President Trump & the USA

[SMX11]

8 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

No that's not a crime. Not reporting the hush money payment to the Federal Election Commission is a crime apparently.

I doubt though that it's worthy of an impeachment.

Surely Trump would have paid for the hush money out of his own finances? I agree that it doesn't look worthy of an impeachment. 

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, SMX11 said:

Surely Trump would have paid for the hush money out of his own finances? I agree that it doesn't look worthy of an impeachment.  

You would assume so, if he's gone full Jeremy Thorpe then he deserves what he gets

[Carl the Llama]

I'm confused: I thought Clinton got impeached over the whole Lewinski affair? Is that incorrect?

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

I'm confused: I thought Clinton got impeached over the whole Lewinski affair? Is that incorrect?

He did. Why the confusion?

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, MattP said:

He did. Why the confusion?

You and jattdog are talking like he got away with it

[Jattdogg]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

You and jattdog are talking like he got away with it

He did. Didnt get kicked out of office.

[zealot]

No US present has ever been successfully impeached. Both Clinton and Johnson were acquitted by the Senate. That's why controlling both Houses is so important when attempting to impeach.

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

You and jattdog are talking like he got away with it

He did, he remained as the President, how I have no idea.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Claridge said:

Grubby old whore tries to blackmail a man and to protect his career/marriage he pays her hush money..That's a crime?

Whether his wife should forgive him,thta's upto her

Good to see casual misogyny is alive and well on FT. Repubs being the party of family values, after all.

TBH the hush money he paid out shouldn't be fatal by itself (otherwise as said earlier Clinton would have likely gone too for similar misdemeanours) but what Cohen can tell Mueller and his team about possible Russian collusion that is the key element here. He points out something concrete there that can be tied to Trump, then there might be some interesting times.

Edited 23 August 2018 by leicsmac

[Guest MattP]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Good to see casual misogyny is alive and well on FT. Repubs being the party of family values, after all.

TBH the hush money he paid out shouldn't be fatal by itself (otherwise as said earlier Clinton would have likely gone too for similar misdemeanours) but what Cohen can tell Mueller and his team about possible Russian collusion that is the key element here. He points out something concrete there that can be tied to Trump, then there might be some interesting time.

If you think that's bad head into the politics threads and see the abuse thrown at Theresa May.

[Alf Bentley]

34 minutes ago, MattP said:

(Serious whataboutism alert)

The coverage on Trump may prove to be correct and he may well leave office because of it, but I did wonder earlier, how on earth did Bill Clnton get away with what he did, I mean he literally got a young naive 22 year old intern to suck his dick in the Whitehouse, whilst married, then totally lied about it, and somehow came out of the impeachment process with an acquittal.

Can't help but think if he has been a Republican he would have been removed.

 

 

(Further whataboutery alert)

Clinton's reputation was certainly damaged by his philandering and lying, maybe his legislative programme, too. I don't know the legal grounds on which he was acquitted in the impeachment proceedings. Partly due to party politics, I'm guessing, which might well also get Trump off the hook, even if he's guilty, as I understand that successful impeachment needs to be approved by the Senate - which is likely to have a Republican majority for the foreseeable future.

One reason why Trump's case might be seen as more serious, though, is that the allegation is not just that he had extra-marital affairs and lied about them, like Clinton. The allegation is that, directly or indirectly, he made hush payments, which compromised the democratic process at a critical point in an exceptionally close election campaign.

If Clinton is beyond the pale for what he did, there's an equivalent much closer to home:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-326045/Boris-sacked-lying-affair.html (2004) 

"Boris Johnson was sensationally sacked from the Tory front bench after admitting he lied over his affair with society hostess and writer Petronella Wyatt. Conservative leader Michael Howard acted swiftly after Ms Wyatt's mother, Lady Verushka Wyatt, told The Mail on Sunday her daughter had an abortion last month as a result of an affair with Mr Johnson, the Shadow Arts Minister who is also editor of The Spectator magazine. Lady Wyatt's account flew in the face of an outright denial issued by Mr Johnson last week, when he described reports of an affair with Ms Wyatt as "an inverted pyramid of piffle". But his comment was untrue: he did have an affair. When Mr Howard was told yesterday, he immediately asked married father-of-four Mr Johnson to resign. Mr Johnson refused and was fired.Earlier yesterday, before he was sacked, 40-year-old Mr Johnson, refused to confirm or deny any affair with Ms Wyatt. His circumspect stance contrasted markedly with his 'piffle' statement of the previous week. "I am not commenting or elaborating on this in any way,' he said. Asked if he had told the truth, he said: "I have absolutely nothing to say on this matter."

Imagine any serious political party wanting to appoint such a man as PM to oversee Brexit. Not the first time Boris had been sacked for dishonesty, either. He'd previously been sacked by a newspaper for fabricating a quotation by his godfather!

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Imagine any serious political party wanting to appoint such a man as PM to oversee Brexit. Not the first time Boris had been sacked for dishonesty, either. He'd previously been sacked by a newspaper for fabricating a quotation by his godfather!

She's actually not bad, the thought of Boris Johnson having sex is horrible, but the thought of him doing it with someone who is fairly attractive is somehow even worse.

But yeah, the state of British politics at the minute. He's possibly the next Prime Minister as well, it's so important the Brexit wing of the Tory party actually gets a decent candidate for when the leadership contest is sent over to the membership, I'd prefer to see Boris as a stalking horse and then see Gove knife him again.

The sad thing is despite it all, if it was him up against May for the leadership I'd vote for him. That's where we are now.

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

She's actually not bad, the thought of Boris Johnson having sex is horrible, but the thought of him doing it with someone who is fairly attractive is somehow even worse.

But yeah, the state of British politics at the minute. He's possibly the next Prime Minister as well, it's so important the Brexit wing of the Tory party actually gets a decent candidate for when the leadership contest is sent over to the membership, I'd prefer to see Boris as a stalking horse and then see Gove knife him again.

The sad thing is despite it all, if it was him up against May for the leadership I'd vote for him. That's where we are now.

 

Yes, there's something quite attractive about Petronella, though she's not classically good-looking. Anyway, better not divert the Trump/USA thread into either British politics or general lechery. 

The expert consensus on Newsnight yesterday seemed to be that there was little chance of Trump getting impeached because of the likely Republican majority in the Senate. Whether he could end up being forced out of office through pressure within the Republic Party or charged in court seemed more open to debate. At least one expert seemed to think that, if guilty, he could end up going to jail - but only after his term as President ends.  

Apparently, Cohen and Manafort are likely to serve time....

[Fox Ulike]

25 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Good to see casual misogyny is alive and well on FT. Repubs being the party of family values, after all.

TBH the hush money he paid out shouldn't be fatal by itself (otherwise as said earlier Clinton would have likely gone too for similar misdemeanours) but what Cohen can tell Mueller and his team about possible Russian collusion that is the key element here. He points out something concrete there that can be tied to Trump, then there might be some interesting times.

Trump or Clinton is/was not in trouble because they had extra-marital affairs.

Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice whilst in office. Not for getting a gob job, but because he lied about it. Trump is in trouble for not disclosing the hush money about his alleged affair that may have influenced the way people voted. This is a crime. Open and shut case really. It starts to make sense as to why he wouldn’t disclose his Tax Returns either.

 

If I were Trump though I’d argue that the 2016 victory would have been even more huge if the electorate known that he had banged a famous porn star. 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

If you think that's bad head into the politics threads and see the abuse thrown at Theresa May.

Not entirely sure all of what is being dealt out to TM is because of her gender (whereas it is with the OP here), but point taken.

12 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

(Further whataboutery alert)

Clinton's reputation was certainly damaged by his philandering and lying, maybe his legislative programme, too. I don't know the legal grounds on which he was acquitted in the impeachment proceedings. Partly due to party politics, I'm guessing, which might well also get Trump off the hook, even if he's guilty, as I understand that successful impeachment needs to be approved by the Senate - which is likely to have a Republican majority for the foreseeable future.

One reason why Trump's case might be seen as more serious, though, is that the allegation is not just that he had extra-marital affairs and lied about them, like Clinton. The allegation is that, directly or indirectly, he made hush payments, which compromised the democratic process at a critical point in an exceptionally close election campaign.

If Clinton is beyond the pale for what he did, there's an equivalent much closer to home:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-326045/Boris-sacked-lying-affair.html (2004) 

"Boris Johnson was sensationally sacked from the Tory front bench after admitting he lied over his affair with society hostess and writer Petronella Wyatt. Conservative leader Michael Howard acted swiftly after Ms Wyatt's mother, Lady Verushka Wyatt, told The Mail on Sunday her daughter had an abortion last month as a result of an affair with Mr Johnson, the Shadow Arts Minister who is also editor of The Spectator magazine. Lady Wyatt's account flew in the face of an outright denial issued by Mr Johnson last week, when he described reports of an affair with Ms Wyatt as "an inverted pyramid of piffle". But his comment was untrue: he did have an affair. When Mr Howard was told yesterday, he immediately asked married father-of-four Mr Johnson to resign. Mr Johnson refused and was fired.Earlier yesterday, before he was sacked, 40-year-old Mr Johnson, refused to confirm or deny any affair with Ms Wyatt. His circumspect stance contrasted markedly with his 'piffle' statement of the previous week. "I am not commenting or elaborating on this in any way,' he said. Asked if he had told the truth, he said: "I have absolutely nothing to say on this matter."

Imagine any serious political party wanting to appoint such a man as PM to oversee Brexit. Not the first time Boris had been sacked for dishonesty, either. He'd previously been sacked by a newspaper for fabricating a quotation by his godfather!

You're right in that both House and Senate are needed to ratify any impeachment - which is why it's never happened yet.

The November elections will have a big bearing on that.

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Trump or Clinton is/was not in trouble because they had extra-marital affairs.

Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice whilst in office. Not for getting a gob job, but because he lied about it. Trump is in trouble for not disclosing the hush money about his alleged affair that may have influenced the way people voted. This is a crime. Open and shut case really. It starts to make sense as to why he wouldn’t disclose his Tax Returns either.

If I were Trump though I’d argue that the 2016 victory would have been even more huge if the electorate known that he had banged a famous porn star. 

2

Yeah, that's what I'm saying - this isn't just about extramarital sex but much more besides, and how much more will dictate whether or not impeachment can happen.

TBH either the Dems need a majority in both houses or they need to convince some Repubs to come along - very very unlikely unless those same Repubs think that Trump's continued presence will absolutely, positively and certainly ruin their own chances for reelection.

[the fox]

"Cohen, 51, admitted eight counts on Tuesday, including tax and bank fraud, in a plea deal with prosecutors which may see his prison sentence reduced from 65 years to five years and three months." 

Lol I hope people are not dumb enough to not see that he threw Trump under the bus to have his time in person reduced. His heart didn't soften, he just found a chance to reduce his time. Which gonna be like 3 years if he's on his best behavior. 

 

And what about the pornstar who took hush money to keep it a secret. Lol she sure wasn't having a moral dilemma when she was counting that green paper. 

Crappy people really attract each other

 

 

 

Edited 23 August 2018 by the fox

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Not entirely sure all of what is being dealt out to TM is because of her gender (whereas it is with the OP here), but point taken.

Would you say her being called a bitch, whore, slag or witch is mysoginist? 

Edited 23 August 2018 by MattP

[Alf Bentley]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You're right in that both House and Senate are needed to ratify any impeachment - which is why it's never happened yet.

The November elections will have a big bearing on that.

 

I don't know much about US electoral politics, but the experts on Newsnight seemed to think the Democrats had little chance of winning the Senate (though a decent chance with the House, I think).

You or others probably have a better knowledge than me. Here's a summary for other non-experts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2018

I hadn't realised that the Republicans can only afford a net loss of 1 seat to retain their Senate majority. However, it seems that a lot more Democrat seats are up for re-election, and only a small number of Republican seats are vulnerable. Sounds like a very narrow route to victory for the Democrats in the Senate.

Though, I suppose that, depending on Republican Party politics, on exactly what Trump is accused of and on how strong the evidence against him is, then there could be some voting across party lines during impeachment hearings? So, he wouldn't necessarily be safe from impeachment even if the Republicans retain a narrow majority in the Senate?

[Jattdogg]

Trump will be running in 2020.  His team has esssentially refused to talk back to him with the garbage he has said to date (illegals, russia/NK ball grabbing, spat over nafta etc) so what makes you think they will impeach his arse. No chance. Power is more important. Impeachment will destroy their chances at reelection in 2020.

All this election meddling stuff is definitely interesting but i just dont see anything going back directly to him . Cohen and manafort have credibility issues just like trump. You  cant be sure who is really lying and who is really telling the truth. 

Of course i would love to see him fired from the role of president  because he is an absolute train wreck.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

Would you say her being called a bitch, whore, slag or witch is mysoginist? 

Absolutely, hence my careful use of the phrase "not sure all of what is". There's definitely some misogynist abuse being thrown in there, but not all criticism of her is on account of her gender IMO - again, different to the ladies involved in this particular situation where almost all of it is.

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I don't know much about US electoral politics, but the experts on Newsnight seemed to think the Democrats had little chance of winning the Senate (though a decent chance with the House, I think).

You or others probably have a better knowledge than me. Here's a summary for other non-experts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2018

I hadn't realised that the Republicans can only afford a net loss of 1 seat to retain their Senate majority. However, it seems that a lot more Democrat seats are up for re-election, and only a small number of Republican seats are vulnerable. Sounds like a very narrow route to victory for the Democrats in the Senate.

Though, I suppose that, depending on Republican Party politics, on exactly what Trump is accused of and on how strong the evidence against him is, then there could be some voting across party lines during impeachment hearings? So, he wouldn't necessarily be safe from impeachment even if the Republicans retain a narrow majority in the Senate?

Yeah, did a post on this a while back - Dems have a better than 50/50 chance of winning the House, much less of winning the Senate due to the reasons you specify. However, just controlling one part of Congress can at the very least make things uncomfortable.

There might be some Repubs who do decide to cross the tracks during such hearings, but honestly I think that will only become the case when they feel they have nothing at all to lose and having Trump in power will mean they will definitely lose their own elections - not before.

[Guest MattP]

31 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Absolutely, hence my careful use of the phrase "not sure all of what is". There's definitely some misogynist abuse being thrown in there, but not all criticism of her is on account of her gender IMO - again, different to the ladies involved in this particular situation where almost all of it is.

Good stuff, I do hope if you come across it in there you'll call it out as well.

[Carl the Llama]

5 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

He did. Didnt get kicked out of office.

5 hours ago, MattP said:

He did, he remained as the President, how I have no idea.

Oh ok, I genuinely thought he got kicked out over it, getting a bit of a Mandela effect vibe here.

[Claridge]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Good to see casual misogyny is alive and well on FT. Repubs being the party of family values, after all.

TBH the hush money he paid out shouldn't be fatal by itself (otherwise as said earlier Clinton would have likely gone too for similar misdemeanours) but what Cohen can tell Mueller and his team about possible Russian collusion that is the key element here. He points out something concrete there that can be tied to Trump, then there might be some interesting times.

Sorry that lovely young lady who is as sweet as apple pie is a hero for all women and humankind in general. Her behaviour is liberating and inspiring to all the young females of the world. Become a pornstar and be proud. 

[Thommo]

14 hours ago, zealot said:

No US present has ever been successfully impeached. Both Clinton and Johnson were acquitted by the Senate. That's why controlling both Houses is so important when attempting to impeach.

Didn't Nixon get impeached over Watergate?