The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:22 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:
P.D.X. wrote:I would say affluency doesn't even matter. Anyone who owns a house is going to notice.

Is that because of the new cap on the mortgage interest deduction?

If so, I think most people don't have mortgages of $500,000. Just you coastal elites.

The Senate version caps the mortgage deduction. The House version eliminates the property tax deduction.

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:22 pm

GoodKarma wrote:
Nonlinear FC wrote:For all you guys who think Trump and the GOP can do whatever they want with no repercussions:

1) Nov. 7

2) Historically the lowest approval and highest disapproval ratings for a president at this point in the run.

3) The Post story I posted yesterday: Trump voters are starting to turn on him.

4) As JoeK correctly points out... A lot of you guys think all Trump voters are mouthbreathing morons that only get their news from Fox. This isn't true. Again, I really encourage you to go read that article on the focus groups with Trump voters. They are pissed, embarrassed, worried. And the tax cuts are fully understood by most of them for what it is.

Yes, there is a base that will never waver. You can't win mid-terms or a national run when your top guy is polling in the 30s and disapproval hovering around 60 percent. I won't even say what I always say at this point.

I don't agree that November 7 was a bellwether or referendum on anything...Hillary won VA by over 5 points & NJ is the natural blowback to Chris Christie's flameout ending.

As 2016 showed us, polls can't be trusted. In and early Family Guy episode where they ripped on the FCC, one of the jokes was the FCC saying they received one complaint about a TV show and, as everyone knows, one complaint = one billion think the same way. I'm hesitant to believe any article or poll that makes a sweeping declaration about the politics or beliefs of a group of people.

As far as Trump voters turning...sure some are. The problem is that it's only one side of the argument, which ties is into your #4. Sure, Trump is terrible...but he's still better than the "god-hating, tax raising libtard Democraps." Whoever "they" is may be pissed, embarrassed and worried but that doesn't mean they'll turn on the GOP. This same Democrat-hating is why Roy Moore will still win in AL.

Trump is just outside the GOP enough to where his poll numbers won't matter. Republicans can distance themselves from his crazy publicly, based on the level support Trump has locally, while still voting in lock-step with him. As history in politics has shown...change is good...as long as it's not my guy...as evidenced by an ~85% incumbent reelection rate to congress.

Let me also make two more points:

The Libtard Democraps stuff? That's not, generally, how well-to-do suburbanites talk. I know a good chunk probably do online in comments sections, but in general, I think that's conflating the mouthbreathers with the folks I'm talking about.

And if we are just going to dismiss historically bad poll numbers... Eeyore's gonna Eeyore, I suppose.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:25 pm

I’m not dismissing the historically low numbers, I am trying to square the tax cut bills with those numbers. And I can’t. Which makes me worry that something is amiss...

GoodKarma · Post by **GoodKarma** » Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:44 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote:The Libtard Democraps stuff? That's not, generally, how well-to-do suburbanites talk. I know a good chunk probably do online in comments sections, but in general, I think that's conflating the mouthbreathers with the folks I'm talking about.

And if we are just going to dismiss historically bad poll numbers... Eeyore's gonna Eeyore, I suppose.

I understand well-to-do suburbanites because I am one...I was being hyperbolic to make a point. A point which is the mouthbreathers and the suburbanites will vote the same way because, right or wrong, they believe Democrats and/or Liberalism is a force of evil for any number of a host of potential reasons (family history, one-time experience, media coverage, etc). Fox News' audience isn't the mouthbreathers but believe almost every piece of trash said on that network. That's how the suburbanites (and throw in evangelicals) justify voting for the Trumps, Roy Moore's, etc. b/c at least they aren't pro or con ________ (insert liberal or progressive political stance here).

As far as those polls I'll keep going back to last year...very few, if any, projected a Trump win. To me it's similar to those comments that come out every election that say "no Republican has won the presidency without winning Virginia since 1924" (or pick any other state/election history)...it's a hyperbolic statement meant to relay some sort of secret this-is-the-one-thing that puts whatever side you're on the win or gives reason for defeat. It doesn't tell enough of the story.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:12 pm

GoodKarma wrote:As far as those polls I'll keep going back to last year...very few, if any, projected a Trump win.

Five Thirty Eight said that Hillary would win the popular vote by 3-5% and the Electoral College would be close.

The polls weren't all that far off. It's just that most of the people reading and interpreting the polls, professionals and amateurs like me, just couldn't believe that people would actually vote for someone as clearly unfit as Trump.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:41 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:
The Sybian wrote:What happens if the Dems win the House? When people have to pay their 2018 taxes, will the GOP successfully blame the higher taxes on the "tax and spend" Dems? I haven't read up on the Bill as thoroughly as I'd like, but I've read that a lot of the cuts to the Middle Class will initially be there, but disappear in 5 years. People hear GOP tax cut Bill, and they will believe that's what it is.

I wonder how much people really notice taxes going up or down overall? If someone is a wage-earner and the rates go down, then the regular withholding will go down, and they will see more money. But I don't know if someone will really notice whether their end-of-year total taxes are higher or lower than the year before.

So it really boggles my mind that the Rs are doing away with the deduction for state and local taxes. The affluent Republican suburbanites will notice if a deduction they have always claimed isn't there anymore.

If your takehome dramatically changes, people will notice. And in NY, NJ, CA and other states with high taxes, people are sure as hell going to notice when they can't take the State and municipality deduction. According to the chart I linked, that is a lost deduction of $21,000 for the average household in my District. That will absolutely be noticed. I saw Long Island's asshole Rep Peter King on CNN, and he was raging about how bad this bill was, and how it was going to kill Middle Class people in his District.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:47 pm

Top comment in this thread is money.

http://reddit.com/r/politics/comments/7 ... illian_an/

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:43 pm

Johnnie wrote:Top comment in this thread is money.

http://reddit.com/r/politics/comments/7 ... illian_an/

Thanks for the link, best summation (with citations!) I've seen, and brilliantly concise. Out of respect to the author, I resisted the urge to reply with "Fake News!"

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:45 pm

This gif is hilarious.

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/9 ... 9673876480

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:14 am

mister d wrote:I'd love to speak with some staunch Republican voters in my income tax bracket in nearby NJ towns and see how excited they are for the state and property tax deduction going away. Like I'm cool with my taxes going up in a lot of instances; if I had the same losses because my bracket and the ones above me all increased, so be it. I'm whining here because its so clearly targeted demographically and for the benefit of people who don't need it one bit. The other side wouldn't want their taxes raised $50 per year even if they knew it would save a dozen kids in Newark or something similarly non-personally beneficial so it would probably be a really fun chat.

It's really going to be interesting how actual Jesus looks at that.

Avram · Post by **Avram** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:05 pm

Trump is now in a twitter battle with LaVar Ball. That is so Trump and so LaVar Ball.

EnochRoot · Post by **EnochRoot** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:13 pm

Avram wrote:Trump is now in a twitter battle with LaVar Ball. That is so Trump and so LaVar Ball.

Two carnival barkers that have figured out how to monetize social media.

Except one of these barkers has the most important job in the world, and can no longer afford to waste time pretending.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:15 pm

EnochRoot wrote:
Avram wrote:Trump is now in a twitter battle with LaVar Ball. That is so Trump and so LaVar Ball.

Two carnival barkers that have figured out how to monetize social media.

Except one of these barkers has the most important job in the world, and can no longer afford to waste time pretending.

All in on Big Baller Brand I see.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:17 pm

I gotta link the tweet! President is not a big baller, confirmed.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 8146892801

And I thought Goodell v. Jones was the best beef of 2017.

EnochRoot · Post by **EnochRoot** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:22 pm

A_B wrote:
EnochRoot wrote:
Avram wrote:Trump is now in a twitter battle with LaVar Ball. That is so Trump and so LaVar Ball.

Two carnival barkers that have figured out how to monetize social media.

Except one of these barkers has the most important job in the world, and can no longer afford to waste time pretending.

All in on Big Baller Brand I see.

I mean, they're essentially the same freakin person.

Avram · Post by **Avram** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:56 pm

EnochRoot wrote:
A_B wrote:
EnochRoot wrote:
Avram wrote:Trump is now in a twitter battle with LaVar Ball. That is so Trump and so LaVar Ball.

Two carnival barkers that have figured out how to monetize social media.

Except one of these barkers has the most important job in the world, and can no longer afford to waste time pretending.

All in on Big Baller Brand I see.

I mean, they're essentially the same freakin person.

1. Do we know if Ball is a sexual predator?
2. Trump is dumber
3. Ball's kids are actually good at something besides spending money

other than that they are the same person

EnochRoot · Post by **EnochRoot** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:59 pm

I'm pretty sure DNA testing would prove they're different people as well..

Point was of course they're both egomaniacs steeped in the art of the con.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:01 pm

Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR and many, many others are spinning so hard in their graves.

The leader of the free world arguing with a self-promoting father of a potential NBA bust...

Avram · Post by **Avram** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:09 pm

Pruitt wrote:Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR and many, many others are spinning so hard in their graves.

The leader of the free world arguing with a self-promoting father of a potential NBA bust...

The only dead president smiling is Buchanan. No longer the worst in history

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:38 pm

If this does trigger some prolonged troll war with LaVar Ball, it will be awesome.

But I'm sure it would end in a beer summit or some shit.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:19 pm

Johnnie wrote:If this does trigger some prolonged troll war with LaVar Ball, it will be awesome.

But I'm sure it would end in a beer summit or some shit.

Ummm, sitting down and discussing it like an adult isn't in Trump's wheelhouse. Ironic since he promoted himself to fame as the greatest deal maker in history.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:33 pm

Johnnie wrote:If this does trigger some prolonged troll war with LaVar Ball, it will be awesome.

But I'm sure it would end in a beer summit or some shit.

It could only end at WrestleMania.

Avram · Post by **Avram** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:30 pm

Maybe we could get the Trumps and Balls on Celebrity Family Feud

rass · Post by **rass** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:58 am

I laughed at a joke Bill Kristol made on Twitter. Fuck.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:00 am

Trump's latest Twitter target is Marshawn Lynch. It's pretty clear that part of his culture war messaging is specifically aimed at bashing black athletes. And it's no coincidence that his Tweet about the Balls specifically intended to portray them as ungrateful criminals. He would fit right in co-hosting a show on Fox Sports with his buddy Chris Christie.

ETA, what do you know:

https://twitter.com/FoxSportsRadio/stat ... 4573248513

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:03 am

JoeK - have you come around on collusion with Russia yet?

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:23 am

Would be so much fun for Lynch to dig in here. Smart, incredibly antagonistic dude.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:14 am

tennbengal wrote:JoeK - have you come around on collusion with Russia yet?

I think the investigation had turned up compelling evidence that the campaign was interested in talking to Russia/WL about the theft, at a minimum after it occurred. That's certainly unethical, but I'm not sure it's criminal. The big question, which I'm sure Mueller is focused on, is if there is evidence on involvement with the theft itself. It would obviously be most egregious if there were any type of quid pro quo arrangement but if there's evidence of that, Mueller's team has kept it under wraps. The confidentiality of his investigation is impressive, so it's certainly possible that they know a lot more damning things than have been made public.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:17 am

So...that's a yes on collusion then? Not necessarily trying to be an ass, but, that's collusion, right?

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:24 am

tennbengal wrote:So...that's a yes on collusion then? Not necessarily trying to be an ass, but, that's collusion, right?

It's certainly collusion "after the crime," if you want to call it that. And I suspect a Democratic Congress may have already impeached -- they'd at least have given a lot of considerations To the political pluses and minuses. But I'm not sure that this type of after the fact collusion can support criminal liability, other than for any lies in FBI interviews.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:37 am

Joe K wrote:
tennbengal wrote:So...that's a yes on collusion then? Not necessarily trying to be an ass, but, that's collusion, right?

It's certainly collusion "after the crime," if you want to call it that. And I suspect a Democratic Congress may have already impeached -- they'd at least have given a lot of considerations To the political pluses and minuses. But I'm not sure that this type of after the fact collusion can support criminal liability, other than for any lies in FBI interviews.

Whether one can find a specific law or not to comfortably fit these facts into, at a very base level, the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to try and get elected, yes? Which means that Russia, for whatever reason, committed an act of aggression toward the United States and the Trump administration was okay with that. At the least, not one of them went to the FBI and reported the situation, right?

Here's where we are, the Trump admin worked with Russia to get elected. And somehow that's not enough? This is what I mean about this country already being gone, with respect to the flip side of nonlinear's somewhat optimistic coin. Something about this, the tax bill, all of it - it just feels off. Like we have crossed a line that we can't get back. The billionairres that are benefiting from the tax bill assault, they clearly have no loyalty to country, neither does the administration, we've just gone straight to oligharcy now. Democracy is dead. Literally, Trump and minions colluded with Russia to get elected. And the Republican party is okay with that so they can pillage the country's coffers.

Post by **brian** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:26 pm

Trump's NSA says he has "intelligence of a kindergartener"

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:18 pm

The National Review Doesn't Like Mrs. Mnuchin

"Scathing" would be putting it lightly...

These are genuinely awful people, of course, absolute national embarrassments whose comprehensive lack of taste or elementary self-awareness is really quite phenomenal to behold, but what is truly awful is that we have reached a point in the stultification and celebritization of our politics that the wife of the Treasury secretary is a public figure about whom one is obliged to have an opinion. This is a republic; ideally, very few of us would have any reason to care very much who the Treasury secretary is, much less which D-minus-list never-was CSI-extra actress he’s hitched to.

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:33 pm

Pruitt wrote:The National Review Doesn't Like Mrs. Mnuchin

"Scathing" would be putting it lightly...

These are genuinely awful people, of course, absolute national embarrassments whose comprehensive lack of taste or elementary self-awareness is really quite phenomenal to behold, but what is truly awful is that we have reached a point in the stultification and celebritization of our politics that the wife of the Treasury secretary is a public figure about whom one is obliged to have an opinion. This is a republic; ideally, very few of us would have any reason to care very much who the Treasury secretary is, much less which D-minus-list never-was CSI-extra actress he’s hitched to.

You left out the best line...

But the adoration in her eyes was something to behold, and who could fail to be moved, at least a little, by the sight of Louise Linton photographed with the love of her life? Steven Mnuchin was also in the picture.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:34 pm

DaveInSeattle wrote:[
You left out the best line...

But the adoration in her eyes was something to behold, and who could fail to be moved, at least a little, by the sight of Louise Linton photographed with the love of her life? Steven Mnuchin was also in the picture.

The photo in question.

L-Jam3 · Post by **L-Jam3** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:55 pm

That picture ruined opera gloves.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:20 pm

tennbengal wrote:
Joe K wrote:
tennbengal wrote:So...that's a yes on collusion then? Not necessarily trying to be an ass, but, that's collusion, right?

It's certainly collusion "after the crime," if you want to call it that. And I suspect a Democratic Congress may have already impeached -- they'd at least have given a lot of considerations To the political pluses and minuses. But I'm not sure that this type of after the fact collusion can support criminal liability, other than for any lies in FBI interviews.

Whether one can find a specific law or not to comfortably fit these facts into, at a very base level, the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to try and get elected, yes? Which means that Russia, for whatever reason, committed an act of aggression toward the United States and the Trump administration was okay with that. At the least, not one of them went to the FBI and reported the situation, right?

Here's where we are, the Trump admin worked with Russia to get elected. And somehow that's not enough?

The reason I think it's important whether any specific crimes were committed is that you get into a bit of a slippery slope otherwise. The US attempts to influence elections in other countries -- including Russia -- all the time. Calling what Russia did an "act of aggression" or worse is more than a little ironic given our own history.

Moreover, to play Devil's advocate here, is working with foreign agents to get campaign dirt automatically an unacceptable act? Or are we treating it as such due to the shocking fact that our country elected Trump? We now know that the Clinton campaign paid Christopher Steele in connection with his infamous dossier, and that many of Steele's claimed sources were Kremlin agents. So didn't Clinton's campaign, in its own way, pay money to get dirt on a political opponent from Russian agents? That's why, both legally and morally, it matters a lot as to whether the Trump campaign was actually involved in the theft of documents or any other criminal actions.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:28 pm

https://twitter.com/PalmerReport/status ... 8720003072

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:50 pm

Joe K wrote:The reason I think it's important whether any specific crimes were committed is that you get into a bit of a slippery slope otherwise. The US attempts to influence elections in other countries -- including Russia -- all the time. Calling what Russia did an "act of aggression" or worse is more than a little ironic given our own history.

Moreover, to play Devil's advocate here, is working with foreign agents to get campaign dirt automatically an unacceptable act? Or are we treating it as such due to the shocking fact that our country elected Trump? We now know that the Clinton campaign paid Christopher Steele in connection with his infamous dossier, and that many of Steele's claimed sources were Kremlin agents. So didn't Clinton's campaign, in its own way, pay money to get dirt on a political opponent from Russian agents? That's why, both legally and morally, it matters a lot as to whether the Trump campaign was actually involved in the theft of documents or any other criminal actions.

I completely agree with you that it's crucial to determine if a specific crime was committed. Discovering Trump did something that feels wrong isn't going to get him impeached. Hell, he does something clearly shady every damned day. But, I can't let the comparison of Trump's interactions with Russian government officials and WikiLeaks and hiring Steele go without comment. Steele is a private person collecting opposition research. Hiring a guy to look for negative info about your opponent is perfectly legal, and done by every campaign. It's irrelevant if he interviewed foreign government agents to get information. Trump and his campaign met directly with Russians believed to be working on behalf of the government, and discussed lifting sanctions against Russia and Russian citizens for human rights violations. Now we find out Jr. was taking advice directly from WikiLeaks, which the US Intel Community classified as controlled by the Russian government. WikiLeaks offered strategies, which Trump almost immediately followed (calling the election rigged). Trump made his press conference comments promising a huge revelation about Hillary's e-mails within a day of WikiLeaks promising they had info. Don Jr publicly posted the links to the recovered e-mails WikiLeaks provided him, and Trump declared, "I love WikiLeaks" and called on Russia to find the rest of the e-mails.

I still think Trump's biggest problem is all of the foreign mafia connections he has, and the blatant money laundering going on in Trump's business. I am fascinated to see if they can link Trump to knowingly launder money, or if he will be able to provide plausible deniability. It's extremely clear Kazakhstani crime bosses laundered money through Trump SoHo, and how do you explain Trump Tower Almaty, an empty luxury skyrise built in the middle of nowhere, not even accessible by roads? Trump sold a teardown estate in Palm Springs to a Russian Oligarch for $95 million dollars. Trump bought it for $45 Million, and sold it with minimal improvements, and the Russian Billionaire tore it down. Oh, and he was on a buying spree to avoid paying money in a lawsuit. Was Trump just lucky to sell at a $45 Million profit because a Russian guy needed to dump as much of his money as he could? Maybe, but the amount of connections he has to Russian and former Soviet mafia and kleptocrats is sure suspicious. Ivanka Trump's guest at the inauguration was the wife of Roman Abramovich, who is one of Putin's closest friends, and the recipient of Billions of dollars in state owned oil and other businesses. Straight up mobsters. And remember all of the American Steel Trump promised would be used in the Keystone XL Pipeline? The bid went to a Russian Steel company owned by Roman Abramovich.

But yes, the DNC did pay a private company to dig for dirt, and they interviewed Russian officials.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:01 pm

The Sybian wrote:
Joe K wrote:The reason I think it's important whether any specific crimes were committed is that you get into a bit of a slippery slope otherwise. The US attempts to influence elections in other countries -- including Russia -- all the time. Calling what Russia did an "act of aggression" or worse is more than a little ironic given our own history.

Moreover, to play Devil's advocate here, is working with foreign agents to get campaign dirt automatically an unacceptable act? Or are we treating it as such due to the shocking fact that our country elected Trump? We now know that the Clinton campaign paid Christopher Steele in connection with his infamous dossier, and that many of Steele's claimed sources were Kremlin agents. So didn't Clinton's campaign, in its own way, pay money to get dirt on a political opponent from Russian agents? That's why, both legally and morally, it matters a lot as to whether the Trump campaign was actually involved in the theft of documents or any other criminal actions.

I completely agree with you that it's crucial to determine if a specific crime was committed. Discovering Trump did something that feels wrong isn't going to get him impeached. Hell, he does something clearly shady every damned day. But, I can't let the comparison of Trump's interactions with Russian government officials and WikiLeaks and hiring Steele go without comment. Steele is a private person collecting opposition research. Hiring a guy to look for negative info about your opponent is perfectly legal, and done by every campaign. It's irrelevant if he interviewed foreign government agents to get information. Trump and his campaign met directly with Russians believed to be working on behalf of the government, and discussed lifting sanctions against Russia and Russian citizens for human rights violations. ...

But yes, the DNC did pay a private company to dig for dirt, and they interviewed Russian officials.

I agree with you that the two are not equivalent, and that any discussions of lifting sanctions (or any other policy concessions) are a problem. But the parts I bolded make it seem like you're saying that soliciting campaign help from Russian government officials is okay, but only if you do it through a private party as an intermediary. That seems like a tenuous distinction, which further shows that "meeting with Russians" by itself (without something like criminal action or policy quid pro quos) isn't necessarily an out-of-bounds act. I think we're in agreement about the importance of proving criminality, and this just shows the risks in jumping the gun before the investigation uncovers that proof.

On another point, I'm pretty skeptical of the intelligence community's characterization of Wikileaks as "Russian controlled." Assange is a bad actor, but it seems more likely to me that he was fishing for a pardon than that he is a Russian operative.