Suppose Trump is cleared of all crimes related to Russian collusion, relating to the US elections, and obstruction of justice?
The noose is getting looser every day. Robert Mueller indicated to Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s counsel, that he has no intention to indict the president. In fact, existing Department of Justice guidelines prohibit such an action.
Mueller has been working diligently with his merry band of Trump haters to manufacture crimes that will take down the Trump administration. Alas, to no avail.
Given the burning desire of lawmen to leak to the press, it’s inconceivable that Mueller has anything substantive on Trump. If he did, the New York Times would already have reported on it.
Five relatively low-level hacks have been indicted for “lesser” crimes, some of which predate Trump’s political campaign. The biggest fish was Michael Flynn, former National Security Advisor, who was convicted of lying to investigators. Paul Manafort, a political consultant, is being prosecuted for money laundering and not registering as a foreign agent. Nothing has surfaced that ties Manafort to any collusion with Trump.
The Mueller investigation will likely second the fact that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 elections. But Americans already know that Russia has been active around the world for some extended period of time from a number of other investigations. There is no proof that anything other than Hillary Clinton’s incompetence was responsible for her loss.
The Special Counsel is going to be the laughing stock of Washington if he does not find a large fish to take down. His only remaining possibility is to trap Trump in a lie, which is the primary reason the president should not agree to be interviewed by Mueller.
The Special Counsel could also tilt towards Hillary Clinton who has chalked up a number of dubious and suspicious activities relating to her campaign and time as Secretary of State. Of note are obstruction of justice for destroying evidence, lying to investigators and Congress and improper disclosures that resulted from the infamous and inaccurate Steele dossier.
Suppose Trump is able to negotiate a rock solid disarmament deal with North Korea?
Trump promised denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, and the ability to verify that North Korea will have no nukes or processing facilities prospectively.
It appeared that Kin Jong-un was prepared to agree to these conditions but recently has had a change of heart. At first it was the joint military exercises with South Korea that he objected to, and now he seems to be equivocating about the meaning of denuclearization. Is it elimination of all existing weapons or an arms agreement, in which North Korea agrees to not manufacture any more weapons?
If Kim really wants to solidify his regime by improving economic conditions, he can do it by dismantling his arsenal of nukes and obtaining large financial support from the US. If he balks, which he, his father and grandfather have been doing for the past 70 years, Trump will likely increase sanctions that will destabilize the country and mark the end of Kim’s regime.
Suppose Trump can renegotiate the Iran nuclear deal?
The first thing that will happen if Trump is successful is that France, Great Britain and Germany will be eternally grateful.
But, what is the definition of success? It’s the same as North Korea- no nukes and the ability to inspect without restrictions.
What if Iran resists? It’s really simple. The US should continue to ramp up sanctions and totally isolate Iran economically. This will destabilize the country and result in a regime change. Sanctions and bankruptcy are the modern day weapons of mass destruction without any blood or death.
Suppose Trump continues to take actions that improve the economy?
It’s always the economy, stupid. Trump has over two years to prove his policies are improving economic conditions. Low unemployment, negligible inflation, higher wages, growing consumer confidence, greater profits for all major industries are the measures of success. Voters will appreciate and reward these results.
Suppose Trump is able to restructure the Paris Accord so that China, India and Brazil assume a grater role in reducing pollution?
If this occurs and the US’s responsibilities are ratcheted down to more reasonable levels, the global climate problem will begin to subside. The US cannot make the environment better without the cooperation of the other largest polluters who happen to be in the throes of their own industrial revolutions.
Suppose Trump is able to convince voters that Democrats are nothing but obstructionists prior to the 2018 mid term elections?
Given that bashing Trump is the only political strategy of the Democratic Party, one might think that Republicans will not lose ground in Congress, but will actually gain seats. Old political trends don’t seem to apply to Trump. So why shouldn’t the majority make gains in a mid year election on the coattails of the president?
What if Trump is able to obtain money for the wall and beefed up border security? And suppose that this materially decreases illegal immigration?
The US would then be able to focus on the DACA children and young adults and illegals that have made a life in America with their families. These groups deserve to have a path to citizenship. Without increased security and a cessation of new illegal immigration, the law-abiding illegals in the country will remain in limbo for the foreseeable future.
Trump’s methods and management style are not admirable. But in this day and age a strong leader who is unafraid to challenge the system and end bad habits can bring us forward and make America more secure and prosperous.