uncertain in order to justify inaction.

The U.S.-U.K. response to the Russian nerve gas attack should have been coordinated in advance. It was not. The U.S. statement of support for Britain should have arrived on the day that the prime minister delivered her accusation. It did not. The response—if any—should also already be agreed upon. It plainly has not been.

The United Kingdom does not find itself deprived of U.S. support because of some British mistake or rush to judgment. Most of the U.S. government shares the British assessment of what happened—as attested by Tillerson’s statement in support of Britain, which would have relied on U.S. intelligence agency reports. Only Trump stands apart, vetoing any condemnation of Russia and perhaps punishing his secretary of state for breaking ranks on the president’s no-criticizing-Putin policy.

[Steve of phpBB]

I'm still shocked that Trump won the Republican Primary.

I sincerely hope that the events of the last two years have disabused you of any notion that the Republican party acts in good faith. Trump won the Republican primary because he best represents the Republican party, i.e., motivated by hostility to liberalism and a fear of America being opened up to folks who aren't straight white "Christians".

Obviously there are some individual Republicans who act in good faith and are sincerely motivated by things other than base resentment. But they do not represent the party.

Isn't Cruz more representative of the Republican Party. He doesn't even pretend to support immigration, wants to deport everyone. Pro religion, pro abortion, anti healthcare, flax tax for the rich, guns, death penalty, everything!

Cruz is more of a slime ball then Trump is!

Cruz isn't as representative because he isn't nearly as aggressively proud of his own ignorance and disdain for democratic principles as Trump and the Republican electorate are. Trump is willing to outright encourage violence against protestors, people being arrested, etc.

[Pruitt]

I'm still shocked that Trump won the Republican Primary.

I sincerely hope that the events of the last two years have disabused you of any notion that the Republican party acts in good faith. Trump won the Republican primary because he best represents the Republican party, i.e., motivated by hostility to liberalism and a fear of America being opened up to folks who aren't straight white "Christians".

Obviously there are some individual Republicans who act in good faith and are sincerely motivated by things other than base resentment. But they do not represent the party.

Isn't Cruz more representative of the Republican Party. He doesn't even pretend to support immigration, wants to deport everyone. Pro religion, pro abortion, anti healthcare, flax tax for the rich, guns, death penalty, everything!

Cruz is more of a slime ball then Trump is!

I agree with the first part of your statement and was going to bring up the same question.

But man, no one and I men NO ONE is more of a slime ball than Donald Trump.

[Steve of phpBB]

While I agree that there was a quid pro quo between Russia and Trump because I'm not a fucking idiot, I think he would've won regardless due to latent racism.

That was basically my feeling after the election.

But Trump won by something like 0.5% in the three key states. *Anything* that would have changed the outcome by 0.5% swung the election to Trump.

(Of course, nothing was as obviously decisive as the Comey letter. What the fuck.)

[EnochRoot]

While I agree that there was a quid pro quo between Russia and Trump because I'm not a fucking idiot, I think he would've won regardless due to latent racism.

That was basically my feeling after the election.

But Trump won by something like 0.5% in the three key states. *Anything* that would have changed the outcome by 0.5% swung the election to Trump.

(Of course, nothing was as obviously decisive as the Comey letter. What the fuck.)

Clinton wins comfortably without Russian meddling. You have to remember pro Sanders = pro Trump.

[tennbengal]

Why'd Trump fire Tillerson now?

That suspicion was accelerated by the president’s words to the White House press corps before stepping aboard Marine One:

"As soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with them, we will condemn Russia or whoever it may be.”

That is not support for Britain. It is the direct opposite.

Britain and the United States share intelligence information fully, freely, and seamlessly. It’s inconceivable that the U.S. government has not already seen all the information that Theresa May saw before she rose in the House of Commons to accuse Russia.

If the U.S. government had a serious concern about the reliability of that information, it would have expressed that concern directly and privately to the U.K. government before May spoke. But the U.S. had no such concern—that’s why the now-fired secretary of state and the U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom both endorsed May’s words. When Trump raises doubts about the facts, about American agreement with its British ally, about the accuracy of the British accusation against Russia, Trump is not expressing good-faith uncertainty about imperfect information. Trump is rejecting the consensus view of the U.K. and U.S. intelligence communities about an act of Russian aggression—and, if his past behavior is any indication, preparing the way for his own determination to do nothing.

It echoes the approach he took toward Russian intervention in the U.S. election to help elect him in 2016: Feign uncertainty about what is not uncertain in order to justify inaction.

The U.S.-U.K. response to the Russian nerve gas attack should have been coordinated in advance. It was not. The U.S. statement of support for Britain should have arrived on the day that the prime minister delivered her accusation. It did not. The response—if any—should also already be agreed upon. It plainly has not been.

The United Kingdom does not find itself deprived of U.S. support because of some British mistake or rush to judgment. Most of the U.S. government shares the British assessment of what happened—as attested by Tillerson’s statement in support of Britain, which would have relied on U.S. intelligence agency reports. Only Trump stands apart, vetoing any condemnation of Russia and perhaps punishing his secretary of state for breaking ranks on the president’s no-criticizing-Putin policy.

It’s such a weird place to be where David frum has become a real voice of reason cutting through the bullshit.

[tennbengal]

Also, nonlinear, applause.

[Pruitt]

Also, nonlinear, applause.

Absolutely.

And to think that W looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul.

[Nonlinear FC]

Also, nonlinear, applause.

Yeah, I'm agitated. I think we're, once again, really missing the big picture with Trump.

And I'm now VERY concerned about Pompeo and this Black Site CIA woman coming into power. Tillerson was a shitshow. But he was at least a moderating voice in this crackpot administration. Those voices are dwindling. If Mattis goes, I think we are very close to full blown crisis mode.

[degenerasian]

Also, nonlinear, applause.

Yeah, I'm agitated. I think we're, once again, really missing the big picture with Trump.

And I'm now VERY concerned about Pompeo and this Black Site CIA woman coming into power. Tillerson was a shitshow. But he was at least a moderating voice in this crackpot administration. Those voices are dwindling. If Mattis goes, I think we are very close to full blown crisis mode.

If Mattis goes you've only got KellyAnne left. That's scary shit.

[Nonlinear FC]

Also, nonlinear, applause.

Yeah, I'm agitated. I think we're, once again, really missing the big picture with Trump.

And I'm now VERY concerned about Pompeo and this Black Site CIA woman coming into power. Tillerson was a shitshow. But he was at least a moderating voice in this crackpot administration. Those voices are dwindling. If Mattis goes, I think we are very close to full blown crisis mode.

If Mattis goes you've only got KellyAnne left. That's scary shit.

I'm not sure what that means. NO ONE thinks of her as a modifying or tempering voice in the WH. She tried to push a Bowling Green Massacre ffs.

[brian]

I was hoping it was a joke. But the saving grace of Kellyanne is she has no real power. Just an empty-headed, soulless mouthpiece.

[degenerasian]

it was a joke meaning the only one left standing in a crazy administration is the craziest one.

[L-Jam3]

While Trump without buffers is certainly a scary thought, it does increase the chance he'll self-incriminate.


ETA: Or drop an N-bomb or C-bomb on live tv/tweets