Trump Base Shows Signs of Cracking

[Jeremiahcp]

I stand corrected. You are correct.
However if the President says that he did not say "X" and Comey says he did. Both are giving testimony. Hard to prove in a court of law who is right.

Expect for the fact that Comey left a paper trail.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

At any rate, Trump's own words will probably be more damaging than anything Comey has to say.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Anything is impeachable. All it takes is for congress to impeach you. They're Congress. That being said it will never happen, because its politically risky.

If Trump loses too much of his support it becomes "politically risky" to not impeach him.

 

[sun rise]

If Trump loses too much of his support it becomes "politically risky" to not impeach him.

The Republican party would much prefer President Pence from what I've read.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I'm not surprised. My old coworkers nearly all voted for trump and were all excited for his presidency; now we are several months into it, a rather larger portion are starting to regret their decision.

Because all people support their candidate 100% no matter what

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Source]

It hasn't cracked yet, but it seems like it might be headed in that direction. If Trump loses his base, impeachment becomes a real possibility.

Trump isn't loosing his base, it's as strong as ever. What you're looking at there is where "Republican" includes both conservatives and the Establishment. And it doesn't show Democrat and especially Independent support. His campaign and election has turned on the political blender. He's picked up a lot of private sector union support, especially those from the white working class, who the Dems openly wrote off during the last 2 elections.

If it's not the week before an election, there are very few polls I would trust, Reuters included.

 

[Lyndon]

Name one thing Trump has done for working class Americans

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

No court in the country is going to think Trump's testimony is more accurate than Comey's, I mean get real, Trump is a serial liar.

Yeah, really. Trump could say 'on a clear day the sky is blue' and many would rightly doubt him. Comey, on the other hand, could say there's an army of large pink elephants on the near side of the Moon poised to invade Earth and everyone would be rushing to their telescopes to see if they could spot them.

No sarcasm, by the way. I agree with you 100%. It might even be a case of Comey is just better at lying but, really, I doubt even Trump would shut down an investigation that was looking for something that didn't really exist.

 

[Nietzsche]

Yeah, really. Trump could say 'on a clear day the sky is blue' and many would rightly doubt him.

At this point I'm starting to wonder if reality just restructures itself to be in direct defiance to whatever Trump says. No one can be that categorically wrong so ****ing consistently.

 

[Iti oj]

That's not the topic of this thread, is it? There are already national politicians on both sides of the aisle -- Republican and Democrat -- who are raising the possibly of impeachment. Why don't you ask them?

Robert Reich has said that some Republicans privately informed him months ago they were going to impeach Trump once his usefulness to them has passed. Impeachment is more political than legal.

Quick correction. It's 100% political and 0 % legal

 

[Lyndon]

Whether its political or legal, Trump needs to go!!

 

[Falvlun]

Now let's look at another President that could have been obstructing justice
Obama: 'Not a Smidgeon' of Corruption in IRS Abuse

Here you have the President of the United States saying there was no crime committed. Is that not basically the same as what you are attempting to say that President Trump did?

How about the following:
Obama says Hillary Clinton emails did not endanger national security

Again the President obstructing justice?

Denying that something happened or defending your innocence is not obstruction of justice. I'm not sure why you would think so.

The possible obstructions of justice in Trump's case derive from him firing the head of the investigation and making statements that he did so in part because of the Russia investigation. In addition, there are allegations that he attempted to sway Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn.

 

[Lyndon]

Denying that something happened or defending your innocence is not obstruction of justice. I'm not sure why you would think so.

The possible obstructions of justice in Trump's case derive from him firing the head of the investigation and making statements that he did so in part because of the Russia investigation. In addition, there are allegations that he attempted to sway Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn.

True as your statement is, it seems to be beyond the comprehension level of some Trump supporters!!

 

[Kapalika]

Do you have proof of that or just speculation?

Are you living under a rock? Anyways another poster pointed out that he didn't cut a lot of his business ties which already opens he floodgates to possible violations of the clause, and there are several instances already of him violating it by accepting gifts or trying to use his position as president to benefit his businesses.

It's very illegal and I feel that the reason no one really says too much about it is that the mainstream media (CNN, Fox, NBC ect) are all pretty corporatist corrupt already so to them it's not so extreme. That and the fact that Trump is so constantly causing controversy that a lot of people just became desensitized to it and stopped caring.

I think Trump is a bit of an idiot savant. When he said he could shoot someone randomly and not loose any supporters, I thought it was hyperbole, but I think the guy understands that he's charismatic enough and always causing enough of a stir that no one will really care or notice or will be too worn out to give a damn about the really bad stuff he intentionally does. So at this point I'm inclined to think he might of been being literal the entire time, and I think he might actually be right at this rate.

But with that said many voters do regret voting for him, as someone else in the topic pointed out about their co-workers, but for his hardened base, I can see how it would be true.

 

[David T]

I

[Source]

It hasn't cracked yet, but it seems like it might be headed in that direction. If Trump loses his base, impeachment becomes a real possibility.

and I thought his base was cracked before the election. They are getting even nuttier?

 

[Lyndon]

I don't think that's how law works.

Actually it is how it works, in a court of law when two parties make contradicting statements and both call the other one a liar, the judge tends to make a decision based on which party is the most credible, as I have pointed out before we all know Trump has close to zero credibility.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually it is how it works, in a court of law when two parties make contradicting statements and both call the other one a liar, the judge tends to make a decision based on which party is the most credible, as I have pointed out before we all know Trump has close to zero credibility.

That's not quite how it would work here. In civil court (tort matters), it would be more so because the standard of judgment has a low threshold, ie, a preponderance of evidence. But a criminal court imposes a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Without hard evidence, & only one word against another, there's no case against the accused.

Cautionary note....
Court is a crap shoot.....standards that are supposed to be observed can be ignored when passions run high or competence runs low.

 

[PositivePlatypus]

One must have proof...hearsay, even from Comey is hearsay. In other words a typical "he said she said" situation.

We will know for sure at the conclusion of the investigation.

 

[Lyndon]

Don't worry, finding enough evidence to fry Trump just gets easier and easier as time goes on, because he keeps screwing up, over and over again.

 

[Kartari]

What impeachable offense? Seriously?!

Not only his foreign business ties, the ramifications of which are bad enough with respect to foreign policy and protecting American interests vs his personal business interests. It is also a fact, as reported by all intelligence agencies in the nation (CIA, FBI, etc), that Russia not only hacked into RNC and DNC servers with the intent to corrupt our electoral process, but they did so expressly to support Trump against Clinton. This has been proven to be a fact thus far.

The question now is, did Trump and/or members of his campaign traitorously collude with Russia in this anti-democratic scheme? The whole point of the multiple investigations being carried out into Trump and his team, including the FBI's investigation which had been led by former director James Comey, is to reveal the answer to this question.

Trump then decided to fire Comey. After VP Pence and Press Sec. Sean Spicer publicly declare that it was Deputy Attorney General Rubenstein's recommendation to fire Comey and that Trump simply went along with it, Trump himself counters them by announcing on live TV during an interview that he fired Comey entirely on his own volition, and expressly did so because of the Russian investigation! It was then revealed that Trump had asked Comey to be loyal to him during a dinner just prior to the firing, to which Comey apparently gave an unsatisfactory answer in Trump's eyes by saying he'd be honest.

How is it not suspicious that someone being investigated by the FBI not only fires the FBI director, but also admits he did so because of the investigation? That he had the gall to meet and dine with the FBI director investigating him (which itself is suspicious) to encourage him to be loyal, firing him after being told he'd be honest instead?

Honestly... I am astounded at how many Americans continue to fail to grasp the situation and its gravity.

Trump also expressly and publicly encouraged Russia to do what it did in one of his campaign rallies last year, which is to say he traitorously encouraged Russia to corrupt our electoral process. And at this point, one of Trump's former cabinet members, Michael Flynn, has been caught lying about his foreign ties. Flynn's asked for an immunity deal, so he doesn't incriminate himself with what he has to say about the Trump campaign and Russia. Press Secretary Sean Spicer lied when he attempted to deflect the blame for Flynn onto the Obama administration, claiming Obama should have vetted Flynn properly. In reality, Spicer omitted the facts that there are different levels of security clearance, that Obama kept Flynn in check with minimal clearance as suspicions began to mount, and even warned Trump about his rising concerns about Flynn. Trump then promoted and granted Flynn the highest security clearance he would enjoy. Trump's former campaign manager as well has been tied to Russia in an incriminating manner, bringing us to two highly suspicious Trump campaign members caught in their lies, and Trump's own actions and words have been apparently incriminating.

With an independent special counsel on the case now, we will see how this unfolds. Lets just say I won't be surprised if Trump fires Rubenstein in order to get a new Deputy Attorney General willing to put an end to the investigation... which is what President Nixon did over 40 years ago when Watergate was being investigated.