Trump era: Fascist dawn, or road to liberation?

[Bobo08]

I'm having a hard time understanding "the legality" of "why" Trump is forced into signing this Bill, when he disagrees with a major portion of it .... including "limiting his own Executive power's under Constitutional Law"? It's clear, Congress is working against him. Is there any kind of provision that would allow Trump to "dissolve or fire" the present Congressional body, under the aspects of "Treason" and for placing the U.S. in extreme danger?

Trump, in signing the new sanctions - allowed Congress - to also sanction him! Does that make any sense? This is getting REALLY confusing!

What if ... Trump had refused - to sign? Is it an impeachable offence?

Alexander Mercouris at The Duran wrote that Trump may be preparing ground for a Supreme Court challenge with his signing statements:

http://theduran.com/donald-trump-and-the-sanctions-law-supreme-court-challenge-coming/

Donald Trump and the sanctions law: Supreme Court challenge coming (full text and analysis of the Presidential Statement)

US President Trump has as predicted signed the new sanctions law but he has done so in a most interesting way which suggests that after a rocky couple of weeks he may be rediscovering his political touch.

I share the view that it would have been a serious mistake for President Trump to veto the new sanctions law. With overwhelming majorities voting for the sanctions law in Congress, his veto would certainly have been overridden and he would have achieved nothing by attempting to exercise his veto other than escalate the political crisis in the US in a way that would have damaged his own authority.

Nor in my opinion was the other option some have suggested – of letting the sanctions law come into effect without appending his signature – been a good one. It would have made President Trump appear weak and would have exposed to almost as much criticism as an attempt to veto the law would have done.

Instead by signing the law President Trump has been able to make a Presidential Statement which whilst it has enraged his opponents has put him in a stronger position than an attempt to exercise any other option would have done.

The Presidential Statement has clearly been carefully drafted – unquestionably by lawyers – and it is clear from Secretary of State Tillerson’s comments about the sanctions that he was involved in drafting it. Its text deserves to be set out in full.

Full text of the statement here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/text-of-statement-trump-made-while-signing-russian-sanctions-bill-2017-08-02

Note that the Presidential Statement makes no criticism of Russia, refers to no action by Russia that might justify the sanctions, and clearly distinguishes Russia from the two other countries which are being targeted with sanctions – North Korea and Iran – which President Trump clearly considers should be sanctioned.

Some of the language in the Presidential Statement also clearly hints that the Trump administration will seek to avoid over-rigorous enforcement of the measure so as not to hurt the interests of US companies and of the US’s European allies, concern for whose interests the Presidential Statement is careful to emphasise.

The single most important comments in the Presidential Statement are those which however clearly say that the sanctions law infringes on the President’s constitutional prerogative to direct the US’s foreign policy.

In doing so the Presidential Statement calls into question the wisdom of the whole measure, for example by worrying that its effect will be to “drive China, Russia, and North Korea much closer together”. It is actually remarkable that Donald Trump – a person wholly inexperienced in exercising public office – seems to be the only prominent public official in the US who worries about this.

The key point is however that the sanctions law unconstitutionally restricts the President’s ability to conduct foreign policy, in this case by hindering his ability to conduct negotiations with the Russians and to reach agreements with them which might involve the lifting of sanctions.

It is difficult to see these comments are anything other than preparation for a long term challenge of the measure to the US Supreme Court. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign states. However the President is saying that by seeking to tie his hands Congress is abusing this power and is acting unconstitutionally.

At this point I should say that by signing the law President Trump is not throwing away his right to challenge the constitutional basis of the law in the US Supreme Court at some future time. The President does not have the power to sign away his rights which are given him by the Constitution. If the US Supreme Court at some future time decides that the President’s constitutional powers are being infringed by the law, then it will set the offending provisions of the law aside regardless of whether or not the President signed the law.

As to the circumstances where the President might make this challenge, the Presidential Statement all but says them. The challenge will be made if or when the President reaches an agreement with the Russians – “a deal” – which involves an agreement to lifting the sanctions, but Congress, using the clumsy procedure set out in the law rejects, refuses to lift the sanctions and keeps them in place. At that point the President will call on the Supreme Court to declare the offending passages in the law unconstitutional and set them aside.

I am not an expert on US constitutional law. I cannot say whether or not such a challenge if or more probably when it is brought will succeed. On balance I suspect it will, and the careful wording of the Presidential Statement suggests the President has legal advice that it will. Time will show whether or not that advice is right.

However irrespective of whether or not the challenge succeeds, I have no doubt President Trump is politically wise to take this course. To have done anything else would as I have said have deepened the political crisis in the US and damaged the authority of the President to no useful purpose.

At least in this way the President is keeping his legal powder dry, and his future options open.

 

[fabric]

Alexander Mercouris at The Duran wrote that Trump may be preparing ground for a Supreme Court challenge with his signing statements:

http://theduran.com/donald-trump-and-the-sanctions-law-supreme-court-challenge-coming/

That's an interesting take. The link to the statement doesn't seem to be working for me but I did find it on facebook.

_https://www.facebook.com/greta/posts/1805451849469667:0

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 2, 2017

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT


Today, I have signed into law H.R. 3364, the "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act." While I favor tough measures to punish and deter aggressive and destabilizing behavior by Iran, North Korea, and Russia, this legislation is significantly flawed.

In its haste to pass this legislation, the Congress included a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions. For instance, although I share the policy views of sections 253 and 257, those provisions purport to displace the President's exclusive constitutional authority to recognize foreign governments, including their territorial bounds, in conflict with the Supreme Court's recent decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry.

Additionally, section 216 seeks to grant the Congress the ability to change the law outside the constitutionally required process. The bill prescribes a review period that precludes the President from taking certain actions. Certain provisions in section 216, however, conflict with the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. Chadha, because they purport to allow the Congress to extend the review period through procedures that do not satisfy the requirements for changing the law under Article I, section 7 of the Constitution. I nevertheless expect to honor the bill's extended waiting periods to ensure that the Congress will have a full opportunity to avail itself of the bill's review procedures.

Further, certain provisions, such as sections 254 and 257, purport to direct my subordinates in the executive branch to undertake certain diplomatic initiatives, in contravention of the President's exclusive constitutional authority to determine the time, scope, and objectives of international negotiations. And other provisions, such as sections 104, 107, 222, 224, 227, 228, and 234, would require me to deny certain individuals entry into the United States, without an exception for the President's responsibility to receive ambassadors under Article II, section 3 of the Constitution. My Administration will give careful and respectful consideration to the preferences expressed by the Congress in these various provisions and will implement them in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations.

Finally, my Administration particularly expects the Congress to refrain from using this flawed bill to hinder our important work with European allies to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, and from using it to hinder our efforts to address any unintended consequences it may have for American businesses, our friends, or our allies.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 2, 2017.

 

[griffin]

I'm having a hard time understanding "the legality" of "why" Trump is forced into signing this Bill, when he disagrees with a major portion of it .... including "limiting his own Executive power's under Constitutional Law"? It's clear, Congress is working against him. Is there any kind of provision that would allow Trump to "dissolve or fire" the present Congressional body, under the aspects of "Treason" and for placing the U.S. in extreme danger?

Trump, in signing the new sanctions - allowed Congress - to also sanction him! Does that make any sense? This is getting REALLY confusing!

What if ... Trump had refused - to sign? Is it an impeachable offence?

In the US there is no constitutional provision for the president to dissolve the legislature, short of declaring martial law, and without an extreme national emergency the military would not go along.

Trump can't allege that Congress has committed treason because it hasn't given aid to an enemy.

If Trump had chosen not to sign the bill it would have become law after 10 days anyway, because Congress is still in session. Article 1, Section 7 of the US Constitution states:

"If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law."

Trump could have vetoed the bill, but it passed with such overwhelming, almost unanimous majorities in both houses of Congress that it was certain his veto would be overridden, weakening his authority.

 

[Cosmos]

Alexander Mercouris at The Duran wrote that Trump may be preparing ground for a Supreme Court challenge with his signing statements:

http://theduran.com/donald-trump-and-the-sanctions-law-supreme-court-challenge-coming/

That's an interesting take. The link to the statement doesn't seem to be working for me but I did find it on facebook.

_https://www.facebook.com/greta/posts/1805451849469667:0

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 2, 2017

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT


Today, I have signed into law H.R. 3364, the "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act." While I favor tough measures to punish and deter aggressive and destabilizing behavior by Iran, North Korea, and Russia, this legislation is significantly flawed.

In its haste to pass this legislation, the Congress included a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions. For instance, although I share the policy views of sections 253 and 257, those provisions purport to displace the President's exclusive constitutional authority to recognize foreign governments, including their territorial bounds, in conflict with the Supreme Court's recent decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry.

Additionally, section 216 seeks to grant the Congress the ability to change the law outside the constitutionally required process. The bill prescribes a review period that precludes the President from taking certain actions. Certain provisions in section 216, however, conflict with the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. Chadha, because they purport to allow the Congress to extend the review period through procedures that do not satisfy the requirements for changing the law under Article I, section 7 of the Constitution. I nevertheless expect to honor the bill's extended waiting periods to ensure that the Congress will have a full opportunity to avail itself of the bill's review procedures.

Further, certain provisions, such as sections 254 and 257, purport to direct my subordinates in the executive branch to undertake certain diplomatic initiatives, in contravention of the President's exclusive constitutional authority to determine the time, scope, and objectives of international negotiations. And other provisions, such as sections 104, 107, 222, 224, 227, 228, and 234, would require me to deny certain individuals entry into the United States, without an exception for the President's responsibility to receive ambassadors under Article II, section 3 of the Constitution. My Administration will give careful and respectful consideration to the preferences expressed by the Congress in these various provisions and will implement them in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations.

Finally, my Administration particularly expects the Congress to refrain from using this flawed bill to hinder our important work with European allies to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, and from using it to hinder our efforts to address any unintended consequences it may have for American businesses, our friends, or our allies.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 2, 2017.

Interesting also in light of what he posted about two hours ago on his twitter account. The fact remains though that he signed it, from his own statement. I don't know how much room he really had to refuse to sign it, but he signed it nonetheless, which will make it harder for him to counter anything in there, even if he really wanted to improve it/not sign it. OSIT.

Here is what he wrote on his twitter account:

Donald J. Trump / 2 hours ago

Our relationship with Russia is at an all-time & very dangerous low. You can thank Congress, the same people that can't even give us HCare!

 

[Siberia]

Interesting also in light of what he posted about two hours ago on his twitter account. The fact remains though that he signed it, from his own statement. I don't know how much room he really had to refuse to sign it, but he signed it nonetheless, which will make it harder for him to counter anything in there, even if he really wanted to improve it/not sign it. OSIT.

Here is what he wrote on his twitter account:

Donald J. Trump / 2 hours ago
Our relationship with Russia is at an all-time & very dangerous low. You can thank Congress, the same people that can't even give us HCare!

This tweet, some erratic decisions of the past week (e.g. firing Scaramucci), and the fact that it took Trump 5 days to sign the bill - all suggest that it was not an easy decision for him, or so it seems. Who knows, perhaps as the Russians often say in such situations, 'one lost battle does not necessarily mean that we will lose the war.' Sometimes you just have to throw the wolf a peace of meat so that you could have time and space to regroup. The great Russian Marshal Mikhail Kutuzov also once abandoned Moscow and set it on fire allowing Napoleon to occupy it, and then counter-attacked and pushed the French out of Russia.

Well, Trump is not Kutuzov, of course, but who knows. Time will tell how it all plays out eventually.

 

[Laura]

From what I've been reading it seems that signing the thing gave Trump the opportunity to include a "signing statement" expressing his disagreements and laying groundwork for a legal challenge, something he would not have been able to do if he vetoed it, it got overridden, or he just did nothing.

 

[Bobo08]

Alexander Mercouris put up another analysis, saying that not only Trump was laying groundwork for a legal challenge of the sanctions law, he also avoided a possible impeachment trap by acting the way he did.

http://theduran.com/trump-sidesteps-impeachment-trap-sanctions-law-prepares-challenge-supreme-court/

Trump sidesteps impeachment trap in sanctions law and prepares challenge to Supreme Court

Briefly, the President says that the review periods set out in the law relating to the lifting of sanctions are unconstitutional. However the President says he “nevertheless expects to honour” this unconstitutional procedure set out in the law out of respect for Congress.

However if the Congress uses this unconstitutional procedure to block actions by the President which have the support of the US business community and of the US’s European allies – such as the lifting of sanctions against Russia – or attempts to meddle in the President’s administration of the law, then the President is clearly reserving his right to challenge these unconstitutional provisions in the US Supreme Court on the grounds that they are preventing him from exercising his constitutional duty to manage the nation’s foreign policy.

No one should be in any doubt that in such a situation the President will exercise his right to make his challenge to the US Supreme Court, and on the strength of the legal citations that are carefully set out in the Signing Statement he appears to have an overwhelmingly strong case and can be confident that the US Supreme Court will set the offending provisions aside.

This is a legally and politically astute strategy.

The alternative – vetoing the bill, either by positively vetoing it or by refusing to sign it (a pocket veto) – would have set the President up for a direct clash with Congress on an issue where he has no support in Congress.

Not only would his veto have been overridden but there is a strongly likelihood in that case that articles of impeachment would have been brought forward.

Whilst the President would have been doing nothing more than exercise his constitutional right if he had sought to veto the law, impeachment is decided purely by Congress and it is Congress alone which decides whether the grounds for impeachment have been made out. The courts have no say in the matter.

With the President totally isolated in Congress his opponents would be in a position to say that by vetoing the law the President was obstructing action by Congress to protect the integrity of the US electoral process from interference by Russia, and that he was therefore guilty of committing a “high crime or misdemeanour” by preventing action against Russia, the US’s main international adversary, on an issue of fundamental importance to the US. On those grounds they would say that he should be impeached and removed from office.

Since the Constitution does not say what a “high crime or misdemeanour” is and leaves the definition entirely to Congress, it is not impossible that in the present hysterical atmosphere the President’s constitutional use of his veto to block an unconstitutional sanctions law could be successfully misdefined in that way, and that Congress would accept this mis-definition and would vote for impeachment on that basis.

Perhaps enough Republicans in Congress would rally to the President to prevent impeachment taking place, but with Congress practically unanimous in supporting the sanctions law it would be foolish to count on it.

As to those who say that it is inconceivable that a Republican dominated Congress would impeach a Republican President, to my mind that overlooks the fact that if Trump ever were impeached the person who would replace him as President is Vice-President Pence, who is not only a Republican but who is clearly much closer to the Congressional leadership of the Republican Party than Donald Trump is.

Indeed the more I think about this bizarre sanctions law the more I wonder whether the impeachment scenario I have just outlined may have been the very scenario that it was intended to engineer.

In other words the sanctions law may have been put together by the President’s opponents in Congress – who include Republicans as well as Democrats – with the actual intention of provoking him into vetoing it so as to set up the conditions for his impeachment by Congress on an issue where Congress is united against him.

If so then the President – heeding the advice of his lawyers – has sidestepped the trap whilst putting himself in a strong position to challenge the law in the US Supreme Court when the right moment comes.

 

[Glenn]

...Finally, my Administration particularly expects the Congress to refrain from using this flawed bill to hinder our important work with European allies to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, and from using it to hinder our efforts to address any unintended consequences it may have for American businesses, our friends, or our allies.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 2, 2017.

To me, he seems to be saying, you can have your legislation, but don't use it to hinder important work I have to do.

If you use it, it will be challenged.

I think this a smart strategy, one that most people would not see. Dare I say, almost Putin like?

 

[Ant22]

...Finally, my Administration particularly expects the Congress to refrain from using this flawed bill to hinder our important work with European allies to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, and from using it to hinder our efforts to address any unintended consequences it may have for American businesses, our friends, or our allies.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 2, 2017.

To me, he seems to be saying, you can have your legislation, but don't use it to hinder important work I have to do.

If you use it, it will be challenged.

I think this a smart strategy, one that most people would not see. Dare I say, almost Putin like?

Yeah Hello H2O, I really want to think there's a plan behind this madness and there are reasons we don't know of that made Trump sign it. It's hard to just sit back and enjoy the show, it's more like sitting on the edge of my seat now!

On a different note, here's an article on Oliver Stone's response to the sanctions:

https://www.rt.com/news/398653-oliver-stone-russia-sanctions/

‘Vast stupidity’: Oliver Stone slams ‘dumb’ US sanctions against Russia

US film director Oliver Stone has written a scathing Facebook post over Washington's passage of the Russia sanctions bill. He suggested that US intelligence agencies aren't doing their job and are misleading the public in the "false-flag war" against Moscow.
The post, which Stone titled 'Mid-Summer Anger,' begins by slamming Congress for passing the bill.

"I guess 'American Exceptionalism' includes the vast stupidity inherent in having two giant oceans to distance us from the rest of humanity," he wrote.

"With all the Apples and Microsofts and computer geniuses we have in our country, can we not even accept the possibility that perhaps our intelligence agencies are not doing their job, and maybe, just maybe, are deliberately misleading us to continue their false-flag war against Russia?

"Or for that matter, that Russia itself may not be that invested in screwing up our vaunted democracy with such sloppy malware as claimed?"

He pointed to a "strong statement" put out by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a group of former US intelligence officers are challenging the assessment that Russia hacked the Democrats during the 2016 presidential election.

Referring to a report issued by VIPS, Stone said that "with this report alone...much less the overt lying and leaking that’s been going on, both James Clapper (‘We don’t do surveillance on our own citizens’) and John Brennan (‘Drones and torture? None of our business) should be investigated as thoroughly as Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son, etc."

Stone also slammed the 'Brennan-Clapper Report' which was given to former President Barack Obama in January, during his final days in office.

The report claimed that US spies cited intercepted communications between Russian officials who called Trump’s victory a geopolitical success for Russia, as evidence of Russian interference. It also said that US intelligence identified the ‘go-betweens’ who allegedly handed over stolen Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks.

He went on to accuse those in Washington of not thinking independently, and instead blindly relying on mainstream media.

"Somebody out there in DC, please explain to me this omission of common sense. Are the Washington Post and the New York Times so powerful that no one bothers to read or think beyond them? It seems the TV stations in this country take their copy from them."

Stone said he hopes Europe can "independently judge and discard" the sanctions against Russia, which "are as dumb as giving out medals to Generals who keep losing wars."

The renowned film director went on to accuse Congress, the media, and the military-industrial complex of "literally dying" for a war.

"I now fully realize how World War I started. People in power never really thought it would happen, and when it did, thought it’d be over in weeks. You should know the rest of that history. It doesn’t end well," Stone concluded.

Full post from Stone's facebook:
https://web.facebook.com/TheOliverStone/posts/1619882828036010

– Mid-Summer Anger –

Congress passed its beloved Russia sanctions last week by a vote of 419-3! The Senate followed with a vote of 98-2!! I guess ‘American Exceptionalism’ includes the vast stupidity inherent in having two giant oceans to distance us from the rest of humanity.
With all the Apples and Microsofts and computer geniuses we have in our country, can we not even accept the possibility that perhaps our intelligence agencies are not doing their job, and maybe, just maybe, are deliberately misleading us to continue their false-flag war against Russia? Or for that matter, that Russia itself may not be that invested in screwing up our vaunted democracy with such sloppy malware as claimed? Especially in view of the strong statement put out by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of reform-minded veterans throwing a dose of acid on the infamous ‘Brennan-Clapper Report’ of January 6, 2017. With this report alone (see below), much less the overt lying and leaking that’s been going on, both James Clapper (‘We don’t do surveillance on our own citizens’) and John Brennan (‘Drones and torture? None of our business') should be investigated as thoroughly as Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son, etc.

What’s happened to Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Lee, or any of the people who’ve displayed some independent thinking in the past? Have they actually read this report? Somebody out there in DC, please explain to me this omission of common sense. Are the Washington Post and the New York Times so powerful that no one bothers to read or think beyond them? It seems the TV stations in this country take their copy from them.

I accept the US decline. That’s a given -- after all, compare our broken-down New York subway system with Moscow’s, as well as many other cities’ pristine and impeccable services. These sanctions, which I pray Europe can independently judge and discard, are as dumb as giving out medals to Generals who keep losing wars. I still have this image burned in my brain of Petraeus with his 11/12(?) rows of ribbons, many looking like Boy Scout badges, surrounded by adoring Congressmen as he lied his way through his foreign policy testimony.
Never mind that any moment now a Dr. Strangelove-type incident can occur -- with less reaction time, say 15 minutes, compared to the 1960s 2/3 hours. We are truly at the edge as Mr. P pointed out in the documentary I made. Such Roman arrogance, such blindness, calls out for another Vietnam, another Iraq. We’re screaming for some Karmic Boot up the ass. Destroying our pride would be a favor that the gods could do us.

I can go on -- but I’m angry as you can tell. So what’s the point of going to the windows and screaming, even if I were on television? Read the report below from Sanity Inc. and pray another August (1914) passes without the war Congress, Media, and the Military-Industrial Complex are literally dying for. I now fully realize how World War I started. People in power never really thought it would happen, and when it did, thought it’d be over in weeks. You should know the rest of that history. It doesn’t end well.
“Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence,” Consortiumnews, http://bit.ly/2uRJuct

Stone also added a couple of photos to the post, this is my favourite one:

 

[Glenn]

...Finally, my Administration particularly expects the Congress to refrain from using this flawed bill to hinder our important work with European allies to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, and from using it to hinder our efforts to address any unintended consequences it may have for American businesses, our friends, or our allies.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 2, 2017.

To me, he seems to be saying, you can have your legislation, but don't use it to hinder important work I have to do.

If you use it, it will be challenged.

I think this a smart strategy, one that most people would not see. Dare I say, almost Putin like?


Yeah Hello H2O, I really want to think there's a plan behind this madness and there are reasons we don't know of that made Trump sign it. It's hard to just sit back and enjoy the show, it's more like sitting on the edge of my seat now!

On a different note, here's an article on Oliver Stone's response to the sanctions:

https://www.rt.com/news/398653-oliver-stone-russia-sanctions/

[...]

Yeah Ant22, this is one hell of a show isn't it. And it seems it is a show that not many are watching, at least not watching closely or critically.

Stone's comments are interesting, because it shows someone is watching. I find it hard to gauge how much perception there is of current events, as everything is skewed in our media. Could be that there is a large percentage watching and seeing what is really happening, but if that were the case, no media would tell you that.

But probably, the distractions put in place, (cell phones, social media, just busy trying to survive) are working, and the PTB are able to do just about anything they want, and not put themselves on people's radar.

I agree that the show gets hard to watch sometimes. It seems the stakes are so high that something quite dire might happen. Especially when there is more and more desperation on both sides.

The 'Russia hacked the election' meme is so important to their narrative, that it seems that they will do just about anything to protect it and keep it alive.

Edit=Quote

 

[Laura]

It's interesting how many shares Stone got on his FB post. There are a few others who are watching and aware.

 

[Cosmos]

From what I've been reading it seems that signing the thing gave Trump the opportunity to include a "signing statement" expressing his disagreements and laying groundwork for a legal challenge, something he would not have been able to do if he vetoed it, it got overridden, or he just did nothing.

It's interesting how many shares Stone got on his FB post. There are a few others who are watching and aware.

Just read this article and found it quite interesting and probably pretty close to the truth:

http://thesaker.is/sanctions-smoke-and-mirrors-from-a-kindergarten-on-lsd/

From the standpoint of the sane part of humanity, spearheaded by Putin, I think that article is probably closest to the truth, I've read so far. The US elite obviously "decided" a long time ago to go mad crazy and drag the whole world with it and Putin and the rest of the sane world have to seek solutions outside of that madness and take the opportunity for the empire to explode on to itself for the good of the russia and the rest of the planet.

I think the Saker is right that Putin and Co. are far to pragmatic, skilled and farsighted to act emotionally on any front. I think Putin knows exactly what he is doing, and from the record, his actions have proven to be brilliant in that respect.

So even if Trump has some "good intentions" compared to the psycho bunch, from russias perspective, they have to see and act on the bigger picture, which is the neutralization of the crazy doings by the empire and maybe even the power of the empire itself over russia and the stability of the world. Willingly or not, Trump and Co. are fueling a crazy climate in the US-Elite, which will further encourage the demise of the empire by self destruction and "exposing the man behind the curtain". Even if Trump is a good guy and the russians would like to support such a person, they simply have to see the bigger picture here and act upon it.

 

[Cosmos]

I could be mistaken, but judging on Mike Pence (US-Vice President) latest harsh statements against russia, I guess the elites would be quite happy if he would replace Trump as President. From the beginning it was rumored (and probably is true?) that Pence is more like a neocon then anything else and could be erected as the "real President" at any point.

If Trump gets impeached, Pence will be "on top", at least until "new elections" are made. On the other hand, one could ask if his views and statements are really that much different from Trump's, since theoretically, he is the second "most powerful" person behind Trump. So, is Pence really taking another stance against russia and undermining Trumps "deescalation policy", or are they in the same boat? Or is just everything there in such a state of chaos, that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing? Maybe Trump would like to fire him and quite a number of others, but at this point he needs them and/or can't do something like that?

 

[goyacobol]

I could be mistaken, but judging on Mike Pence (US-Vice President) latest harsh statements against russia, I guess the elites would be quite happy if he would replace Trump as President. From the beginning it was rumored (and probably is true?) that Pence is more like a neocon then anything else and could be erected as the "real President" at any point.

If Trump gets impeached, Pence will be "on top", at least until "new elections" are made. On the other hand, one could ask if his views and statements are really that much different from Trump's, since theoretically, he is the second "most powerful" person behind Trump. So, is Pence really taking another stance against russia and undermining Trumps "deescalation policy", or are they in the same boat? Or is just everything there in such a state of chaos, that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing? Maybe Trump would like to fire him and quite a number of others, but at this point he needs them and/or can't do something like that?

I think this will shed some light on the position of the vice president: Can the US president fire the vice president?

 

[nicklebleu]

My take on Pence is that he is more likely to be antagonistic to Trump, for the simple fact that he hasn't been and doesn't get mentioned or attacked much. If he was in "cahoots" with POTUS-T he would likely get a share of the "love" too.