Trump

[Norsegod1839]

ah how very very bad of me! I would hate to imply anything like THAT!

[Lustful Bride]

Not funny. Lets not get the site shut down.

[Callie Del Noire]

More than serious issue, simple declarations have gotten folks investigated.

It’s all fun and games till the secret service shows up at Vek’s home with a warrant

[Various]

My response to EroticLiteracy's post was to brush it aside flippantly. Given the very serious subject matter, that was not the proper response. Such things are taken very seriously and for good reason. Regardless of your feelings toward Trump, he is the President. His safety and wellness is a concern for all Americans both because of the office he holds and the fact that he is, regardless of everything else, a person.

[Norsegod1839]

Thank god we were only talking about Tom Cruise movies! And Renacting them!

[Norsegod1839]

Thank god we were only talking about Tom Cruise movies! And Renacting them!

Just without the killing part.... but in all seriousness that was a joke! My ideal situation is that he gets kicked out of office not horribly killed.

[Norsegod1839]

Though even I'll admit wrong choice of movie... If anyone knows a good movie where a guy gets impeached for being a bad president then please feel free to share it!

[Blythe]

Let's turn the topic back towards things like impeachment proceedings or current events pertaining to the POTUS.

Up-thread, I saw an interesting mention about Manafort suing Mueller and a great explanation about how Mueller's got no leg to stand on with his lawsuit. After I read up-thread, I wondered what Manafort could possibly gain from such a potentially doomed lawsuit, and then I read this article. It was interesting; I'm not sure how much of it I agree with.

[Norsegod1839]

Sounds good to me!

Also thanks for the article link what did everyone think of the training exercise being put on hold?

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/4/16849606/trump-north-korea-olympics-military-exercises

Hope linking the article is okay as well!

[Various]

It may just be bluster. That sort of thing might work on someone who fears suits on general principle (most people) or who can't afford to fight even one that is all but certain to be kicked out as frivolous (again, most people, and I don't know if Manafort's would be considered frivolous). Mueller has the legal experience and finances to not be phased by such things.

[Orval Wintermute]

Though even I'll admit wrong choice of movie... If anyone knows a good movie where a guy gets impeached for being a bad president then please feel free to share it!

All the President's Men, Frost\Nixon......

[gaggedLouise]

I wonder if Trump has seen Murder at 1600 lately. In that film, the national security advisor (played by Alan Alda from M*A*S*H) is scheming to liquidate the president, one of his reasons being that the POTUS is too soft on North Korea... :)

[Oniya]

Sounds good to me!

Also thanks for the article link what did everyone think of the training exercise being put on hold?

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/4/16849606/trump-north-korea-olympics-military-exercises

Hope linking the article is okay as well!

Traditionally, (and by that, I mean back to the ancient Games), the Olympics were a time of peace.  There was an official truce declared for the specific purpose of ensuring that a) the Games were not attacked and b) the athletes could travel to and from the event safely.

[gaggedLouise]

Trump's statement on Bannon yesterday, through Huckabee Sanders, is one of the most ridiculous pieces of self-aggrandizing bluster I've seen from a democratically elected leader: "Now that he is on his own, Steve is learning that winning isn't as easy as I make it look" - that line almost had me laughing out loud, and there's a great deal more...

Anyone who wins a heavily contested election campaign will know that it's the result of lots of teamwork. Trump wouldn't have won without the support of Bannon and several other skilled campaign people, and besides, he was using talking points borrowed from Breitbart (led by Bannon) a long time before he even entered the primaries.

They *really* want to get rid of that book, and of Bannon.

[Cassandra LeMay]

Let's turn the topic back towards things like impeachment proceedings or current events pertaining to the POTUS.

Up-thread, I saw an interesting mention about Manafort suing Mueller and a great explanation about how Mueller's got no leg to stand on with his lawsuit. After I read up-thread, I wondered what Manafort could possibly gain from such a potentially doomed lawsuit, and then I read this article. It was interesting; I'm not sure how much of it I agree with.

Manafort's lawsuit is even worse than I originally thought. Aside from the questions of standing and this being a collateral attack on an ongoing criminal case in a civil court (which Regina summed up rather nicely), there is one other major problem with Manafort's suit:

What Manafort does is question Mueller's authority under 28 CFR 600.1 ff. The problem here is that Mueller's appointment mentions those sections, but is based on 28 USC 509, 510, and 515. Those statutes give the Attorney General (Rosenstein in this case, as Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation) power to delegate his authority when he sees the need to do so.

The Attorney General may from time to time make such provisions as he considers appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice of any function of the Attorney General.

(a) The Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice, or any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct, whether or not he is a resident of the district in which the proceeding is brought.

In short: Manafort is barking up the wrong tree.

Now, why does he even file such a load of Bravo Sierra? I don't really know. The theory that he wants to air some things that he can't make public in the context of the criminal proceeding (I believe there is a gag order covering the criminal case) may have some merit, but personally I don't buy it. I don't see what he has to gain by making some of that stuff public. At best it is not very useful, and at worse it could seriously piss off the judge in the criminal case Mueller brought.

My personal theory is that Manafort has been promised something in return for throwing dirt on the Mueller investigation. As for what that could be, the only thing I see that could really help him would be a presidential pardon. Trump is no friend of the courts and has aired a lot of personal grievances (to put it mildly) about the court system and individual judges over the years. I hope it's not the case, but it could be Manafort has been asked to throw some legal spaghetti at the wall, to see what will stick and how it will influence public opinion, in return for a promise of favors somewhere down the road.

[Various]

Three things from the excerpts of the Wolff book stand out, if they end up being verified.

1. Trump didn't recognize old friends at a Mar-a-Lago party for New Year's.
2. He apparently repeated himself over and over again within the span of minutes when holding a conversation.
3. He repeatedly yelled at White House staff for picking his laundry off the floor stating that this is where he 'wanted it'.

I am not a physician, so grain of salt, but this sounds like some sort of degenerative thing like Alzheimer's, given Trump's age especially. A similar thing may have happened with Reagan in his second term (when he was about as old as Trump is now). This seems like an Article 25, Section 4 issue if he's not cognitively capable of discharging his duties.

Granted each could easily have another explanation. 1. They were people he hadn't seen in a while. 2. He's a droning bore. 3. He's trying to save face for being a slob.

It also was pretty strong on the idea that Trump had no intention of actually winning. Losing the presidency would mean his own network and book deals and stuff. Plus he could sit around screaming at Hillary over Twitter without having a stack in the game, and now he's trapped.

[gaggedLouise]

It also was pretty strong on the idea that Trump had no intention of actually winning. Losing the presidency would mean his own network and book deals and stuff. Plus he could sit around screaming at Hillary over Twitter without having a stack in the game, and now he's trapped.

I've long thought there's a strong possibility that Trump didn't expect to actually get nominated, still less win the entire election. I think he was taken by surpeise by the degree of his success in the primaries - thought so already back in summer 2016 -and he may have moved from the intention of using his campaign bid as a huge media stunt, which would pave the way for him in launching his own tv channel etc, to a serious, determined bid for the presidency.

Unfortunately for all of us (or most of us), he did win.

[Valerian]

Wolff is loving the fact that his book has been threatened with legal action, saying that the threat just proves the book is true:

“Not only is he helping me sell books, but he is helping me prove the point of the book,” Wolff said. “This is extraordinary that the president of the United States would try to stop the publication of a book. This doesn’t happen, has not happened from other presidents, would not even happen from a CEO of a mid-sized company.”

In the interview, Wolff said he did talk to Trump, and “whether he realized it was an interview or not, I don’t know. But it certainly was not off the record.”

“My credibility is being questioned by a man who has less credibility than, perhaps, anyone who have ever walked on earth at this point,” Wolff said.

He also mentions having notes and recordings to back up everything in the book, so this should be interesting.  I was glad to see that the publisher not only didn't blink over the legal threats, but even moved up the release date of the book to today.

[HairyHeretic]

If nothing else, Trumps tantrums are generating a hell of a lot of publicity for the book.

[Regina Minx]

What do we think the over/under on truth vs. gossip vs. lies is in the book? Trump defenders will probably say it's 0% true, whereas on the other side the temptation will be to say it's 100% true. What are we thinking...40% true? 60% true?

[Lustful Bride]

What do we think the over/under on truth vs. gossip vs. lies is in the book? Trump defenders will probably say it's 0% true, whereas on the other side the temptation will be to say it's 100% true. What are we thinking...40% true? 60% true?

I would say a healthy 60% of it may be true, the rest could be exaggeration or rumors and such.

[HairyHeretic]

Depends how accurate his recreation of the interviews were, and how much good info was fed to him during those. I expect some will certainly be true, other parts could be opinion or even lies given to him as truth. I wouldn't guess a number though.

[Iniquitous]

What do we think the over/under on truth vs. gossip vs. lies is in the book? Trump defenders will probably say it's 0% true, whereas on the other side the temptation will be to say it's 100% true. What are we thinking...40% true? 60% true?

If Wolff is telling the truth about having all of his interviews for the book recorded, I'd lean more towards 80 to 90% true.  Of course, I want the recordings published for our listening pleasure.

[Valerian]

Speaking as a long-time employee of the book industry, January isn't a month when any publisher really wants to release a book, during the post-holiday shopping slump.  It's possible the author may have asserted some control over the release date, as in, "You can publish it whenever I'm done fact-checking," which, if that was the case, would incline me towards the high end as far as its overall truthfulness.

Of course there's only so much checking that can be done about some of these stories, and a concerted effort to lie to Wolff might not be uncovered that way.  On the other hand if any of his sources had a motive to lie it would more likely have pushed them to try to make the president look more competent, not less.  Wolff's reaction suggests that he, at least, is pretty confident that he can't be sued over the content.

[Regina Minx]

Let me run this thinking by you guys here. Use of the word 'leaker' carries with it a tacit admission that the information leaked by the leaker was true. No one gets mad at a leaker that leaks false information...nor do they even call them a leaker. They call them a liar.

Or am I overthinking this?