What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

I actually am Russian IRL.

Would you tell your puppet President to get his shit together? Thanks.

Anyway the GOP wants to know what you all think with a bunch of absurdly leading questions: https://gop.com/listening-to-america-surveys/?pgtype=nohead&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ET_16&utm_campaign=20170712_1074_Listening-To-America_DonaldJTrump_RNC&utm_content=GOP_surveys_Text-Ask-1

'Do you think the evil people are in fact evil and diabolical?'

[mongers]

I actually report to a Russian IRL.

When you're quoting a Trump tweet, can you make it obvious by putting in a quote box and including the twiitter time stamp, thanks.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I mean, the reality is the Trump campaign had a solemn duty to investigate information that would "incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia."

Lol, "solemn duty," guess that really waters down your solemn duties, bullet catcher.  Time to bulldoze Arlington.

Circumstances matter.  If Mr. Scumbago shows up with blood stained papers and asks for a sack of cash in return, the solemn duty is to call the Feds not do the deal.  This wasn't garden variety gray market oppo research.

I'd agree on hacked emails, disagree on documents from the Russian prosecutor, one is something we know was obtained illicitly, the other...not so much. If anything I wouldn't be shocked if Russia could quite legally disclose its government documents and would have no reason not to do so if it felt they might hurt Hillary, and there wouldn't be anything inappropriate in receiving or republishing them.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Now, obviously Russian hacking of the DNC, and involvement in it by an American, even after the fact, would be illegal. But the text of the email doesn't reveal to me anything that would create a clear legal link between Trump and collusion/conspiracy with Russia as part of the DNC hacking.

It's a piece of evidence from which inferences can be drawn.  The question is what other evidence is out there.  Criminal conspiracy cases often don't have a singular smoking gun email chain.  It's a combination of different documents or pieces of evidence.

A smoking gun is necessary for the desired outcome with Trump, which is his removal or forced resignation. I don't believe the public's attention or his base's willingness to turn on him will be high enough unless we get something really unequivocal ala the Nixon tapes. Remember, DJT will never face a conspiracy trial in the ordinary sense, so you need not just a large collection of documents and circumstantial evidence which combined may be enough for a conviction, you need enough politically damaging information to make about 1/2 of the Republicans in Congress decide to vote to remove a Republican President from office.

[Legbiter]

For FunkMonk. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Otto - I wasn't thinking of a prosecution of DJT Sr.  Right now it looks like the guy in the hottest seat is Manafort, followed by Kushner and Junior in that order.  None of them is immune from prosecution.  If one of them cooperates and gets an agreement, other dominoes could fall.

[Barrister]

Now, obviously Russian hacking of the DNC, and involvement in it by an American, even after the fact, would be illegal. But the text of the email doesn't reveal to me anything that would create a clear legal link between Trump and collusion/conspiracy with Russia as part of the DNC hacking.

It's a piece of evidence from which inferences can be drawn.  The question is what other evidence is out there.  Criminal conspiracy cases often don't have a singular smoking gun email chain.  It's a combination of different documents or pieces of evidence.

A smoking gun is necessary for the desired outcome with Trump, which is his removal or forced resignation. I don't believe the public's attention or his base's willingness to turn on him will be high enough unless we get something really unequivocal ala the Nixon tapes. Remember, DJT will never face a conspiracy trial in the ordinary sense, so you need not just a large collection of documents and circumstantial evidence which combined may be enough for a conviction, you need enough politically damaging information to make about 1/2 of the Republicans in Congress decide to vote to remove a Republican President from office.

There was no "smoking gun" in Watergate.

I went back and double-checked against my own memory.  There is still no evidence that Nixon new anything about the break-in to the DNC Headquarters prior to it happening.  What of course got Nixon though was his involvement in the cover-up.  And there's been plenty of evidence of Trump's involvement in the cover-up (firing Comey).

It is of course a political process.  And what's clear with Trump is that no individual story is ever going to bring him down.  It's the sheer volume of stories over the months and years that will wear down his approval numbers.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'd agree on hacked emails, disagree on documents from the Russian prosecutor, one is something we know was obtained illicitly, the other...not so much. If anything I wouldn't be shocked if Russia could quite legally disclose its government documents and would have no reason not to do so if it felt they might hurt Hillary, and there wouldn't be anything inappropriate in receiving or republishing them.

Again circumstances . . . despite the weird use of the term "Crown Prosecutor" we are not talking about a Russian version of Barrister Boy.  Think track suits or high-end bespoke London tailoring more than neatly pressed pleated pants.  the top law enforcement guy in Russia these days is basically the patriarch of an organized crime family.  There wasn't any kind of proper legal investigation going on in Russia that would have resulted in Russia learning of bad actions by HRC by proper legal means.  On the other hand, at the time the meeting took place, Russian state involvement in hacking vs. US targets was well known.  Junior can try and play dumb about this (not a big stretch for him) but Manafort must have known what was going on.

[Legbiter]

Given her luck, Hillary will be the one who ends up charged with Russia stuff. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Given her luck, Hillary will be the one who ends up charged with Russia stuff. 

That is how it works in Russia.  The crime victim is charged with the crime.  see Browder, Magnitsky.
We may have KKK tinged justice now, but we're not that far gone yet.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Otto - I wasn't thinking of a prosecution of DJT Sr.  Right now it looks like the guy in the hottest seat is Manafort, followed by Kushner and Junior in that order.  None of them is immune from prosecution.  If one of them cooperates and gets an agreement, other dominoes could fall.

There's no way Trump wouldn't pardon Junior--damn the consequences. Trump's only loyalty in life is to this immediate family and himself (in reverse order), no way he lets the Crown Prince take a fall.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Manafort/Flynn would/are being left out to dry though. Look at the fate of Chris Christie, Trump loyalty to even close friends is very thin. Kushner probably gets the veil of familial protection since he's sired Trumpling grandbabies.

[OttoVonBismarck]

There was no "smoking gun" in Watergate.

I went back and double-checked against my own memory.  There is still no evidence that Nixon new anything about the break-in to the DNC Headquarters prior to it happening.  What of course got Nixon though was his involvement in the cover-up.  And there's been plenty of evidence of Trump's involvement in the cover-up (firing Comey).

It is of course a political process.  And what's clear with Trump is that no individual story is ever going to bring him down.  It's the sheer volume of stories over the months and years that will wear down his approval numbers.

There was absolutely a smoking gun, it's even been called the "smoking gun" tape, the tape of Oval Office discussions on June 23, 1972--Nixon signs off on a plan to order the Director and Deputy Director of the CIA to reach out to the Director of the FBI and tell them to back off the Watergate break in investigation on grounds of national security; i.e. he was caught on tape using the power of the Presidency to impede a criminal investigation for his own ends. He almost certainly would have been convicted of obstruction of justice based on that tape alone in an ordinary criminal court. The transcript of the smoking gun tape came out on August 5, 1974 and by August 9 Nixon's Presidency was over, he suffered an instant and massive erosion of support and lost most of his remaining support in the Senate (which is what imperiled him of being actually removed from office in an impeachment trial.)

[CountDeMoney]

There will be enough smoking guns once all the money is found.  It will take time, but it's always the money in the end.

[Malthus]

There was no "smoking gun" in Watergate.

I went back and double-checked against my own memory.  There is still no evidence that Nixon new anything about the break-in to the DNC Headquarters prior to it happening.  What of course got Nixon though was his involvement in the cover-up.  And there's been plenty of evidence of Trump's involvement in the cover-up (firing Comey).

It is of course a political process.  And what's clear with Trump is that no individual story is ever going to bring him down.  It's the sheer volume of stories over the months and years that will wear down his approval numbers.

There was absolutely a smoking gun, it's even been called the "smoking gun" tape, the tape of Oval Office discussions on June 23, 1972--Nixon signs off on a plan to order the Director and Deputy Director of the CIA to reach out to the Director of the FBI and tell them to back off the Watergate break in investigation on grounds of national security; i.e. he was caught on tape using the power of the Presidency to impede a criminal investigation for his own ends. He almost certainly would have been convicted of obstruction of justice based on that tape alone in an ordinary criminal court. The transcript of the smoking gun tape came out on August 5, 1974 and by August 9 Nixon's Presidency was over, he suffered an instant and massive erosion of support and lost most of his remaining support in the Senate (which is what imperiled him of being actually removed from office in an impeachment trial.)

The problem seems to me is that  - that was then, and this is now.

Even assuming exactly the same level of "smoking gun-ness" was found as in the Nixon example, in the current political and social climate, would Trump suffer "an instant and massive erosion of support" and loss of support in the Senate?

People are so polarized, and the Republican party so apparently lacking in ethics and principle, that it is quite possible that a totally, instantly convincing "smoking gun" is found, and .. nothing changes.