This day in Politics


It would be a show primarily for the Senate. I just don’t think him dickering with Mueller over terms would sway any Senators one way or the other. I gotta think it’s like Nebraska says- that Trump will agree to an interview but only in the narrowest way possible. That’s still a hell of a gamble knowing how Trump shoots off at the mouth.


Of course the President wants to consent to an interview as long as the Special Counsel is prohibited from asking about crimes the President may have committed.

Doesn’t look good for the President to plead the 5th, even if the special counsel operates under the DOJ guideline that the President cannot be indicted while in office.


Just what dudes send to women in DMs period. It’s a crazy world.


Which is the funniest part of all of this “negotiating” between the Mueller team and Trump’s legal team. I think this is a clear indicator that Trump’s legal team understands he is in serious jeopardy here.

No it does not. I wonder what the GOP would do if faced with the notion that the President did plead the 5th, which essentially is admission of committing a crime?


I’m sure they’ll turn into very robust supporters of the 5th Amendment and very vocal about invocation of the fifth not being an admission of guilt, unless you’re an employee of the IRS.

It put in mind an interesting question for me. If the President is not indictable while not in office, why would he have 5th amendment protection?

The answer is probably that he can be indicted after he leaves office, but it’s an interesting notion that a person, any person, gets a get out of jail free card for as long as he serves in a particular office.


It makes Trump look like a tough guy, yelling “let me talk to em!” while Rudy & Co. can look all lawyerly and smart, holding him back.

It’s always a PR game with these goofballs.


That is a fascinating question indeed. And yes, the answer you came up with is probably the logical reason why. If a person cannot be charged with a crime, how can they have the right to avoid self-incrimination? It is a puzzle wrapped in an enigma. :slight_smile:


A sitting POTUS can’t be indicted. That doesn’t mean Trump personally can’t be. Potentially Mueller could deliver a sealed indictment to be opened at the end of Trump’s term.


Yeah, it’s like the little guy in the bar threatening to start a fight and his three buddies holding him back, even they all know he wouldn’t go at it if free to anyways.


That’s what I’m talking about. I think there’s a real chance Mueller gets a sealed indictment against this guy. Been saying it for weeks.

It’s another longshot.


Trump’s Grifiting Cabinet volume 541

There are bigger allegations. Over several months, in speaking with 21 people who know Ross, Forbes uncovered a pattern: Many of those who worked directly with him claim that Ross wrongly siphoned or outright stole a few million here and a few million there, huge amounts for most but not necessarily for the commerce secretary. At least if you consider them individually. But all told, these allegations—which sparked lawsuits, reimbursements and an SEC fine—come to more than $120 million. If even half of the accusations are legitimate, the current United States secretary of commerce could rank among the biggest grifters in American history.


It seems to be up for legal debate though I’m not familiar with the specifics of either argument.


I really enjoy the fact that they’re trying to give the Harding administration a run for their money.


it has not even been 2 years…yet


Never been resolved or adjudicated as far as I know. But the Justice Department operates under an opinion or guidance from 2000 that the President cannot be indicted.

A Sitting Presidents Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution


Well… he is a Deep State Obama holdover.


Or maybe, just maybe, it’s because Hollywood is full of dirt bags with double standards. The same people who gave convicted child rapist Roman Polanski a long standing ovation, and turned the other way while serial rapist Harvey Weinstein was assaulting dozens or maybe even hundreds of women for years aren’t exactly good role models for deciding whose star should be removed and whose should stay.

I realize it’s a different group of people who decided to remove the star but the double standard is definitely true. And it was probably done at least partly due to pressure from these same people who ignored Weinstein’s criminal behavior for years.

They can decide to remove any star they wish, I have no problem with that. But it’s a big problem that Bill Cosby, a convicted rapist with many other accusers, along with Kevin Spacey, still have theirs.


That’s an interesting possibility, and certainly not unthinkable. I’m at the stage where I don’t think anything would be shocking any more.


You will get no arguments from me here my friend. I just enjoy the small victories waged against the man employed by us, and who is doing grave damage to our nation. I have skin in the game when it comes to Trump. And while I fully agree with you on this topic (as I’m sure you’re aware from my posting here about this horrific problem needing to be addressed and societal changes made) I have no personal skin in the game when it comes to people like Spacey or Weinstein.


Sometimes it seems more like 20. :joy: