Trump has a Pecker problem and there is a blue pill to make it grow bigger - midterms! Trump threads contd.

[ohmymimi]

Titled with Across in mind

May all the Oaf's problems be big ones, and the events of this week at least be the beginning of the beginning of the end.

Old thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3337261-Theres-a-pony-in-there-somewhere-Trump-cont?pg=39&order=

The Oaf has said quite enough, and whatever is said now by him or the WH will be empty words:
amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/24/politics/donald-trump-john-mccain-discontinuing-treatment/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

Apologies if we've already had this, but I found it both interesting and worrying (although I'd forgotten that McCain had Palin as his running mate in an attempt to keep the Tea Party loons onside, so he's arguably part of the problem):

John McCain and the end of Romantic Conservatism

Paul Manafort’s trial in D.C. to take 3 weeks, probe Ukraine lobbying world

The Paul Manafort trial set for September in Washington is expected to last three weeks and, on the basis of a list of 1,500 possible exhibits, will delve far more deeply into how he operated as a lobbyist and consultant than was done in his ­just-completed trial in Virginia.
The estimated trial timeline and exhibits were included in a joint filing Friday night in federal court in Washington by Manafort’s defense and prosecutors with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
The required filing is a road map of the next trial facing President Trump’s former campaign chairman, convicted Tuesday in federal court in Alexandria on eight of 18 tax- and bank-fraud charges after a trial that focused on Manafort’s finances.
Manafort’s trial in the District, set to begin Sept. 17, will cover much of the same ground but will scrutinize more closely his political work from 2006 to 2017, during which he allegedly reaped $30 million as a consultant for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine.

Continues:
www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/paul-manaforts-trial-in-dc-to-take-3-weeks-probe-ukraine-lobbying-world/2018/08/24/cf9c4ece-a70d-11e8-8fac-12e98c13528d_story.html?utm_term=.aeb3654a58c3

All in with Chris Hayes has a clarifying discussion of the legal implications of this week's events. Doesn't answer all the questions, but draws a lot together. Things one and two on husband of the year, Duncan Hunter, are dooseys (sp.?).

castbox.fm/vb/89749629

slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/paul-manafort-will-likely-go-to-jail-if-trump-pardons-him-thanks-to-a-lone-holdout-juror.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_ru

Has anyone read or got any opinions on the popbitch national enquirer piece? I know it's quite old but I read it a year ago and have been eagerly waiting for signs that national enquirer is turning against trump. Now with pecker under immunity this seems a very positive sign indeed.
popbitch.com/2017/10/the-united-states-of-american-media-inc/
Forgive my ignorance but is it what pecker knows that us going to trouble trump so much, or the fact that his publication with a huge distribution looks like it is likely to be turning against trump?

Just like in the UK I think oafs like trump etc can keep getting away with this while a lathe proportion of the population get their news, and therefore their only opinion, from such biased media.

I know this is hardly a new or insightful opinion, but it makes me so mad these people can't see they've been brainwashed by evil geniuses to do their bidding. And these same people praise great democracy as though they had free choice to vote for whoever

Rant over, back to the lurking.

I've read over half the threads, every singly one in the last 6 months as it's become clearer this isn't something which will easily be overturned, and these threads are such a rich source of news. I watched the BBC segment in trump etc last night and was sickened by how much time they gave to pro trump teenagers and how little to the amount of shit he's in. From that segment I could almost believe trump is the next corby energising the youth vote. Hopefully this isn't true on anything other than a minor scale

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/25/trumps-terrible-week-stunning-news-and-whispers-of-impeachment

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/22/will-trump-be-impeached-cohen-manafort-explained

www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/24/trump-taxes-russia-senate-republican-219593

'It Would Take Exactly One Senator to Get Trump’s Taxes.

What does he owe to Russia? Here’s how a single Senate Republican could begin to unravel the mystery.'

Chris Cuomo with Walter Shaub on the week's legal events, plus he draws things together with his facts wall:

Welcome Linky! My take on Pecker is that he is a long time 'pal' of Trump's. (As much as any sleazy tabloid owner and crooked 'businessman' can be considered friends) It has been in his interests so far to protect anything he knows about Trumpy in return for other headlines and influence over others. Now (as the true fair-weather friend he is) he is turning turtle to protect his own backside.
Most of tv coverage on both sides of Atlantic seems focussed solely on him and his supporters - it's v. frustrating to be swearing shouting at the tv on a daily basis!

Focussed on Trump that is...

I am flummoxed by this Manafort juror. She supports Trump, but him doing something illegal she says is her 'red line'. Yet her thought process about the trial is impeccable, and she seems to reason with care and logic during her conversation with Cooper. Based on this , albeit flimsy, evidence, how can she not see what the Oaf is. Ideas?

for the new thread mimi and good you got the Word of the moment in there

Who knows what goes through people's minds. The juror may be one of many who don't follow the details of day to day Trump and believe him about the Fake News. However, when faced with evidence of wrong doing she does the right thing. That reassures me that when Mueller reports or other evidence emerges she will change her mind. It happened with Watergate and hopefully will happen this time too.

She reminds me that not all Trump supporters are like their stereotypes. Listening to a lot of MSNBC these days, I'm still surprised when I hear that Nicolle Wallace's parents, Stephanie Ruhle's mother and Joe Scarborough's family are all Trump supporters.

Rousette I'm going to try and identity the 2016 threads, eventually. The claig threads frustrated me hugely and I was mostly a lurker at that point, but they are an important part of the story.

As a postscript to the jury comment, someone (I think it was Joyce Vance) commented that although financial crimes were difficult to prosecute, tax fraud was an indictment jurors could relate to on a personal level. Especially when it involved ostrich jackets and over priced rugs.

That Slate article is really interesting, lion. Everyday on here is an education. It is like dealing with a gigantic multidimensional jigsaw, though

It is rather convoluted--especially the legal stuff and the money trails.

Hello Linky.

I'm still surprised when I hear that Nicolle Wallace's parents, Stephanie Ruhle's mother and Joe Scarborough's family are all Trump supporters
I had the same disconcerting feeling, Gump . Wishful thinking, because I like Ruhle and Wallace a lot (and have hair envy). But, I had assumed their parents would be of what I think of as more reasonable old school conservatives, more McCain style leaners, where decency generally prevails, rather than soul-selling Jordan all inners. Joe is another matter, he has rewritten his history with the Oaf. He and Mika were huge early enablers, they obviously relished the access to, and favour from, Trumpty. And Joe is such a gigantic blowhardand

People, eh!

I agree it is good to be reminded not all Trumpsters are Cult45

Thank you for the flowers, and for the magnificent thread work. (I often wonder about Claig. As soon as Brexit and Trump prevailed silence ensued )

That's a good question, Linky. My own guess is that it will be the influence wielded by National Enquirer the publication that matters.

BUT I don't know what Pecker knows, so...

It could just be corroboration that Trump was involved with catch-and-killing of stories before the election (ie campaign contributions in kind). Or it could be something new and gamechanging.

Claig

I'm half convinced Claig was a Russian hacker. Otherwise you'd have thought he/she would pop up here every so often.

Linky, thank you for that popbitch link, very interesting, from what I have read so far
I am desperately disappointed in the BBC - showing 'The Fourth Estate' aside. C4 has done much better with Gary Younge and 'Inside the US Embassy', despite sometimes wheeling out some questionable Trump zombied talking heads on C4 news.
Looking forward to your next delurk

Felt something similar in my water, Across , always thought he/she was not quite kosher. Never said it outloud as I wasn't quite sure if voicing my very strong suspicion was within the rules of the game. I suppose a name change is a.possibility, though, but some posters' styles are so 'individual'

Good point from Joyce Vance about tax fraud, Gump. I like her.

I'm half convinced Claig was a Russian hacker. Otherwise you'd have thought he/she would pop up here every so often.

Me too - probably more than half. There were a couple of others who seemed to work in shifts from the internet factory in St Petersburg.

I mentioned to friends who saw an HRC victory as a shoe-in that I thought there was Russian activity afoot on social media because of a couple of passing comments just before the Brexit vote. I always prefaced by 'I know this sounds mad but ..' .
I think Claig were banned eventually, and he/she was thought 'real' because they had a MN history but, as we now know, the Russians had a cadre of internet sleepers.

I laughed at the new thread title, bravo mimi 👏🏼

Hello Linky, that Popbitch link is fascinating. I've stopped watching the BBC and reading UK press (FT aside). The BBC's behaviour around Brexit and Trump defies any rational explanation.