MAGAThread XVIII: The Authority Is Total

[Neutraligon]

What I do not understand is why Trump would need to have her tailed. She was an ambassador, meaning he could have removed her at any time he wanted...

[Gormwood]

What I do not understand is why Trump would need to have her tailed. She was an ambassador, meaning he could have removed her at any time he wanted...

An "accident" or "tragedy" to cover the relationship between the removal and the scheme.

[Cisairse]

The plot only grows: The Kremlin Inches Closer to the Biden Plot. Lev Parnas pointed his finger at Dmytro Firtash.

Reportedly, Giuliani had a deal with the Oligarch Firtash. This deal entailed that Giuliani would try to get the DOJ to drop bribery charges against him. In exchange, the oligarch hand over "evidence" that would supposedly discredit both Joe Biden and Robert Mueller. Firtash has been linked to the Kremlin and is considered an "influential agent" for them. So, Russia seems more involved then I thought.

You know, you'd think that Trump's cohorts would have gotten bored of the "Kremlin-associated Russian oligarch promises to deliver dirt on [whoever Trump just tweeted about] in exchange for legal acts" after Veselnitskaya.

[Neutraligon]

What I do not understand is why Trump would need to have her tailed. She was an ambassador, meaning he could have removed her at any time he wanted...

An "accident" or "tragedy" to cover the relationship between the removal and the scheme.

Still makes no sense, as an ambassador she can be removed from her position should the president so desire (with some limitations like due to her sex of course). There is no need for all this other stuff.

[Cisairse]

An "accident" or "tragedy" to cover the relationship between the removal and the scheme.

Still makes no sense, as an ambassador she can be removed from her position should the president so desire (with some limitations like due to her sex of course). There is no need for all this other stuff.

The entire Hyde situation seemed to me like undergoons and underundergoons trying to out-goon each other by coming up with their own ideas and not talking to Trump about them.
If Trump was complicit in the affair, that's one thing, but it definitely seems to me like Trump would have fired her as soon as Giuliani told him he needed her gone.

[Neutraligon]

Still makes no sense, as an ambassador she can be removed from her position should the president so desire (with some limitations like due to her sex of course). There is no need for all this other stuff.

The entire Hyde situation seemed to me like undergoons and underundergoons trying to out-goon each other by coming up with their own ideas and not talking to Trump about them.
If Trump was complicit in the affair, that's one thing, but it definitely seems to me like Trump would have fired her as soon as Giuliani told him he needed her gone.

If he was "complicit" he could have just fired her due to losing trust in her and no one would have said a thing. If he was not "complicit" then if someone asked for her o be removed he could still have removed her and no one would have questioned him. There was just no need for all this other stuff that then makes people sart asking questions.

[Gormwood]

The entire Hyde situation seemed to me like undergoons and underundergoons trying to out-goon each other by coming up with their own ideas and not talking to Trump about them.
If Trump was complicit in the affair, that's one thing, but it definitely seems to me like Trump would have fired her as soon as Giuliani told him he needed her gone.

If he was "complicit" he could have just fired her due to losing trust in her and no one would have said a thing. If he was not "complicit" then if someone asked for her o be removed he could still have removed her and no one would have questioned him. There was just no need for all this other stuff that then makes people sart asking questions.

Lackeys trying to show "initiative".

[The Black Forrest]

What I do not understand is why Trump would need to have her tailed. She was an ambassador, meaning he could have removed her at any time he wanted...

Hmm? Intimidation?

[Neutraligon]

What I do not understand is why Trump would need to have her tailed. She was an ambassador, meaning he could have removed her at any time he wanted...

Hmm? Intimidation?

For what purpose? If she was not doing what he wanted he could have just removed her.

[Cisairse]

The entire Hyde situation seemed to me like undergoons and underundergoons trying to out-goon each other by coming up with their own ideas and not talking to Trump about them.
If Trump was complicit in the affair, that's one thing, but it definitely seems to me like Trump would have fired her as soon as Giuliani told him he needed her gone.

If he was "complicit" he could have just fired her due to losing trust in her and no one would have said a thing. If he was not "complicit" then if someone asked for her o be removed he could still have removed her and no one would have questioned him. There was just no need for all this other stuff that then makes people sart asking questions.

That's what I'm saying. Trump probably never knew (or at least not until way later) the targeted harassment was happening, because he had no reason to not just fire her as soon as any of his goons said they didn't like her.

[The Black Forrest]

Hmm? Intimidation?

For what purpose? If she was not doing what he wanted he could have just removed her.

Not sure. Make her fall in line? When something doesn't make sense; sometimes you have to look into what would be considered absurd.

[Ifreann]

An "accident" or "tragedy" to cover the relationship between the removal and the scheme.

Still makes no sense, as an ambassador she can be removed from her position should the president so desire (with some limitations like due to her sex of course). There is no need for all this other stuff.

Presumably simply firing Yovanovitch would have been insufficient for whatever goals were being pursued, but killing her would have been. Someone must think she knows something incriminating.

[Glamour]

I have been thinking since the Democrats won the mid-terms that he would be impeached, but that the Senate would not vote to remove him. But if it did vote to remove him, and he refused to leave, what do you think would happen?

[Cisairse]

I have been thinking since the Democrats won the mid-terms that he would be impeached, but that the Senate would not vote to remove him. But if it did vote to remove him, and he refused to leave, what do you think would happen?

What do you mean by "refused to leave?" Do you mean physically refuse to leave the Oval Office? He barely even goes to the Oval Office right now, so I don't think that will be a problem.

[Fartsniffage]

I have been thinking since the Democrats won the mid-terms that he would be impeached, but that the Senate would not vote to remove him. But if it did vote to remove him, and he refused to leave, what do you think would happen?

He would be removed. Simple as that.

[Glamour]

I have been thinking since the Democrats won the mid-terms that he would be impeached, but that the Senate would not vote to remove him. But if it did vote to remove him, and he refused to leave, what do you think would happen?

What do you mean by "refused to leave?" Do you mean physically refuse to leave the Oval Office? He barely even goes to the Oval Office right now, so I don't think that will be a problem.

If he gave a speech that everyone thought would constitute him stepping down but he literally said that he was not leaving office and was still the president because the people had elected him and the impeachment was a deep state hoax, or something.

[Glamour]

I have been thinking since the Democrats won the mid-terms that he would be impeached, but that the Senate would not vote to remove him. But if it did vote to remove him, and he refused to leave, what do you think would happen?

He would be removed. Simple as that.

By whom?

[Fartsniffage]

He would be removed. Simple as that.

By whom?

Secret Service probably. It would be polite but firm.

[Glamour]

By whom?

Secret Service probably. It would be polite but firm.

Would that not cause uproar?

[Fartsniffage]

Secret Service probably. It would be polite but firm.

Would that not cause uproar?

Why would it? The SS can manhandle the President when they have to.

[Glamour]

Would that not cause uproar?

Why would it? The SS can manhandle the President when they have to.

I mean politically.

[Fartsniffage]

Why would it? The SS can manhandle the President when they have to.

I mean politically.

If he just refused to leave after a Republican senate said he was no longer the President? I imagine it'd be okay in the end.

[Cisairse]

What do you mean by "refused to leave?" Do you mean physically refuse to leave the Oval Office? He barely even goes to the Oval Office right now, so I don't think that will be a problem.

If he gave a speech that everyone thought would constitute him stepping down but he literally said that he was not leaving office and was still the president because the people had elected him and the impeachment was a deep state hoax, or something.

It would not matter, as he would not have any legal agency.

[Cisairse]

Secret Service probably. It would be polite but firm.

Would that not cause uproar?

Obama wearing a tan (as opposed to blue or black) suit caused uproar. Uproar doesn't mean anything.

If you mean would it cause violent revolt, well perhaps in small scales at some parts of the country. But any violence would quickly be quashed by law enforcement.
It's a far more likely scenario that the right-wing media would turn Trump into a martyr which would electrify & unify the right-leaning populace enough to vote Republican heavily in the next election.

[Vassenor]

Why would it? The SS can manhandle the President when they have to.

I mean politically.

Why would it?