The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[LordMortis]

If the D's continue to tell blue collar (less than bachelor's degree) workers to quiet down and vote like they're supposed to if they know what's good for them then Bruce absolutely has it right. You don't know how to talk them and they're not likely to vote for you unless they feel desparate. Denial about the past and the future. Not good. I hope the party learned form the Clinton campaign better than this.

[Kraken]

The Boss weighs in: "Why Bruce Springsteen thinks Donald Trump is going to win again in 2020":

"I don't see anyone out there at the moment ... the man who can beat Trump, or the woman who can beat Trump," Springsteen said of the potential 2020 Democratic field. "You need someone who can speak some of the same language [as Trump] ... and the Democrats don't have an obvious, effective presidential candidate."

He ain't wrong. Not one iota.

I think the Democrats might get away without needing a super candidate IF they pick someone relatively new, someone that doesn't have a long history. Then it becomes easy for voters to assign that person whatever values or ideals they expect. A tabula rasa, if you will.

I think Trump somewhat benefited from that (as did Obama in his first election - hopey changey, etc) in the 2016 election. People saw what they wanted to see in him. With 4 years of actual Trump reality in place in 2020, he'll shed some of those people. Not all or probably not even most. But probably enough that Democrats can slide in with a solid candidate who has their own clean slate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm nervous as hell about who the Democrats will run. Democrats let the Republicans define Hillary's brand and then ran her anyway. Does a Bernie Sanders already have too much history? Elizabeth Warren? I don't know, which is why I'm glad I'm not in charge.

I think Bruce is better at music than political prognosticating.

Trump *barely* won in 2016 at a time when he was a political outsider in a political outsider-y year, when Democrats were running for a third term in the White House, when his opponent as also historically unpopular, when he benefited from Comey's absurd last minute intervention, etc. With Trump running for reelection as a corrupt and unpopular Washington insider, as long as the Democrats run someone who is not historically unpopular, then they will likely be favored. Though not overwhelming favorites.

That's my take, too. Trump still has his fanatical base, but virtually nobody else. That was enough to just barely squeak out a win in '16 (with Russian help) against a widely despised candidate who was portrayed as inevitable. A lot of people sat it out or cast protest votes because they were sure Trump was not a real threat. That won't happen again. And three of those critical swing states swung blue in the midterms.

The only thing Trump has going for him right now is a strong economy, and that might or might not still be in play in '20. Even if it is, I don't see him pulling another hat trick now that everybody's guard is up. The next election should be the Democrats' to lose. They have a talent for doing that, and might do it again, but I think they go into it with a strong advantage.

[Pyperkub]

I think 2020 will be the ugliest election in over a century. Given the media landscape today, it will probably be the ugliest ever (though the pre-Civil War elections were pretty ugly, but they had nowhere near today's media saturation).

[Carpet_pissr]

A lot of people sat it out or cast protest votes because they were sure Trump was not a real threat. That won't happen again.

I think this is where my biggest anti-Trump '20 hope lies.

[El Guapo]

I think 2020 will be the ugliest election in over a century. Given the media landscape today, it will probably be the ugliest ever (though the pre-Civil War elections were pretty ugly, but they had nowhere near today's media saturation).

I agree. Although one other thing that Trump benefited from in 2016 was the media landscape, insofar as the media treated him as an amusing novelty for a big chunk of the campaign, gave him lots of free press, and engaged in a lot of magnification of smaller Clinton flaws, and a lot of bothsiderism, in large part because they assumed that Clinton was going to win in the end and wanted to look balanced.

I'm sure that there will be some of that in 2020, but I expect that there will be significantly less than there was in 2016.

[LordMortis]

That's my take, too. Trump still has his fanatical base, but virtually nobody else.

You must live in a different geography. Trump has vocal support from his fanatical base. He has tacit approval from a much larger quiet people who are not likely to turn on him unless they lose their jobs or at a higher salary their 401ks turn. Their not fanatical, but they are stubborn.

And three of those critical swing states swung blue in the midterms.

They swung blue to candidates and proposals in Michigan. If you choose good common sense red proposals and local candidate with appeal and no baggage, while the blue run someone who can't "speak the same language" for president, don't be surprised at the outcome.

The only thing Trump has going for him right now is a strong economy

And institutionalizing xenophobia and the promise that the deregulation is helping the worker make a check and the idea that lazy people are getting part of the check I earned and he's earning my vote, not telling me has a right to it and...

We can scream from the roofs all day long that this is a lie and when you buy into that lie you are shielding bigots. And screaming ain't gonna do no good. You gotta show a stubborn populace in terms they can understand if not be excited about that this shit is fucked up and it's gonna come to call. I won't say otherwise you are doomed to fail because Trump is that bad but I will say you are not only not doing right but you're not setting yourself up victory and your setting yourself up strengthen the appeal the of post Trump right and that should be a scary thought too.

[hepcat]

I had hoped that in spite of a strong economy, the GOP would be worried about the soaring deficit considering it has been in there wheelhouse for ages. But it turns out the GOP doesn't actually care about tomorrow.

[Isgrimnur]

There’s two years left, and half of my current Roth is waiting for a fire sale.

[Pyperkub]

I had hoped that in spite of a strong economy, the GOP would be worried about the soaring deficit considering it has been in there wheelhouse for ages. But it turns out the GOP doesn't actually care about tomorrow.

Uh, where have you been for the past 38 years?

[Carpet_pissr]

The only thing Trump has going for him right now is a strong economy,

That's kinda like saying "the only great thing about the sun is the light and heat it gives off".

[hepcat]

I had hoped that in spite of a strong economy, the GOP would be worried about the soaring deficit considering it has been in there wheelhouse for ages. But it turns out the GOP doesn't actually care about tomorrow.

Uh, where have you been for the past 38 years?

Over there. Behind the end table.

[El Guapo]

The only thing Trump has going for him right now is a strong economy,

That's kinda like saying "the only great thing about the sun is the light and heat it gives off".

Fair, although you can just as easily flip that and say "the only things Trump has going against him are horrible media coverage, multiple criminal investigations that are yielding indictments against people tied to him at a rapid pace, and strong popular disapproval."

[Kraken]

That's my take, too. Trump still has his fanatical base, but virtually nobody else.

You must live in a different geography. Trump has vocal support from his fanatical base. He has tacit approval from a much larger quiet people who are not likely to turn on him unless they lose their jobs or at a higher salary their 401ks turn. Their not fanatical, but they are stubborn.

I do, and I don't. Overall, Trump's disapproval ranges from 60-70% in MA, but I live in an especially conservative town. In the Senate race between Warren and Diehl (a full-throated Trump supporter), my town went for Warren by just 33 votes out of 15,500 cast. That means that fully half of my neighbors are Republicans who have made their peace with Trump. If I take the T a few miles into Boston or Cambridge, you will be hard-pressed to find any Trumpsters at all.

And three of those critical swing states swung blue in the midterms.

They swung blue to candidates and proposals in Michigan. If you choose good common sense red proposals and local candidate with appeal and no baggage, while the blue run someone who can't "speak the same language" for president, don't be surprised at the outcome.

Yup, can't argue with that. Fortunately, clear majorities support action against global warming, Medicare-for-all, compassionate immigration reform, sensible gun control, and similar progressive positions that (one hopes!) the Democratic nominee will embrace. IDK how those policies poll in MI or any other purple state -- and it's all about swinging those purple states -- but nationally they're winners.

I'm confident that the D will win the popular vote by an even larger margin this time around. Whether it's enough to preclude gaming the EC remains to be seen. If Trump does win in '20, I am going to blame Z-Corn and western MI.

[YellowKing]

Let's not forget we are still living in pre-Mueller report days. By 2020 that will no longer be the case. Whether it amounts to getting Trump removed from office prematurely or not, there is going to be even MORE scandal and corruption surrounding his presidency than we currently have (as hard as that is to believe). Trump's got an uphill climb in 2020, I don't care how great the economy is.

[El Guapo]

Let's not forget we are still living in pre-Mueller report days. By 2020 that will no longer be the case. Whether it amounts to getting Trump removed from office prematurely or not, there is going to be even MORE scandal and corruption surrounding his presidency than we currently have (as hard as that is to believe). Trump's got an uphill climb in 2020, I don't care how great the economy is.

Also, if the economy were enough, presumably that would have helped Republicans in 2018, and there's no indication that it did (or at least, if it did, then one can imagine the landslide if the economy turns south in 2020).

[noxiousdog]

Also, if the economy were enough, presumably that would have helped Republicans in 2018, and there's no indication that it did (or at least, if it did, then one can imagine the landslide if the economy turns south in 2020).

I think this is way more likely.

[LordMortis]

Let's not forget we are still living in pre-Mueller report days. By 2020 that will no longer be the case. Whether it amounts to getting Trump removed from office prematurely or not, there is going to be even MORE scandal and corruption surrounding his presidency than we currently have (as hard as that is to believe). Trump's got an uphill climb in 2020, I don't care how great the economy is.

Also, if the economy were enough, presumably that would have helped Republicans in 2018, and there's no indication that it did (or at least, if it did, then one can imagine the landslide if the economy turns south in 2020).

Also if the economy were it enough, it presumably would have hurt Trump in 2016 and "the Freedom Caucus" in 2014 and 2012. We've been rolling in the post free money for everyone (welll, not every one but I digress..) injections from 2008 to 2014.

[El Guapo]

Giuliani accidentally calls Trump a traitor on Twitter.

Well, either that, or he's trying to get a message out.

Trump has the best lawyers.

[Isgrimnur]

Seeing as the url was registered on the day of the tweet, it was someone Internet-savvy to acquire the site and build the landing page.

[Isgrimnur]

WaPo

The attorneys general for Maryland and the District of Columbia are issuing subpoenaes for financial records and other documents from more than a dozen of President Trump’s private entities Tuesday as part of an ongoing lawsuit alleging that the president’s business violates the Constitution’s ban on gifts or payments from foreign governments.

The subpoenas seek details on some of the most closely held secrets of Trump’s presidency: Which foreign governments have paid the Trump Organization money? How much? And for what?

All of the documents relate to Trump’s D.C. hotel, which is at the center of the emoluments case because of events foreign governments have held there and the federal lease that allows the business to operate.

In addition to documents from more than a dozen related to the president’s company, including the trust that holds his personal assets, Maryland’s Brian Frosh (D) and the District’s Karl Racine (D), are seeking documents from managers of the Walter E. Washington Convention Center and a slew of competing Washington hotels as part of an effort to try to show Trump’s property is unfairly siphoning business from competitors, according to the two attoney generals’ offices.

Also receiving subpoenas are a number of federal agencies that may have some information about Trump’s hotel, which operates in the federally owned Old Post Office Pavilion on Pennsylvania Avenue downtown. At the top of the list is the General Services Administration, which leases the property to Trump’s company.

Other agencies receiving subpoenas are the Commerce Department, the Defense Department, the Agriculture Department and the Internal Revenue Service. The State of Maine also received a subpoena due to a visit Gov. Paul LePage (R) made to the hotel in early 2017.

[pr0ner]

Seeing as the url was registered on the day of the tweet, it was someone Internet-savvy to acquire the site and build the landing page.

This was my assumption when I saw the article, but I didn't do any sleuthing.

I wonder if Louise Mensch and her ilk have picked up on it yet.

[Holman]

Mueller has released his Flynn sentencing memo. Twitter is aflutter.

The memo requests very light sentencing, with in fact no jail time. It's clear that Flynn sang like a bird almost from the beginning and that he has supplied very substantial information of assistance to the collusion probe and other investigations. There's a lot of info tantalizingly redacted, some of it (according the reporters) suggestive that Mueller has irons in the fire of which Trump has no idea.

The centerpiece seems to be that Flynn revealed a great deal in his 19(!) interviews about communication between the campaign and the Russians. The whole document (even through the redactions) suggests that there was a lot to say about this.

More to come on Friday when the Manafort sentencing memo comes out.

Meanwhile, the Trump tweetstorm alert is set to Dumpster Fire Red.

[Isgrimnur]

He’s taking a victory lap on the Paris protests and still hammering on Chiyna.

[Smoove_B]

Oh boy, I bet someone is going to be up all night and unable to attend a funeral tomorrow. Alternatively, someone is going to be at a funeral tomorrow with a thousand-yard stare plastered to his orange face.

[Max Peck]

Mueller has released his Flynn sentencing memo. Twitter is aflutter.

[Hamlet3145]

[Isgrimnur]

WaPo

Jason Velazquez instantly noticed something wasn’t quite right with one of the tweets from Rudolph W. Giuliani.
...
“I kind of chuckled a little bit that he created this accidental link,” Velazquez, 37, told The Washington Post in a phone interview Tuesday. The Atlanta-based digital marketing director said he “knew immediately that it was just a typo,” but that didn’t stop him from clicking on the link.

Velazquez didn’t know it at the time, but this was just the beginning of what would become a viral social media prank that resulted in Giuliani’s typo being used to send an anti-Trump message: “Donald J. Trump is a traitor to our country.” The stunt infuriated Giuliani, who falsely blamed Twitter Tuesday for allowing “someone to invade my text,” prompting many to mock the president’s cybersecurity adviser for his lack of tech savvy.
...
After clicking on the link, Velazquez said he realized no one owned the domain.

“Without thinking, I went and purchased the domain and then I thought, ‘I could literally put whatever I want up and he would either have to delete the tweet or leave it up because you can’t edit a tweet,’” he said.

For the low price of about $6, Giuliani’s tweet now links to a simple website that bears the blunt anti-Trump text.

Carrying out the prank only took 15 minutes, said Velazquez, who bought the domain for an entire year. He shared what he had done on Twitter, writing, “Rudy didn’t separate g-20 from .in so ya boy bought the domain.”
...
“Twitter allowed someone to invade my text with a disgusting anti-President message,” Giuliani tweeted, adding that the “same thing-period no space-occurred later and it didn’t happen.” (Giuliani was probably referencing part of the Nov. 30 tweet that read “Helsinki.Either,” which is not a valid domain.)

He continued: “Don’t tell me they are not committed cardcarrying anti-Trumpers. . . . FAIRNESS PLEASE.”
...
A Twitter spokesman told the New York Times that “the accusation we’re artificially injecting something into a tweet is completely false,” adding that the social media site cannot edit tweets.

Giuliani was immediately roasted by the Internet for what one Twitter user described as “turning a typo into a full on conspiracy theory.”

[Smoove_B]

As a reminder, Trump named Rudy his "Cyber Security Advisor" back in 2017 - and this man thinks that Twitter allowed someone to "invade his text".

The best people.

[Jaymann]

Where can I get one of these anti-Trump cards? I want to carry one.

[coopasonic]

Where can I get one of these anti-Trump cards? I want to carry one.

Googling "anti-trump card" was both amusing and a little scary.

[Max Peck]

I’m not saying that I know for sure what is under the redacted phrase but “President Donald J. Trump” fits perfectly.

[Pyperkub]

I had hoped that in spite of a strong economy, the GOP would be worried about the soaring deficit considering it has been in there wheelhouse for ages. But it turns out the GOP doesn't actually care about tomorrow.

Uh, where have you been for the past 38 years?

Over there. Behind the end table.

Just to be clear:

The friction came to a head in early 2017 when senior officials offered Trump charts and graphics laying out the numbers and showing a “hockey stick” spike in the national debt in the not-too-distant future. In response, Trump noted that the data suggested the debt would reach a critical mass only after his possible second term in office.

“Yeah, but I won’t be here,” the president bluntly said, according to a source who was in the room when Trump made this comment during discussions on the debt.

[hepcat]

That happened last year. I'm still puzzled why you think the GOP hasn't cared about the deficit in 38 years. It's been a mainstay of their platform for ages.

[Pyperkub]

That happened last year. I'm still puzzled why you think the GOP hasn't cared about the deficit in 38 years. It's been a mainstay of their platform for ages.

Providing you aren't being facetious, when in power, the GOP has rung up huge deficits since Reagan.

They've only said anything about deficits when democrats are in power.

[hepcat]

I never said they had been successful in going about a reduction in the deficit. Simply that they had railed against a huge deficit for ages. Google GOP and the deficit and you'll find a wealth of articles detailing GOP rants on the rising deficit.

[LordMortis]

“Yeah, but I won’t be here,” the president bluntly said, according to a source who was in the room when Trump made this comment during discussions on the debt.

By here, he means the United States, not the presidency. That's a problem with an oligarch privilege citizen of the world buffaloing nationalists into believing he's nationalist. He's lining his global value while tanking the US economy and he's doing it at a table full of people incentivized to line their own global value.

It's actually kind of impressive to me that so many conspiracy nuts follow the beat of his drum when again, he is doing the exact thing they've spent their adult lifetimes rallying against and they can rest assured their well being is not in his plan or accounted for in his portfolio.

[LawBeefaroni]

I’m not saying that I know for sure what is under the redacted phrase but “President Donald J. Trump” fits perfectly.

A lot of names fit perfectly. Kind of reachy at this point.

Contextually, wouldn't it be Candidate instead of President?

[El Guapo]

I never said they had been successful in going about a reduction in the deficit. Simply that they had railed against a huge deficit for ages. Google GOP and the deficit and you'll find a wealth of articles detailing GOP rants on the rising deficit.

He's saying that the GOP doesn't *actually* care about reducing the deficit. They have *said* that they care about the deficit for decades, but all evidence from what they do with power when they have it is that they care about reducing taxes on the wealthy, and they care about cutting safety net spending, but they do not actually care about the deficit (except as a convenient political cudgel when they are out of power).

[LordMortis]

GHWB wanted to work with Congress to reduce the debt and he was part of the GOP and...

[hepcat]

It's semantics at this point. And I hate being anti-semantic.