How the Mueller Investigation Could Play Out for Trump

[Michchamp]

Quite possibly my least favorite GOP president. I don't like that he's become the GOPs golden example of what a president should be.

He was a pretty lousy governor as well.

Funny how "I support freedom & less government" can include calling out the national guard to shoot college kids exercising their First Amendment rights of assembly and speech, something that hadn't been done before.

 

[sggatecl]

He was a pretty lousy governor as well.

Funny how "I support freedom & less government" can include calling out the national guard to shoot college kids exercising their First Amendment rights of assembly and speech, something that hadn't been done before.

GOP leadership hasn't been fiscally conservative since Reagan and that's something that is supposed to be a party staple. His supporters remember his initial tax cuts but neglect to observe he jacked them back up later on to try and recover from his ballooning deficit.

That's my biggest peeve about him, mainly because he's remembered for being something he wasn't at all.

Honorable mentions would be trafficking drugs from Central America while Nancy sold D.A.R.E. to kids, marginalizing the AIDS crisis because it was a "gay disease", and flooding the prison system, in turn creating a prison for profit boom.

 

[tinselwolverine]

He was a pretty lousy governor as well.

Funny how "I support freedom & less government" can include calling out the national guard to shoot college kids exercising their First Amendment rights of assembly and speech, something that hadn't been done before.

What's this about? I don't know anything about this.

Was in this in California when Reagan was governor?

I'm mostly aware of the story like this from Kent State way back in the day.

 

[Michchamp]

What's this about? I don't know anything about this.

Was in this in California when Reagan was governor?

I'm mostly aware of the story like this from Kent State way back in the day.

Berkeley Peoples' Park Protests.

Fun read.

 

[tinselwolverine]

He was a pretty lousy governor as well.

Funny how "I support freedom & less government" can include calling out the national guard to shoot college kids exercising their First Amendment rights of assembly and speech, something that hadn't been done before.

May 1969 was the low point in the relationship between Reagan and UC Berkeley. Students and activists had begun an attempt to transform a vacant plot of university property into "People's Park." Attempting to head off the activists, the university engaged a fencing company, accompanied by 250 police, to erect a chain-link fence around the land at 4 a.m. on May 15, 1969. Five hours later, a rally was called on Sproul Plaza to protest the action. Resource, a current UC Berkeley reference guide for new students, relates the story of how Reagan intervened, sending in the National Guard:

"The rally, which drew 3,000 people, soon turned into a riot, as the crowd moved down Telegraph (Ave.) towards the park. That day, known as Bloody Thursday, three students suffered punctured lungs, another a shattered leg, 13 people were hospitalized with shotgun wounds, and one police officer was stabbed. James Rector, who was watching the riot from a rooftop, was shot by police gunfire; he died four days later.

"At the request of the Berkeley mayor, Governor Ronald Reagan declared a state of emergency and sent 2,200 National Guard troops into Berkeley. Some of these guardsmen were even Cal students. At least one young man had participated in the riots, been shot at by police, gotten patched up, and then returned to his dorm to find a notice to report for guard duty. In the following days approximately 1,000 people were arrested: 200 were booked for felonies, and 500 were taken to Santa Rita jail."

From UC Berkeley News.

This would have happened a long time ago; before I was aware of current events. I guess this was published at the time of Reagan's death.

So anyway, I obviously don't know what happened. In this article, the peaceful protest is described to have devolved into a riot.

The Mayor of Berkeley requested the intervention.

The article doesn't say anything about the national guard being instructed to shoot anybody, and it also doesn't say that anything like that happened.

The article isn't overall particularly flattering to Reagan; one of the underlying themes is that there was long standing hostility between Reagan and the University.

 

[Michchamp]

Yeah, it wasn't national guard, it was CHiPs & local police.

the order to disperse the riot "by any means necessary" came from Reagan's chief of staff (later convicted felon) Ed Meese.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Yeah, it wasn't national guard, it was CHiPs & local police.

the order to disperse the riot "by any means necessary" came from Reagan's chief of staff (later convicted felon) Ed Meese.

On Thursday, May 15, 1969 at 4:30 a.m., Governor Reagan sent California Highway Patrol and Berkeley police officers into People's Park, overriding Chancellor Heyns' May 6 promise that nothing would be done without warning.

Reagan's Chief of Staff, Edwin Meese III, a former district attorney from Alameda County, had established a reputation for firm opposition to those protesting the Vietnam War at the Oakland Induction Center and elsewhere. Meese assumed responsibility for the governmental response to the People's Park protest, and he called in the Alameda County Sheriff's deputies, which brought the total police presence to 791 officers from various jurisdictions.[14]

I'm a little skeptical that Reagan had any authority over the Berkeley Police or that Ed Meese had any authority over the Alameda County Sheriff's Department.

It would seem to me that a governor's authority would be limited to the national guard.

By the time the national guard came on the scene, it seems most of the violence had already transpired.

It also seems that a lot of the violence might have happened between protestors themselves.

 

[tinselwolverine]

GOP leadership hasn't been fiscally conservative since Reagan and that's something that is supposed to be a party staple. His supporters remember his initial tax cuts but neglect to observe he jacked them back up later on to try and recover from his ballooning deficit.

Whether or not the top marginal tax rated should have gone back up some because of the deficits is, of course, a matter of opinion, it's factually incorrect they went back up under Reagan.

After George H.W. Bush famously promised "read my lips - no new taxes," at the Republican Convention in 1988, the top marginal tax rate went back up to 33% during the Bush years, up from 28%, which it had been the final year of the Reagan presidency.

The year before the top marginal rate had been 38%, and had been about 48% the five previous years after staying at 69% the first year of the Reagan presidency, which is where it had been since it went down from about 90% early in the Kennedy presidency.

 

[Michchamp]

It should be 90% again.

 

[sggatecl]

Whether or not the top marginal tax rated should have gone back up some because of the deficits is, of course, a matter of opinion, it's factually incorrect they went back up under Reagan.

After George H.W. Bush famously promised "read my lips - no new taxes," at the Republican Convention in 1988, the top marginal tax rate went back up to 33% during the Bush years, up from 28%, which it had been the final year of the Reagan presidency.

The year before the top marginal rate had been 38%, and had been about 48% the five previous years after staying at 69% the first year of the Reagan presidency, which is where it had been since it went down from about 90% early in the Kennedy presidency.

It's only factually inaccurate if you're trying to get by on a technicality and only looking at that top marginal number and nothing else. There were tax increases in the form of slashing loop holes and other such measures several times from 1982 to 1987. They had about the same impact as RR's original tax cuts, I believe within .25% of GDP. The 1986 tax reform specifically is the hike late in his presidency I was referencing though.

 

[tinselwolverine]

It's only factually inaccurate if you're trying to get by on a technicality and only looking at that top marginal number and nothing else. There were tax increases in the form of slashing loop holes and other such measures several times from 1982 to 1987. They had about the same impact as RR's original tax cuts, I believe within .25% of GDP. The 1986 tax reform specifically is the hike late in his presidency I was referencing though.

That is a fair point.

Capital gains advantages went away (for a while), and some of the favorable tax benefits of things like limited partnerships were done away with too.

Now that I know that's what you meant, yes, you're absolutely right. The top marginal rate continued to go down, but tax breaks in other areas went away, and yes, it was mostly due the tax reform that happened in 1986.

 

[Spartanmack]

It's only factually inaccurate if you're trying to get by on a technicality and only looking at that top marginal number and nothing else. There were tax increases in the form of slashing loop holes and other such measures several times from 1982 to 1987. They had about the same impact as RR's original tax cuts, I believe within .25% of GDP. The 1986 tax reform specifically is the hike late in his presidency I was referencing though.

getting rid of loopholes and lowering marginal rates is a good thing - it's not a shell game. It may have had the effect of raising taxes on people who could take advantage of certain loopholes but it definitely lowers taxes for people who couldn't. It has the added benefit of making the code simpler and more equitable. These are all desirable outcomes even if on net the lower rates are revenue neutral.

As for specific tax policy under Reagan, there's no denying that ACRS (part of 1981 tax reform) and MACRS (1986) spurred massive amounts of investment in equipment. GDP grew and unemployment was cut in half from 1982 to 1988.

 

[tigermud]

I said months ago I wondered if some of his tweets could be considered obstruction. sure enough, I was right about that. If anything brings him down it will be his inability to not shut up when it should just remain quiet sometimes. A little less mouth and little more carrying of the stick would have been better.

https://www.wral.com/mueller-examining-trump-s-tweets-in-wide-ranging-obstruction-inquiry/17726411/

the plan is as clear as day. obstruction charges in OCT to help the dems win back control of Congress if success they move to impeach. and IMO if successful the republic is back to the path it was on before trump which leads to equally assured misery for all.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I said months ago I wondered if some of his tweets could be considered obstruction. sure enough, I was right about that. If anything brings him down it will be his inability to not shut up when it should just remain quiet sometimes. A little less mouth and little more carrying of the stick would have been better.

https://www.wral.com/mueller-examining-trump-s-tweets-in-wide-ranging-obstruction-inquiry/17726411/

the plan is as clear as day. obstruction charges in OCT to help the dems win back control of Congress if success they move to impeach. and IMO if successful the republic is back to the path it was on before trump which leads to equally assured misery for all.

Trump has done a great job branding the Russian interference probe as a 'collusion' probe. But it's a probe into Russian interference that has been shown to be important, because the Russians did interfere. At this point, I'd rank (based on my own guessing) the issues as #1 Russian interference, #2 Financial crimes, #3 obstruction of justice, #4 (if it's even on the plate) collusion. A few months ago, I would have ranked Obstruction #2.

 

[tigermud]

Trump has done a great job branding the Russian interference probe as a 'collusion' probe. But it's a probe into Russian interference that has been shown to be important, because the Russians did interfere. At this point, I'd rank (based on my own guessing) the issues as #1 Russian interference, #2 Financial crimes, #3 obstruction of justice, #4 (if it's even on the plate) collusion. A few months ago, I would have ranked Obstruction #2.

IMO obstruction is the plan, Russia has been interfering longer than I've been alive, surely we never do the same.. nothing new under the sun there. As for Russia "Collusion" yeah IMO, there was indeed, that being Fusion GPS, Steele, DNC, HC and others within the intel community trying to help her win, biggest abuse of power in the history of our nation IMO It's a travesty of justice they all got away with all that. Muller isn't interested in those things and there is nobody in the justice department who is going to move on it either.

 

[Gulo Blue]

IMO obstruction is the plan, Russia has been interfering longer than I've been alive, surely we never do the same.. nothing new under the sun there. As for Russia "Collusion" yeah IMO, there was indeed, that being Fusion GPS, Steele, DNC, HC and others within the intel community trying to help her win, biggest abuse of power in the history of our nation IMO It's a travesty of justice they all got away with all that. Muller isn't interested in those things and there is nobody in the justice department who is going to move on it either.

Fusion work was initiated by conservatives trying before Trump won the primary. Mid-2016, Clinton/DNC had Fusion continue the work through the same law firm OSU hired to help with their current abuse investigation.

 

[KAWDUP]

I'm not going to go ballistic, but I disagree very strongly with your assessment. He puts himself before country to a degree that is unprecedented. You can call that a judgement call, but in doing that, I think you would be bending over backwards to defend the guy in what amounts to the 'everybody does it' defense pushed beyond a reasonable usage.

Actions speak louder than words. Your judgment call has to do mostly with his words. His actions support my assessment.

 

[KAWDUP]

Fusion work was initiated by conservatives trying before Trump won the primary. Mid-2016, Clinton/DNC had Fusion continue the work through the same law firm OSU hired to help with their current abuse investigation.

Is that notable for anything other than trying to paint the Republicans in the same light as the mentioned investigation abusers, because it sure seems irrelevant to me?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Actions speak louder than words. Your judgment call has to do mostly with his words. His actions support my assessment.

I'm not sure which actions and which words you mean. You characterized him somewhat negatively but said it didn't mean he was unqualified for the office. You say he puts too much effort trying to battle people who he believes have a low opinion of him while I say he puts himself before country. We're talking about similar reads on his motivation (his over-prioritizing of self-interests), but we're making different conclusions regarding how bad it is.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Is that notable for anything other than trying to paint the Republicans in the same light as the mentioned investigation abusers, because it sure seems irrelevant to me?

The other time I mentioned the law firm here was in a thread where I was talking about the appearance of OSU doing things better than other institutions. It was a positive take. Just a small world kind of thing. What are the odds I'd hear of this law firm for the first time ever and in such a short period of time, run into them again on a completely unrelated topic being discussed on this board.