ChrisWeigant.com

Trump's Legal Woes Multiply

[ Posted Thursday, June 14th, 2018 – 18:00 PDT ]

President Donald Trump and the media he loves to hate are both consumed today with interpreting the Justice Department Inspector General's report on how the F.B.I. handled the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails during the 2016 presidential election. I am personally going to avoid this particular fray for now and let the report percolate a bit before commenting upon it, mostly because there is so much other breaking legal news surrounding Trump that I feel is far more relevant and interesting. Long story short, the I.G. report condemns James Comey's public handling of the investigation, and ironically slams Comey for using a private email account to conduct official government business -- the very thing Clinton was being investigated for. What the I.G. report does not do is change either the outcome or the conclusions of the investigation one bit -- in other words, Clinton is the one most vindicated by the report, not Trump. But again, everyone (and their brother) is already chiming in on this discussion, so I'm largely going to take a pass and just sit back and listen to the debate rage.

Instead, there have been developments in the multitude of legal problems the president is still facing which really should be getting more attention than they are (as the I.G. report sucks up all the media oxygen). The first of these was the birthday present the New York attorney general bestowed upon Trump today -- a lawsuit charging massive wrongdoing at the Donald J. Trump Foundation. This is the upshot of a series of newspaper stories that won the Washington Post the Pulitzer Prize, which detailed all sorts of shady doings at Trump's namesake foundation. Trump essentially used the foundation as his own slush fund, such as (in the most egregious violation) dispensing funds to pay off a lawsuit his Mar-A-Lago company had lost, which the foundation wasn't even a party to. Not only Trump himself, but members of his immediate family were also named in this lawsuit, since they all had cushy seats on the foundation's board.

This lawsuit is important for one very big reason -- it was brought at the state level, not in federal court. New York laws were broken and the foundation is a New York state entity, therefore New York courts will be in charge of the case. This may sound like hair-splitting until you realize that presidents can only pardon federal crimes. State crimes are not covered at all by federal pardons -- to get pardoned for a state crime, you have to get a pardon from the state's governor, not the president. Now, so far Trump has not actually pardoned anyone directly or indirectly involved in the many investigations against him, but he's certainly been more enamored of the pardon power recently, so it's becoming more of a concern.

The evidence against the Trump Foundation already seems iron-clad, as the Post articles laid out in great detail. The foundation was apparently run for the sole benefit of Trump himself, as a convenient way to write off as "charity" inconvenient money he had to pay out for various reasons. There is a paper trail to prove all of this, so it looks like an open-and-shut case, really. And as the case goes forward, the president and his immediate family may all face depositions, where they will all be asked detailed questions about what exactly took place. And Trump can't pardon anyone for any of it.

Trump, no doubt, is going to argue that he can't be sued and can't be made to answer for state crimes while he is the sitting president. He will lose these arguments -- in fact, he already has. This is due to the second big bombshell legal story that came out today. The New York supreme court just ruled in the case of Summer Zervos that Donald Trump can indeed be sued while president. This follows the precedent set by the case against Bill Clinton, who had to answer a civil lawsuit while still president, including being deposed on his entire sexual history. Zervos is suing Trump for defamation (for calling her a liar), and this is the third time Trump's motions to dismiss the case have been turned down by the courts. This time around it was the highest court in the state, so Trump has nobody left to appeal to except the U.S. Supreme Court (which will almost certainly not intervene at all). The precedent's already been set in the Clinton presidency: "No president is above the law, period."

Another big development in the Zervos case is that the judge has set a new deadline. All depositions must take place before the end of January. Trump may be able to stall this until after the midterms, in other words, but Summer's lawyers will get a chance to grill Trump sometime around the end of the year. And they'll be able to ask Trump anything under the sun about his past sex life, because the heart of her case is that Trump lied about sex and about sexually harassing her. That opens up a very large can of worms, with Trump. And he will have to sit alone and answer question after question about his entire sexual past -- without lying about any of it. This, it should be noted, was too hard for even Bill Clinton to manage, and Clinton was a lot more disciplined in his phrasing than Trump ever was. In fact, it was this deposition that ultimately got Clinton impeached. So we'll all have that to look forward to as a big Christmas present from Trump. And Trump has now exhausted all his appeals against it happening.

Of course, there's another big case Trump faces in civil court as well, that of Stormy Daniels. Once again, this could involve Trump being deposed by a different set of lawyers asking very similar questions of Trump. It can be assumed, depending on the timing of the depositions, that whichever legal team goes second will surely pick up on anything the first legal team may have missed during its deposition of the president. And if Trump is proven to have lied in his first deposition, the second one will hammer this home in excruciating fashion.

This case has one thing going for it that other cases against Trump do not -- the lawyer for Stormy Daniels is just as media-aware and media-obsessed as Trump himself, and he has proven to be Trump's equal in shaping the public's opinion. In fact, Michael Avenatti has even teamed up with (of all people) Anthony "The Mooch" Scaramucci, and the two are now pitching a television show to cable news as a kind of comedy team ready to comment upon all things Trump. Strange bedfellows, but then these are strange times indeed.

The lawyer on the other end of the Stormy Daniels lawsuit is, of course, Michael Cohen, who used to proudly describe himself as "Trump's fixer" (and who Avenatti openly refers to as "a moron"). Cohen is obviously the one now in dire need of a fix. Tomorrow, the remaining documents that were seized from Cohen in a raid will be turned over to the prosecution team, and so far only a tiny, tiny fraction of these documents has been deemed to be legitimately covered by attorney-client privilege. So millions upon millions of documents will be available to federal prosecutors detailing everything Cohen has done for the past few decades. Cohen reportedly never threw away old cell phones, and he also reportedly was a fan of making recordings of important phone calls he had made, so this could be a real treasure trove of very damning information.

The details are currently rather murky, but Cohen is reportedly in the midst of changing lawyers, too. Now, this might be because he wants lawyers who know the New York federal prosecutors who are working on his case (as Cohen is maintaining), or it could be that Cohen is about to flip on Trump and turn state's evidence. The lawyers he now has representing him are being paid for by Trump (and the Trump campaign), so obviously if Cohen is looking to cut a deal they'd have to bow out, due to the obvious conflict of interest. Cohen has been with Trump before, during, and after his presidential campaign, so he -- more than anyone else involved -- probably knows where the most bodies are buried. And if he documented any of it, it's going to come out. And it's all going to get shared with Bob Mueller's investigative team, as well.

This prospect has got to have Trump extremely worried. After all, there are two men who know exactly what Cohen has done for Trump over the years, and their names are Michael Cohen and Donald Trump. If Cohen starts singing like a birdie to avoid a long prison sentence, then Trump already knows exactly what song he'll be singing. Trump could attempt to pre-emptively pardon Cohen, but he'd risk an enormous political backlash by doing so -- and it might not even work. For all the federal crimes Cohen may have broken, there are probably similar New York state statutes which cover the same ground. So the New York attorney general could step in if Cohen is suddenly pardoned for all federal crimes, and the New York attorney general is already taking on Trump directly.

So while it is fun to rehash the 2016 election and the F.B.I.'s role in it, there are other legal things currently going on that could have much more of an impact on the Trump presidency. All of these contain the prospect of Trump having to sit down, under oath, to answer questions about his past. But unlike the interview that is being discussed between Mueller's team and Trump's legal team, being deposed means the person being interviewed has no say whatsoever over the circumstances. Just ask Bill Clinton, who was forced to sit for hours answering some very personal and embarrassing questions. The Trump Foundation lawsuit will have the narrowest scope of these possible depositions, but in the other cases Trump's entire sexual history will likely be fair game (due to the nature of the cases themselves). That is huge news, or at the very least it will be when the depositions actually happen. And it will all come to pass long after the public relations battle over Hillary Clinton's emails, James Comey, and the F.B.I. have long been won or lost.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

47 Comments on “Trump's Legal Woes Multiply”

  1. [1] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Small point of info: The NYS Court of Appeals was the latest court to rule. It is the highest court in the state. The NYS Supreme Court is, in fact, the second highest court in the state.

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    Blotus has spent his adult life using law suits and other legal means to screw people who didn't have his financial resources (inherited). It will be fitting in every possible way if he is destroyed via lawsuit as well. He will certainly be heavily damaged and deservedly so.

  3. [3] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW -

    You missed a great opportunity for a Rocky and Bullwinklesque subtitle:

    Or, Lame Defense Doesn't Add Up

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @speak,

    just one of many ways new york is a backward little state. it's also home to one of the most segregated systems of public schools in the union - more than mississippi or alabama. who'd have thunk it?

    JL

  5. [5] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    I'd agree that NY is messed up in so many ways.

    However, I don't know that keeping the names of the court organizational structure from colony days qualifies as backwards. Just one of those little (but many) harmless quirks in this country.

    Not sure how this applies to segregated school systems (mostly the product of segregated neighborhoods). That being just one example of NY being messed up.

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    I have said it before, and I'll say it again:

    When people think the game is nearly over, it'll just be getting started... and in the end, some of the Red team is going to jail.

    These little town blues are melting away
    I'm gonna make a brand new start of it in old New York
    A-a-a-nd if I can make it there, I'm gonna make it anywhere
    It's up to you, New York, New York.

    So the paper trail don't lie, and the Trump campaign made in kind contributions of $2.8 million dollars in violation of federal law along with various other assorted violations of federal law under penalty of perjury.

    The Trump Foundation was a slush fund. Who knew!? …. *grins* :)

  7. [7] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, I think there is a big hole in CW's argument. The problem is the subject of the depositions - Trump's sex life - face it, nobody cares - he is a cheating playboy - we already know that.

    We need him grilled about the funding he got for his properties over the last two decades - that is where the dirt is.

    Every time money is involved, Trump has something to hide. This is why the misdemeanor charge about his charity is so much more important - it is opening the door to the release of financial records from the Trump organization. It might not be this lawsuit, but there will be another and another - do you really think Benghazi!!! was the first or the last of these fishing trips?

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: For all the federal crimes Cohen may have broken, there are probably similar New York state statutes which cover the same ground.

    Money laundering leads to a particularly wicked chain of events whereby income is underreported on any number of tax forms on one's New York State return... which in turn indubitably leads to "errors" on one's federal return. ;)

  9. [9] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, disregard [7] - my bad. I re-read the column. The first time I read the column I was taking a quick break, then later cooking, etc. Once I read it as a whole CW's argument makes sense - and is bad news for Trump.

  10. [10] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The real danger to Trump is state felonies that clearly aren't subject to Presidential Pardon. State tax evasion seems particularly obvious, but state fraud and racketeering laws offer potential. Don't forget New Jersey! Conviction shouldn't be the primary objective, use the stick to convince the ass to exit through his office door. If the ass is too dumb to take the hint....well by all means beat him 'till he drops and haul his carcus out. Easy way, hard way. I strongly suspect that Cohen has offered a map as easy to read as a NY City transit flimsy.

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:

    I think that the report yesterday — maybe more importantly than anything — it totally exonerates me. There was no collusion. There was no obstruction, and if you read the report, you’ll see that. ~ Donald Trump

    Yes, please read the "report yesterday," and you will discover that it doesn't even discuss the focus of the Mueller investigation. Also consider the fact that BLOTUS believes you're morons

    When does the tipping point arrive? At what point do they clue in to the con?

  12. [12] 
    Kick wrote:

    Enjoy prison, Paulie. :)

  13. [13] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Does Pauli get a perp walk?

    Shoulda,woulda, coulda copped a plea deal. Now he has to hope for a pardon. Does Trump want a civil war?

  14. [14] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    yes?

  15. [15] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Why couldn’t they have worked that out?

    https://www.apnews.com/4d0e9994c6e445c689025e40a8a4308b

  16. [16] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "If Cohen starts singing like a birdie to avoid a long prison sentence."

    Manafort is probably belting out a lusty rhapsody in blue right now, so Cohen had better heed the lesson and flip while he still can. I think Cohen's greatest contribution to prosecutors is as unwitting and unpaid gumshoe/archivist for the past decade or so. A flip might just be declined, or be deeply devalued from the bargain he might have gotten a few weeks or months ago. ACT NOW MIKEY! Or "Pulling a Cohen" may be a new addition to American slang. That would really hurt the ego of an aspiring wise guy.

  17. [17] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Good link nypoet and thanks.

  18. [18] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I'm very fond of the Simpsons "LI'L Bastard" kits. Travel, Clock Tampering, General and Brainwashing. I'll be very disappointed if there isn't a LI'L Bastard Witness Tampering edition in the next couple of months.

  19. [19] 
    Paula wrote:

    Manafort jailed and CNN saying Cohen is nearing the flip.

    Giuliani goes on FOX Propaganda to scream that Mueller needs to be stopped and Peter Strzok should be jailed and Blotus wanders around the WH this morning babbling. I hope both are hearing the footsteps of Nemesis getting louder and louder and louder.

    The criminal-in-chief and his various hench-criminals are going to continue to try to damage everyone/everything investigating them because that's all they have now. Blotus and Giuliani have YEARS of crimes to be reviewed and prosecuted and their constant denigration of investigators isn't winning them any friends.

    Blotus' well-established pattern of throwing people under the bus as soon as they become inconvenient won't help him as things continue to heat up - nor will his history of stiffing people. Apparently one of Cohen's lawyers claims he's not being paid - Blotus is reportedly footing Cohen's legal bills, at least indirectly. Few things would be stupider than screwing over Cohen at this stage of the game - it literally PUSHES Cohen into Mueller's welcoming arms.

    Separately the good people in America are rightfully appalled about Blotus' prison camps for asylum-seeking-children. Religious leaders who actually give a damn about their professed faiths are getting very vocal and the lying-sacks-of-fake-Christian-Trumpers are trying to claim the Bible says to "obey authorities" and that's justification. Trumpers apparently share with their master a desire to be seen as the worst-excuses-for-human-beings-possible by everyone-not-them.

    They are succeeding.

  20. [20] 
    Paula wrote:

    [16] TS: "A flip might just be declined, or be deeply devalued from the bargain he might have gotten a few weeks or months ago."

    Yes, I think Cohen might overshoot his sell-by date - he may already have. Coz they have his records.

    Blotus, knowing himself to be a criminal through and through, has always avoided keeping records as much as possible. He's definitely canny that way.

    Cohen, OTOH, appears to be the opposite, which is good for justice, but bad for him and Blotus.

  21. [21] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Apparently Trump's "legal troubles are multiplying." I don't follow that stuff closely, but I seem to be noticing that you damn near never hear the term "collusion with the Russians" anymore!

    Was that perhaps always a red herring Dems/Libs were grasping at to delegitimize his election victory? OMYGAWD, whoda ever thunk that???

  22. [22] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michael Avenatti tweets just now:

    See below - just filed in the search warrant case. The second and third bullets could pose a huge problem for Mr. Cohen and ultimately Mr. Trump (especially the third bullet)!!BTW, so much for encryption protection! #Basta

    https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1007693742873202689

    Those bullet points? The second says they were able to reconstruct some 16 pages of shredded documents which they are submitting.

    The third says the FBI has been able to get, and today submitted to the court, 731 pages of encrypted "messages" - including "call logs" - from phones. These messages had been deleted via apps meant to keep calls from being retained/capture-able.

    HA.HA.HA.

  23. [23] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [22]: Oh yea, Cohen's shitting his pants.

    Had to mention, spotted a good tweet on that feed that went:

    Dear America

    In the provice of Quebec, where the G7 summit was held, we have universal day care with a user fee of $7 per day.

    Your child was poorly behaved, petulant, and displayed signs of bullying.

    Thank you for picking him up early. You owe us $14.00.

    Canada

  24. [24] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Consumer Reports rated paper shredders last year. It would appear that Mr. Fixit did not do his home work.

    "I'm sorry children, but Daddy can't come for a long tme....he bought a cheap shredder."

    Don't let this happen to your family! Nuclear, extended or criminal!

  25. [25] 
    Paula wrote:

    [23] Balthasar: Love it!

  26. [26] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    18

    Doh! *LOL*

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    15

    Ha!

    Y'all are on fire today. :)

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    21

    … I seem to be noticing that you damn near never hear the term "collusion with the Russians" anymore!

    If it's not happening in Podunk, Idaho... Stucki starts using words like "damn near never."

    I don't follow that stuff closely, but...

    Who knew!? :)

    Was that perhaps always a red herring Dems/Libs were grasping at to delegitimize his election victory? OMYGAWD, whoda ever thunk that???

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    Ooops EDIT

    Was that perhaps always a red herring Dems/Libs were grasping at to delegitimize his election victory? OMYGAWD, whoda ever thunk that???

    Somebody who don't follow that stuff closely. :)

  30. [30] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Stucki [21]you damn near never hear the term "collusion with the Russians" anymore!

    That's because the legal term is 'conspiracy', a term that Republicans ought to be real familiar with, and which, by the way, is all over this case.

    For instance, Paul Manafort has been charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to launder money, and conspiracy to obstruct justice as well as conspiracy to commit bank fraud.

    Manafort's business partner (and these days, State's witness) Rick Gates pled guilty to one count of Conspiracy to Defraud the United States in his plea deal. Manafort's GRU contact and former partner Konstantin Kilimnik has also been charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice stemming from his own efforts to convince witnesses to testify that 'the Hapsburg Group' didn't operate outside of Europe, which Manafort was just jailed for doing.

    In addition, all of the 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies indicted by Mueller were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, and at least one charge of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

    When Trump and his inner circle are inevitably charged in this affair, the charge will likely include Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, not "collusion".

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    INTERESTING FACTS

    * The FBI obtained 731 pages of WhatsApp and Signal messages.

    * Technicians were able to reconstruct the bits of paper found in Cohen's shredder and produced approximately 16 pages. :) *grin*

  32. [32] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    29

    Sums it very nicely. :)

    When Trump and his inner circle are inevitably charged in this affair, the charge will likely include Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, not "collusion".

    * Conspiracy
    * RICO
    * Aiding and abetting __________ FIBs, multiple counts

    KEY

    - RICO - Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96

    - FIBs - Fill in the blanks

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS and the trumpkins think they are being clever following their orange idiot's claim that the was "NO COLLUSION!!!".

    They are either dumb and really don't understand or think everybody else is as stupid as most trumpkins.

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    Is everybody sitting at attention as demanded by our new dictator?

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:
  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    Wow, the National Review just blasted Trump for the Kim meeting:

    Kim Jong-un Pulls the Wool over President Trump’s Eyes

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/north-korea-summit-failure-for-united-states/#slide-1

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    Wow, the National Review just blasted Trump for the Kim meeting:

    Kim Jong-un Pulls the Wool over President Trump’s Eyes

    You'll have to search for the article yourself as CW.com blocks links to the National Review.

  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hey Michale & CRS, do you believe that:

    "There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea."?

    Your idiot leader wants you to, as you sit at attention of course :)

  39. [39] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm (36)

    Actually, I personally NEVER thought there was "a nuclear threat from North Korea".

    The guy (Kim whoever) might be crazy, but there's no reason to think he's stupid. What could he gain from attacking the U.S.?? Why would he think taking out a single U.S. city would be a good trade if in exchange he and his entire shithouse country promptly ceased to exist?

  40. [40] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kim Jong-un Pulls the Wool over President Trump’s Eyes

    I still haven't seen any evidence that Trump is even a halfway decent negotiator. Remember when he agreed with 'Chuck and Nancy' about the budget, and with Diane Feinstein about DACA? Oh, that's right, that's because they were sitting right in front of him. He backpedals later. Kim is no idiot. He's watching Trump's people backstroking on the 'no wargames' promise already, and that was a handshake deal.

    I thought that Obama began as a poor negotiator - particularly when putting together the ACA - but got better at it as soon as he hired Hillary, after which he won every showdown.

    But Trump was supposed to be the old pro at this. But the folks who claim now that Trump is somehow playing 3D Chess can't point to any instance where that's evident - a surprise win, or a particularly brilliant result. All I see are agreements being trashed with very little left behind besides bellicose threats. Exactly how are these tariff's supposed to help, again?

    Neil will have his specific take on this, but in my opinion, Trump seems to be brewing the perfect storm, adding one part overheated economy (the tax cuts), one part international trade war (creating uncertainty and market disruption) and one part misguided policy (removing Dodd-Frank protections and SEC oversight); I'll frankly be amazed (and relieved) if it doesn't blow up in his face.

  41. [41] 
    John M wrote:

    [37] C. R. Stucki

    "Actually, I personally NEVER thought there was "a nuclear threat from North Korea"."

    Then you're, pardon the expression, an idiot.

    "The guy (Kim whoever) might be crazy, but there's no reason to think he's stupid. What could he gain from attacking the U.S.?? Why would he think taking out a single U.S. city would be a good trade if in exchange he and his entire shithouse country promptly ceased to exist?"

    1) The name of the game is "deterrence." And it works both ways. As long as you think Kim might actually use or launch a nuclear weapon, and that makes you act cautiously on your part, that's all that really matters.

    2) What would he gain? Besides from the mere extortion value? Use of a tactical nuke against either American troops or a South Korean target could stop any invasion of North Korea cold in its tracks. It has long been American policy to do something similar against Russian troops in Europe. Why wouldn't North Korea adopt the same strategy?

    3) If you are going to be destroyed ANYWAY, why NOT take out a single American city with you??? Dictators who are going down anyway, often adopt a scorched earth policy at the very end. Think of Hitler in his bunker in Berlin as Soviet troops closed in. It does afford and give them a kind of grim satisfaction regarding their feeling of betrayal.

  42. [42] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M

    Re your 1) I'd say that after three-quarters of a century of total nuclear forbearance, much of which we were the SOLE nuclear power, we can claim that nobody, least of all tin-pot dictators of zero, shithouse countries, have any reasonable justification for needing "deterrance".

    Re your 2) Why the hell would we ever, under current circumstances, "invade" NK? Assuming they nuked us, or SK, I guarantee you, the response would not be send troops (as in 'boots on the ground') to "invade" the place.

    Re your 3) He's NOT "going to be destroyed anyway"! Only way he gets destroyed is IF he "takes out a single American city".

    (Of course, I've gotta admit, it's comforting to know that that "single American city" likely ain't gonna be in Idaho, heh heh).

  43. [43] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy [29]

    OK, if the "legal term is conspiracy", (instead of collusion) why did we have to be subjected to a solid year of hearing that the reason Hillary lost was "collusion"???

    Anyway, are not the two terms damn near synonymous?

  44. [44] 
    John M wrote:

    [40] C. R. Stucki

    1) "I'd say that after three-quarters of a century of total nuclear forbearance, much of which we were the SOLE nuclear power, we can claim that nobody, least of all tin-pot dictators of zero, shithouse countries, have any reasonable justification for needing "deterrance"."

    We were the sole nuclear power for only a very short 4 years, from 1945 - 1949, when the Soviets exploded their first weapon.

    Given that the USA is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons against another country, and used them only against a non nuclear country, that gives them all the reasonable justification that they need regarding deterrence.

    2) "Why the hell would we ever, under current circumstances, "invade" NK? Assuming they nuked us, or SK, I guarantee you, the response would not be send troops (as in 'boots on the ground') to "invade" the place."

    Ground troops would be the only way to verify that all nuclear weapon capabilities were destroyed permanently.

    3) "He's NOT "going to be destroyed anyway"! Only way he gets destroyed is IF he "takes out a single American city"."

    You better make sure then that National Security Adviser John Bolton gets that memo, as his stated rationale is that he wants negotiations to quickly fail so that we can get on to the business of regime change thru force.

  45. [45] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    C. R. Stucki-

    Re your 1) I'd say that after three-quarters of a century of total nuclear forbearance, much of which we were the SOLE nuclear power, we can claim that nobody, least of all tin-pot dictators of zero, shithouse countries, have any reasonable justification for needing "deterrance".

    For shits and giggles, what is the year range that we were the "SOLE" nuclear power? Me thinks you are over selling "much" of "three-quarters of a century". Heh.

  46. [46] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John and Bashi

    Yes, it was actually only 4 yrs that we we "sole", but it was three-quarters of a century before NK joined the club, and NK is really the sole topic of this discussion, is it not??

  47. [47] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Oops, make that 'we WERE "sole"..

Comments for this article are closed.