It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
You are misstating this point in two important ways. First of all, Strzok was texting a woman he was having an affair with -- who happened to be an FBI attorney. I'd say a conversation between lovers is a tad bit different than a business conversation between an FBI agent and an FBI attorney. Secondly, the text reads "WE" will stop him, with no elucidation about whether "we" are 2 particular people, the FBI as an organization, or the American people as a whole, stopping Trump by simply not being stupid enough to vote for him. I think the last interpretation is the most obvious one, and it takes a tortured mind like Trump's to leap to the conclusion that this particular text is evidence that the entire FBI was conspiring against him.
Just letting Otto Warmbier's family have the final say on this travesty (Trump's NK summit statement saying that Kim himself did not know about the torture and abuse of their son; his warm support of Kim personally):
Honestly, things are heating up in several areas and I could tweet on U.S. govt every day, but I won't. I do appreciate hearing other world news here, too.
It's also a bad place for pop music. Cue the Madonna theme song....
I'm afraid in international politics that's not how it works. In real estate you get the building or you don't. That's it. In international politics you weigh at least 20 different angles, amongst which are the bond between China and NK. Obama has been working hard to cut that bond. So I don't agree on him 'failing' more than Trump. Trump gave away one of his cards, the internationan recognition of Kim's position, just to get at the table. With that and his tradewar he managed to drive NK back into China's arms.
Instead of even getting a symbolic gesture, say, stop NK'n people be tought Americans are devils and not humans, would've been a step forewards. Maybe even get an official end to the war, without stopping the military exercises. That would've put SK in the driversseat.
Now he has nothing. Is it better to walk away than go for a bad deal? Yes, of course, but what brought you to the table for the bad deal in the first place. His people knew the tactics of NK, they new they would be tough. All in all Trump lost big time in the international setting.
Not that he can be blamed for the fact that NK has nukes, that's something that has happened under at least 4 previous presidents. But his warm embrace of Kim has put the latter on the world stage, more powerfull than his country has ever been.
And the Warmbier situation is just shameful. But Trump doesn't care about people he doesn't know, as we've seen whit Khashoggi as well.
Oh and Mitch said Senate also will not line up for Trump on his declaration of "emergency" at the border. So no funding for that either. A more positive week so far, yes.
The House asked for documentation, clarification from 81 people.
And this is just the start. More coming. The House committee has broader scope than Mueller. Not wasting time.
I've been keeping up on this whole mess, and I have a prediction (based largely on a couple of good articles I came across)- First: Impeachment won't happen; it's a LOOONG process and other things will congeal before it's a possibility. Second: criminal charges loom, and Trump doesn't want to lose. He'll opt to 'make a deal' and get federal immunity for him & his family in return for a resignation (I'll call it just before or just after this Christmas). Southern District of NY will follow up to take a big chunk of whatever wealth he actually has, not being bound by any federal deals. So bad news: he'll not be seeing bars and will not have to live out his life as a regular citizen (financially speaking). Good news: he'll be gone, and in his wake will be the current GOP in utter disgrace.
Either that or he'll bide his time, thinking he'll get away with everything as he's Always done, thinking he'll win another round in 2020 and make sure there's no indictment. Not that he can but reading his behaviour that seems more plausible a strategy for him to take. What you propose is rational and doesn't include his ego nor his experience.
While I totally agree on your take of him, I think that enough pressure from those close to him (LOL, as close as anyone CAN be to him) to jump off the tracks before the train roars through might trigger this self-deluded 'win' PLUS an out of this life of having to be up at inconvenient times and limit his porno intake... poor dude is clearly miserable... ;)
I am in no way a fan of Pelosi, but I crave her leadership compared to the Trump regime. Then let the new wave of leaders correct her mistakes later. AOC & her kind will DO that. Sorry, but I have faith in the future. It's a Gene Roddenberry thing.... ;)
Ummmm, ooopsie. ;)
As for what we think may happen to Trump, I believe it is too early to tell. But the process of ousting him is definitely underway. If it drags out, he will not be re-elected.
I am not ruling out impeachment, @chrisisall. There is impeachment and then the final step of removal. I think it will reach the impeachment stage. However, I'm happy with the avenues the House is now pursuing. Building evidence and tackling things in a huge way right now, not wasting time. I think he probably will be impeached sometime later this year.
My instincts tell me now that yes, Trump will be ruined - financially, reputation, assets, properties, brand, all of it ... but may escape having any prison time. Simply because I cannot really grasp or visualize our govt putting a president literally behind bars. These are only my instincts that I am sharing based on what is finally happening, yet also looking at history.
But I do not believe he will be left, after all prosecutions, to do anything credible. Nothing. Seriously, the penalties have to be at least that severe when all is said and enough proved in a court of law. For any form of complete, satisfactory justice, I mean. He should be prosecuted and held accountable.
If the courts decide after all that he is not guilty of (insert crime here), that is acceptable to me, of course, as long as it is thoroughly tested at every step and there is then a final verdict. Like every citizen deserves (but not all get). However, honestly, for the money laundering alone (to benefit the Russian mob), he should lose all assets and be facing a jail sentence. Not even factoring in anything else. But I agree he will make some kind of bargain/agreement to avoid jail, Chris. I could be proved wrong, of course, but Trump being given a prison sentence would surprise me. Strip all his assests instead, ensure he cannot make a book deal or profit in any way in the future from all he has said and done, etc.
So we don't know, but it is unfolding at long last. For people who may feel he is innocent, I say then let this play out. Let the documentation, evidence be found and our Congress and other state govts keep giving the American people truthful discoveries and reports. Let Trump be prosecuted and go through the system. Let us read the reports. Let that light in. We need it, and I feel we deserve it. I don't mind truly top secret level items being redacted.
Our Constitution can handle that. Indeed, we are lucky it has enough provisions to deal with this extraordinary situation (hardly one the founders would have fully envisioned). If Trump is innocent, then he has nothing to worry about in the long, or short, run. Does he? Support him all you want, forever, but I hope all citizens will let the investigations continue to full legal conclusions. That will take, all told, a few years I think (not months).
Also, obviously but let me state it: Notably, Trump's tweets and rants (see his latest 2 hr blather at CPAC, which is rather accurately described as "unhinged" in my opinion) ... they are not the actions or words of an innocent person. Are they?
But I do want all of this situation, this unique and horrific crisis in my country's government, to go through the courts properly. Fully. Even if you support Trump, I hope you support our Constitution and due process of law through the courts even more. I hope peaceful protests are respected.
And yes, many in the GOP need to be held accountable. As voters, we have a say in that, too.
I'll end with saying ... New York, New York, you're a helluva town. My kind of town, more than ever. :) And let's hope more State govts take the path NY has fearlessly taken when it is appropriate to do so for their own state.
This is interesting -- what are you referring to exactly? I hope you're not suffering under the delusion that Cuomo and de Blasio are anything other than self-serving pieces of garbage.
I think she's referring to the Southern District Court...
Oh and also b) NY state is investigating and will continue, no matter what happens. They will prosecute the Trump Foundation and Trump family members for money laundering among other things. Trump may avoid federal investigations to an extent, but he cannot for state prosecutions; no immunity for that. So NY will get results is what I believe. Badda boom, badda bing.
Oh, okay. I thought you were hinting at your admiration for two utterly loathsome politicians and assumed you had lost your mind.
Carry on.
However ... extreme sides (both far R and far L, which both seem to truly seek chaos and destruction) are using her and will continue to push her. As example, as an extremist, a socialist, an extreme liberal, and as "fake". AOC as the dreaded "socialism" promoter, of course. I expect conservatives to give her tons of coverage, both seeming somewhat positive at times and also negative. Because she is a force that can be used as a disruption.
Similar to Bernie Sanders in that regard. Bernie takes voters in the Democrats away from other leaders in the party who have a stronger chance to win majority vote in the U.S. I expect Sanders and AOC to also be at odds with each other often; thereby also feeding disruption, disarray, peel voters away from others.
The GOP do not want a united Democrat party. They want to keep stirring things, to put it mildly. They will push AOC, Sanders, and others to do so. Even if what they say about them is negative, they are keeping them very much in the spotlight. That won't stop, in my opinion.
I think AOC can do some good for Congress, for our country. We shall see. See who actually gets things done, bills passed, makes positive contributions. It won't be boring. :)
- "Bernie takes voters in the democrats away from other leaders in the party who have a stronger chance to win majority vote in the US".
I am not so sure about that actually. It was what we all said back then during the primaries of last election; that Hillary was the safer bet for the majority. I think, in hindsight, we were proven wrong. We cannot know for sure of course, but I think Bernie was the more likely candidate to face off Trump, and I believe he probably would have won. We have to remember this is not the American political climate we are used too. People voted for Trump out of a desperate hunger for something radical that would shake up the political climate and challenge the status quo. Yes, Bernie will be labled a 'socialist', and that will alienate some, but hus radical nature might also be the factor that will mobilise the Democratic voters who chose to not vote for Hillary, and even some of those who voted for Trump simply because he represents something different. I think he is a stronger and far more charismatic candidate than the other Democratic names put forward so far. The biggest problem is his age... but that didn't stop Trump, and Bernie is not that much older after all..
But for those who think that universal health care (which Obamacare seems to be barely trying to achieve) is already "socialist", be assured that basically ALL parties, movements and personalities worth mentioning in Europe, including right-wing populists and self-styled conservatives and the churches as much as the unions, would never dream of abolishing health care. For basically all of us (and I never voted for even the Social Democrats, so most would place me slightly on the right wing), this is really nothing socialist, but a basic tenet of what constitutes a civilised country. We've had it since the days of Kaiser William II and his nationalist, traditionalist, chauvinist, monarchist Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, over 130 years ago.
So while I would never vote for a self-styled "socialist" over here in Germany (we're social enough IMO), I wonder if a certain dose of social(ist) ideas, put into reality by an elected congress and/or administration at least for a limited time, might not in fact elevate the US to a level of being a more compassionate, just, and democratic country...that may one of these days once again be worthy of being a leading power that other nations look up to (it definitely isn't now). That's a long way to go, but Obama's was a good try, but unfortunately his efforts were totally obliterated by the present office-holder.
I agree with that of course. Bernie Sanders would be considered a conservative in my country, and the ´extremely radicalˋ ˋcommunistˋ reforms he fronts are obvious things we take for granted here. It is about time USA follows the rest of the industrialized world into the 21st century.