Crime Federal corruption probe into $100 million in Trump inaugural committee funds

[kpt018]

He can be indicted once he is out of office. If he is not, considering the level of scrutiny that he has been subjected to, it would be fair to say that he probably had the cleanest record of them all.

Nobody's history and records have been dug up to the extent that Trump's have been. He is the first fully "post-modern" President, who has felt the full force of the transparent information era. He cannot even drink a diet Coke, without having a host of analysts picking apart its meaning.

I cannot in good faith say that any of the previous Presidents, beyond perhaps Obama (who was the first to truly feel the effects of internet/new media, etc.) could stand up to the level of scrutiny that Trump has faced. The largely manufactured scandals would have drowned just about anybody.

That’s just not true.

 

[TheGreatA]

That’s just not true.

Not exactly a convincing argument that you're putting forth.

Either write something in return or just don't quote me at all. Not going to waste my time or anybody else's if this is all I'm going to get as a response.

 

[Trotsky]

If Trump doesn't get convicted of a crime by the end of his run, he'd go down as the most scrutinized President of all time, by far, and therefore probably the one with the cleanest record.

This is such a bizarrely silly and fallacious statement that I'm frankly surprised that you made it. Reagan and Bush Jr. are the two most corrupt presidents in modern history, and in my opinion stand in a class above even Nixon. But neither of them hold a candle to Trump in terms of open conflicts of interest, opaqueness of administration, and known dishonesty regarding policies.

 

[TheGreatA]

This is such a bizarrely silly and fallacious statement that I'm frankly surprised that you made it. Reagan and Bush Jr. are the two most corrupt presidents in modern history, and in my opinion stand in a class above even Nixon. But neither of them hold a candle to Trump in terms of open conflicts of interest, opaqueness of administration, and known dishonesty regarding policies.

How is it a bizarrely silly and fallacious statement?

If the American institutions are fair and just, and if Trump is as corrupt as you are saying, then he should certainly be indicted of the crimes that he has committed against the state.

Either you are saying that America's institutions are dysfunctional, or Trump cannot be as corrupt as he is said to have been, if he walks away freely from being indicted in any crimes after his presidency is over.

I think it is fair to say that nobody has been under the microscope as Trump has been. There is more data available for the public to see, than there has been about any previous U.S. president. If he is not convicted of any crimes then he, in my estimation, has been the most transparent president to date, and must have quite a clean record to not be indicted in any crimes despite the intense scrutiny that he has been under, by both the media and US institutions.

 

[kpt018]

Not exactly a convincing argument that you're putting forth.

Either write something in return or just don't quote me at all. Not going to waste my time or anybody else's if this is all I'm going to get as a response.

Your premise has been entirely unconvincing from the start and your last response was just a regurgitation if you first post. As I said, Presidential candidates are typically heavily vetted (Obama, Both bushes clinton etc) and Trump, because no one took him seriously, never was. Given the volume and severity of the scandals involving him the scrutiny is coming now instead of pre election. Your premise that all presidents are more corrupt has no factual basis at all. There’s no evidence for it.

And I’m not sure if you’re arguing in good faith. Bringing up the Iraq war is completely changing the subject. Of course errors and good or bad faith decisions made by the president can be much more consequential than political corruption. That’s an entirely different subject from political corruption that I thought we were discussing.

 

[TheGreatA]

Your premise has been entirely unconvincing from the start and your last response was just a regurgitation if you first post. As I said, Presidential candidates are typically heavily vetted (Obama, Both bushes clinton etc) and Trump, because no one took him seriously, never was. Given the volume and severity of the scandals involving him the scrutiny is coming now instead of pre election. Your premise that all presidents are more corrupt has no factual basis at all. There’s no evidence for it.

And I’m not sure if you’re arguing in good faith. Bringing up the Iraq war is completely changing the subject. Of course errors and good or bad faith decisions made by the president can be much more consequential than political corruption. That’s an entirely different subject from political corruption that I thought we were discussing.

The Iraq War and its machination involved an enormous amount of corruption (falsified statements, hiring of suspect/corrupt individuals, foreign funding, endorsement of illegal method such as torture, building of illegal concentration camps etc., illegal detainment of individuals, co-operation with media to produce propaganda).

It is laughable if we cannot bring up the most corrupt even in perhaps America's history, to compare to Trump mis-using his campaign funds to pay off some hooker.

The impact of the latter is minuscule by comparison. Nobody's life has been negatively impacted by the latter, except for the people who have had to constantly read up about this trash in the news stories.

 

[kpt018]

The Iraq War and its machination involved an enormous amount of corruption (falsified statements, hiring of suspect/corrupt individuals, foreign funding, endorsement of illegal method such as torture, building of illegal concentration camps etc.).

It is laughable if we cannot bring up the most corrupt even in perhaps America's history, to compare to Trump mis-using his campaign funds to pay off some hooker.

The impact of the latter is minuscule by comparison.

See, you’re changing your premise here. Is Trump the cleanest president ever or just cleaner than Bush? If your claim is the latter I’ll concede and move on but note that was not my main disagreement. If it’s the former move on from Bush and make your case he was cleaner than other US presidents.

 

[TheGreatA]

See, you’re changing your premise here. Is Trump the cleanest president ever or just cleaner than Bush? If your claim is the latter I’ll concede and move on but note that was not my main disagreement. If it’s the former move on from Bush and make your case he was cleaner than other US presidents.

This was the statement that I made:

"If Trump doesn't get convicted of a crime by the end of his run, he'd go down as the most scrutinized President of all time, by far, and therefore probably the one with the cleanest record."

If he is not impeached, and if he is not implicated in any crimes, then he certainly has a claim, which is why I said "probably". Because nobody has been under the level of scrutiny that he has been. Only Obama has a claim comparable to Trump's, with the internet, social media and mass media having hit its peak by the end of his run. Previous presidents existed in times, certainly from the Reagan era and previous to that, where they could reside under the radar to an extent that Obama and certainly Trump could have never afforded.

The stuff that they got away with, is stuff that they could never have gotten away with today, not without a great scandal to their name. For example, Reagan "made his bones" in the political world by sending cops to beat up a bunch of students protesting in schools, shutting down their First Amendment rights, and by playing the hard-ass, a role he was accustomed to in Hollywood movies. He would have 90% of the media denouncing him as a criminal if he did that nowadays.

 

[Trotsky]

How is it a bizarrely silly and fallacious statement?

If the American institutions are fair and just, and if Trump is as corrupt as you are saying, then he should certainly be indicted of the crimes that he has committed against the state.

Either you are saying that America's institutions are dysfunctional, or Trump cannot be as corrupt as he is said to have been, if he walks away freely from being indicted in any crimes after his presidency is over.

No President has ever been indicted. Him not doing what no president has ever done - come under indictment - does not somehow distinguish him in the other direction.

I think it is fair to say that nobody has been under the microscope as Trump has been. There is more data available for the public to see, than there has been about any previous U.S. president. If he is not convicted of any crimes then he, in my estimation, has been the most transparent president to date, and must have quite a clean record to not be indicted in any crimes despite the intense scrutiny that he has been under, by both the media and US institutions.

There are objective standards and subjective observations for the transparency of an administration and party, including amount of public discussion on policies, voluntary disclosure and/or resignation of conflicts of interest, public insight into political decisions, and forthright discussion of policies. In all of these areas, this administration is not only lagging behind but is affirmatively the single worst administration in the post-WW2 era. That isn't changed if, at the end, Trump himself is not convicted of a crime. Because lack of transparency and contravention of political norms are not themselves crimes, the failure to prove a crime does not disprove their existence. Just like if ultimately Watergate didn't produce enough evidence to warrant an indictment, that wouldn't all of the sudden make the Nixon administration a beacon of transparency just because the press had a boner for them and hadn't been able to prove a crime - due in part to the administration's opaqueness. That's why your statement is silly and fallacious.

 

[kpt018]

This was the statement that I made:

"If Trump doesn't get convicted of a crime by the end of his run, he'd go down as the most scrutinized President of all time, by far, and therefore probably the one with the cleanest record."

If he is not impeached, and if he is not implicated in any crimes, then he certainly has a claim, which is why I said "probably". Because nobody has been under the level of scrutiny that he has been. Only Obama has a claim comparable to Trump's, with the internet, social media and mass media having hit its peak by the end of his run. Previous presidents existed in times, certainly from the Reagan era and previous to that, where they could reside under the radar to an extent that Obama and certainly Trump could have never afforded.

The stuff that they got away with, is stuff that they could never have gotten away with today, not without a great scandal to their name. For example, Reagan "made his bones" in the political world by sending cops to beat up a bunch of students protesting in schools, shutting down their First Amendment rights, and by playing the hard-ass, a role he was accustomed to in Hollywood movies. He would have 90% of the media denouncing him as a criminal if he did that nowadays.

Again, your premise doesn’t make sense. Let me take a different angle. If past presidents were not scrutinized sufficiently or if they were results were not made public how could we compare them to Trump? We wouldn’t know if Trump was comparatively cleaner! You’re starting point is they’re all crooks but you go on to claim they just weren’t looked into enough. It’s a bad assumption especially given our last president is a saint in comparison to Trump.

 

[Letssnuggle]

There is absolutely nothing ordinary about the Trump administration's level of corruption and dishonesty.

It's a complete anomaly in modern American political history and probably all of American history. I mean....his sort of open, verifiable lying and installation of known crooks to loot the country is the kind of stuff you don't even see in the worst of third world countries.

When will you provide any actual proof to back up your accusations?

 

[TheGreatA]

No President has ever been indicted. Him not doing what no president has ever done - come under indictment - does not somehow distinguish him in the other direction.

Presidents in previous times have been impeached or have resigned. They also did not exist in 2018 when the level of scrutiny and transparency is much greater than it would have been in the 1950's and such. The media, in those times, largely played along with the will of the government, and the population was much less critical. The ability for a lone individual to stand up and challenge a man of high authority like Kavanaugh, as Dr. Ford did, would not have existed in such times.

Today, just about anybody could pop up in the news and tell a story about Trump, and provide evidence for it, if they possessed any. Hell, they can do it even without any evidence.

There are objective standards and subjective observations for the transparency of an administration and party, including amount of public discussion on policies, voluntary disclosure and/or resignation of conflicts of interest, public insight into political decisions, and forthright discussion of policies. In all of these areas, this administration is not only lagging behind but is affirmatively the single worst administration in the post-WW2 era. That isn't changed if, at the end, Trump himself is not convicted of a crime. Because lack of transparency and contravention of political norms are not themselves crimes, the failure to prove a crime does not disprove their existence. Just like if ultimately Watergate didn't produce enough evidence to warrant an indictment, that wouldn't all of the sudden make the Nixon administration a beacon of transparency just because the press had a boner for them and hadn't been able to prove a crime - due in part to the administration's opaqueness. That's why your statement is silly and fallacious.

But Watergate did produce enough evidence to warrant an indictment.

I have no reason to believe that Mueller isn't doing a good enough job to produce evidence of Trump's crimes if he has committed any. He seems like a man fit for the job and if he clears Trump of any wrong-doings, then there probably weren't any wrong-doings. If you think that he is incompetent, or if you think that America's institutions are dysfunctional, then you are free to think different. The media has a hard-on for this, so that won't be a problem. They will put on the pressure if no one else will.

The way that people are setting the table for themselves to act as if Trump is criminal, even if he is not implicated in any crimes, that, to me, is silly and fallacious. They would never employ such a hypocritical stance against "one of their own".

When Hillary was cleared of wrong-doings, and intensely scrutinized, without results, this was a sign to her supporters that she did not do any wrong, even if there was evidence that she did. I do not see why a Trump supporter should not think the same about "their man". For my money, he is definitely the most scrutinized, the most investigated president of all time, and if he walks away from all of it without a scratch, then he probably had a pretty damn clean record, at the end of the day.

As I said, Obama is the only one who has a similar claim, the rest of them, we'll never know what could have been dug up about them in modern times, with the level of media and public interest.

 

[TheGreatA]

Again, your premise doesn’t make sense. Let me take a different angle. If past presidents were not scrutinized sufficiently or if they were results were not made public how could we compare them to Trump? We wouldn’t know if Trump was comparatively cleaner! You’re starting point is they’re all crooks but you go on to claim they just weren’t looked into enough. It’s a bad assumption especially given our last president is a saint in comparison to Trump.

My point is precisely that we do not know. About Trump, we do know. Because he has gone through that level of scrutiny, and the results are yet to be witnessed. That's why we can say honestly that he has a clean record, if he is not implicated in any crimes. That does not mean that all presidents in previous times were corrupt, but they will have an asterix next to their name, in my mind, because we cannot know what they have done. We cannot know how they will match up with a Trump or an Obama if they were under the microscope as the latter two have been.

I know even the last meal that Trump ate thanks to the media, so I don't have any doubts as to what he has done. We will know, one way or the other. There are no means of keeping things "under the wraps", nowadays. Stuff will eventually leak out.

 

[kpt018]

My point is precisely that we do not know. About Trump, we do know. Because he has gone through that level of scrutiny, and the results are yet to be witnessed. That's why we can say honestly that he has a clean record, if he is not implicated in any crimes. That does not mean that all presidents in previous times were corrupt, but they will have an asterix next to their name, in my mind, because we cannot know what they have done. We cannot know how they will match up with a Trump or an Obama if they were under the microscope as the latter two have been.

I know even the last meal that Trump ate thanks to the media, so I don't have any doubts as to what he has done. We will know, one way or the other. There are no means of keeping things "under the wraps", nowadays. Stuff will eventually leak out.

I suspect we know a small percentage of the stuff Trump is/ has been involved in. Yes, the media is obsessed with Trump but there is an actual scandal almost every week. I think that part of your premise is off too.

 

[Letssnuggle]

Trotsky is a typical liberal with a victim mentality. A victim is required for liberalism to function.

The victim in this thread is the American people and how they were “tricked” into voting Trump.

Lame.

 

[TheGreatA]

I suspect we know a small percentage of the stuff Trump is/ has been involved in. Yes, the media is obsessed with Trump but there is an actual scandal almost every week. I think that part of your premise is off too.

So far, maybe, but I have no reason to believe that we won't know just about everything by the time he is done, and by done, I mean either dead or in prison. We are not going to know about Abe Lincoln's recreational habits, or what Lyndon B. Johnson did during the quiet hours of the night, but we will know what Trump has done.

If nothing outright criminal comes up then I ought to figure that he didn't end up doing all that much. Which is a possibility considering that he appears to enjoy playing golf or ranting on Twitter, over governing.

I have a feeling that people are setting themselves up for a disappointment in thinking that he is the head of a criminal conspiracy.

 

[Trotsky]

Trotsky is a typical liberal with a victim mentality. A victim is required for liberalism to function.

The victim in this thread is the American people and how they were “tricked” into voting Trump.

Lame.

I get that halfwits like yourself can get frustrated with your inability to understand or talk about the actual issues, so you have to randomly blurt out insult as a sort of touretitc coping mechanism.

Also, the American people weren't tricked into voting for Trump The 30% of the country that did vote for him are just that stupid.

 

[kpt018]

So far, maybe, but I have no reason to believe that we won't know just about everything by the time he is done, and by done, I mean either dead or in prison. We are not going to know about Abe Lincoln's recreational habits, or what Lyndon B. Johnson did during the quiet hours of the night, but we will know what Trump has done.

If nothing outright criminal comes up then I ought to figure that he didn't end up doing all that much. Which is a possibility considering that he appears to enjoy playing golf or ranting on Twitter, over governing.

I have a feeling that people are setting themselves up for a disappointment in thinking that he is the head of a criminal conspiracy.

Nearly every week a new scandal emerges and there’s an entire career of shady business practices. My money is on there being a lot more to discover.

I think I agree with your last part. He’s pretty stupid and doesn’t seem organized or strategic so it’s more likely just a series of crimes. But we’ll see.

 

[Andy Capp]

I would hope that every US president afterwards is held to the same standard, by the media and U.S. institutions. Probably not, though.

Perhaps if it hadn't been so apparent that Russians were trying to influence the Trump campaign in their favor even before he declared he would run, and had he not had so many associates communicating with them, he wouldn't have been subject to so much scrutiny. Given that any thought? Context is a mofo isn't it? Further, the news is saying Trump has had more turnover in his staff in 14 months than other presidents in their entire tenure. Does this not warrant scrutiny? Is there anything to suggest there would be similar issues with future administrations?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Perhaps if it hadn't been so apparent that Russians were trying to influence the Trump campaign in their favor even before he declared he would run, and had he not had so many associates communicating with them, he wouldn't have been subject to so much scrutiny. Given that any thought? Context is a mofo isn't it? Further, the news is saying Trump has had more turnover in his staff in 14 months than other presidents in their entire tenure. Does this not warrant scrutiny? Is there anything to suggest there would be similar issues with future administrations?

What if there are no more administrations? This is it. By 2020 it will be El Capitán Trump...