President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

BoatMad

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Until impeachment or resignation.

naw, Impeachment is a very difficult process to complete and Trump is too narcissistic to resign

Water John

One may have thought Nixon couldn't be moved. It was all he lived for.
He went quick in the end.

Inquitus

Hmm @potus tweets debunked in the hearing

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/843865267008655360

The tweet made its way to the committee, with the result that Comey and Rogers were confronted with it. Again they said there was no basis for the assertion.

“We’ve offered no opinion, have no view ... on potential impact, because it’s not something that we’ve looked at,” Comey said. “It certainly wasn’t our intention to say that today because we don’t have any information on that subject. And it wasn’t something that was looked at.”

https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2017/mar/20/russia-election-hearing-trump-tweets-video

Water John

Inquitus, thanks for documenting that.
It was a fabulous rebttal of Trump's own stupidity.
Must have been manna from heaven to the Dems to have him tweet inaccuracies and the two boys still there to call it out.

BoatMad

Water John wrote: »

One may have thought Nixon couldn't be moved. It was all he lived for.
He went quick in the end.

different situation , hard criminal case , Nixon of course resigned , he was not actually impeached

Nate--IRL--

Inquitus wrote: »

Hmm @potus tweets debunked in the hearing

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/843865267008655360

The tweet made its way to the committee, with the result that Comey and Rogers were confronted with it. Again they said there was no basis for the assertion.

“We’ve offered no opinion, have no view ... on potential impact, because it’s not something that we’ve looked at,” Comey said. “It certainly wasn’t our intention to say that today because we don’t have any information on that subject. And it wasn’t something that was looked at.”

https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2017/mar/20/russia-election-hearing-trump-tweets-video

That's just Bizarre - they really need to take that Phone off Trump, he'll start a bloody war from his twitter account one of these days.

Nate

Manic Moran

BoatMad wrote: »

The quality of US air combat aircraft is far superior to russias as has been demonstrated in Syria and elsewhere , numbers isnt the only metric, most of the Russia fleet is very old and outdated, as is sections of the Chinese

Command and control is also hugely behind the US

I'd hope so. I'd hate to think that my government were looking for 'parity'. If we have to fight in two places at once, I want to be on the winning side, whichever side I get sent to. However, as it is, the US is no longer capable of achieving its goal of conducting two major conflicts at once. http://index.heritage.org/military/2015/

perhaps the US might like to step back from such " guarantor" , the world might sleep easier if it does

Perhaps. But given that the US is 'guarantor' by treaty to a full quarter of the world's population ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-defense-pacts-1947-2014/2015/05/29/1ee1989e-0645-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_graphic.html?utm_term=.8bef99d6d026 ), there's a fair portion of the world which seems to be choosing to sleep easier because of it. Notice how Trump's comments about perhaps reducing the US's NATO commitments recently have not been well received in Europe?

pity they didnt show up in the third world mess that was New Orleans

Eh? So this isn't one of the US's major ships at New Orleans.. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/US_Navy_050910-N-2383B-537_An_aerial_view_of_the_amphibious_assault_ship_USS_Iwo_Jima_(LHD_7)_docked_in_New_Orleans.jpg

Or this isn't one of its helicopters rescuing people? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/US_Navy_050905-N-0535P-223_A_U.S._Navy_HH-60H_Seahawk_helicopter_searches_for_victims_of_Hurricane_Katrina_on_rooftops_in_the_New_Orleans_area._Seahawk.jpg

Let's do a quick comparison here.

US response to Japan after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami included an aircraft carrier, three dock ships, one helicopter carrier, some supply ships, and a few odds and ends like helos from destroyers, army Helos, and Marine Logistics Units which landed and did things like route clearance and supply transport.


US Military response to Katrina... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina_disaster_relief#Military

A carrier, three dock ships, two helo carriers, a hospital ship, plus assorted army and air force aircraft.

What did the EU (as a combined force) send to Japan and New Orleans?

The European , Aussies etc are quite capable of looking after themselves if push came to shove, sure it might be third time lucky against the Russians in the next conflict

The Europeans ran out of ammunition bombing Libya. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nato-runs-short-on-some-munitions-in-libya/2011/04/15/AF3O7ElD_story.html?utm_term=.f22ed773fdf2

The Royal Navy is in such a bad state its warships will not have any anti-ship missiles after next year. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/royal-navy-to-lose-anti-ship-missiles-and-be-left-only-with-guns/

Ground forces aren't doing any better: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/british-military-forces-are-incapable-matching-russias-military-might-1602438

In fairness, at least some countries, like Germany and Poland are starting to rearm, but I refer you again to the unhappiness which NATO countries demonstrated when Trump mooted the possibility that NATO was obsolete and the US's involvement should be reconsidered. They apparently believe that the US's presence is useful.

Many of these commitments are not treaty based , they are there as a result of conflicts that the US inserted itself into or come under the " spheres of influence " doctrine

See link above.

BoatMad

The NSA and FBI tell Congress that Russia did not influence electoral process.

no Donald, they said that they had no information one way or the other ( at this point ) , they are after all in the middle of investigating just that !!!!!

idiot with a twitter account

26000 Elephants

BoatMad wrote: »

no Donald, they said that they had no information one way or the other ( at this point ) , they are after all in the middle of investigating just that !!!!!

idiot with a twitter account

His use of twitter today is bordering on obstruction of justice.

BoatMad

I'd hope so. I'd hate to think that my government were looking for 'parity'. If we have to fight in two places at once, I want to be on the winning side, whichever side I get sent to. However, as it is, the US is no longer capable of achieving its goal of conducting two major conflicts at once. http://index.heritage.org/military/2015/

The US issue isnt its effectiveness of its military , its the mess it leaves the world to clean up after it goes home. ( see Iraq, Syria, Egypt , Libya, Israel , etc ) perhaps its a good thing it cant fight such warm eh.

Perhaps. But given that the US is 'guarantor' by treaty to a full quarter of the world's population ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-de...=.8bef99d6d026 ), there's a fair portion of the world which seems to be choosing to sleep easier because of it. Notice how Trump's comments about perhaps reducing the US's NATO commitments recently have not been well received in Europe?

Trumps comments were not well received because like almost everything he spouts , he is wrong ( he is wrong on Germany contribution for example ) thats what annoyed the Nato allies , not the issue itself

Eh? So this isn't one of the US's major ships at New Orleans.. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ew_Orleans.jpg

Or this isn't one of its helicopters rescuing people? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a._Seahawk.jpg

Let's do a quick comparison here.

US response to Japan after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami included an aircraft carrier, three dock ships, one helicopter carrier, some supply ships, and a few odds and ends like helos from destroyers, army Helos, and Marine Logistics Units which landed and did things like route clearance and supply transport.


US Military response to Katrina... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurric...elief#Military

A carrier, three dock ships, two helo carriers, a hospital ship, plus assorted army and air force aircraft.

I knew you'd nit pick this , I was comparing the overall response in New Orleans which was nothing short of shamefull


as an aside , EUNAVFOR had a bigger naval presence then the US in the same waters, should it desire , the EU can easily equip itself with military hardware and is possibly the only grouping that matches it technically if not numerically

The Europeans ran out of ammunition bombing Libya. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.f22ed773fdf2

The Royal Navy is in such a bad state its warships will not have any anti-ship missiles after next year. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...nly-with-guns/

Ground forces aren't doing any better: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/british-mil...-might-1602438

In fairness, at least some countries, like Germany and Poland are starting to rearm, but I refer you again to the unhappiness which NATO countries demonstrated when Trump mooted the possibility that NATO was obsolete and the US's involvement should be reconsidered. They apparently believe that the US's presence is useful.

re-arming can be accomplished very very quickly once a desire exists , WW2 demonstrated that in droves

They apparently believe that the US's presence is useful.

of course , thats not in question , but given the need, Europe has the money and technical capability to arm itself to any extent needed, all it needs is a desire .

Akrasia

Water John wrote: »

One may have thought Nixon couldn't be moved. It was all he lived for.
He went quick in the end.

It took years for him to go quickly

Quin_Dub

All

Let's take the discussion about Military strength etc. to another thread please (and perhaps another forum tbh)

Cheers

Igotadose

BoatMad wrote: »

no Donald, they said that they had no information one way or the other ( at this point ) , they are after all in the middle of investigating just that !!!!!

idiot with a twitter account

If he hasn't already, he'll double-down about it soon enough and his sycophants will chime in, if they're not following him around like well trained were-poodles.

Peregrinus

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

That's just Bizarre - they really need to take that Phone off Trump, he'll start a bloody war from his twitter account one of these days.

Nate

It's bizarre, but in Trumpland the bizarre is routine.

It's common for Trump to try to avoid being accountable for what he says by prhasing it as a question ("What about all of the contact with the Clinton campaign and the Russians?") or to attribute it to his imaginary friend, Many-People-Are-Saying. But frequently he doesn't bother with this; he just states something as a fact, without offering either evidence or argument in support, or even saying why he believes it, and then walks away. He's quite capable, after a suitable lapse of time, of stating the exact opposite as a fact.

Basically, Trump has never felt that he needs to take any responsibility for anything he says, and all his life he has surrounded himself with people who do not expect him to take responsibility, and will defend him for not doing so. This has worked quite well for him in his property development business - it enables him to walk away from commitments without feeling guilty - and it's a positive asset in his reality television business. In his latest endeavopur, however, it's a disaster. What the President of the United States says really does matter. Everybody believes that - except, apparently, the President of the United States.

The US will suffer when the President repeats stories that trusted allies of the US have spying on him, with the apparent implication that they should be taken seriously. The US government's efforts to defend his executive order against claims that it is motivated by an unconstitutional policy of victimising Muslims will be hampered by statements from the President which affirm that it is so motivated. And Trump will regard all this as monstrously unfair and unjust. It will fuel his paranoia, his victim complex and his already overweening insecurity.

This won't end well.

Harika

That is surprising: Fox axes one of their anchor heads over the wiretap scandal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/21/fox-news-takes-judge-napolitano-air-amid-furore-claims-gchq/

Judge Napolitano was heavily used on air like O'Reilly or Pirro. Latter already forgot everything she learned in law school when joining into the quackery of federal judges shutting down presidential orders.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

The US will suffer when the President repeats stories that trusted allies of the US have spying on him, with the apparent implication that they should be taken seriously.
This won't end well.

Just to be a little pedantic. The issue is not that Trump claimed that the UK were spying on him. The US has shown itself quite willing to surveil foreign leaders in the past (Merkel etc).

The issue is that Spicer claimed that the UK intelligence agency undertook to surveil Trump on the behest of Obama, therefore politically motivated.

That is a massive difference between 'passive' surveillance, ie to find out what is going on etc, and active surveillance to try to impact on the outcome of an election.

That is why the UK came out so quickly to rubbish the claim. Not to just deny, but to state they were rubbish.

Spicer now thinks that they are being smart by claiming that he didn't claim it was true, just that he read out a report. Firstly, Spicer has now just shown up Fox News to be Fake itself, and second, as a reporter asked him yesterday, does anything he reads on the podium actually mean he believes any of it.

On the issue with Russia, as Comey said this will take quite a while and IMO, I don't think they will find anything directly. I doubt there is any letter from Putin to Trump stating the plan. That is not how these things work. Just like the Crime bosses, the top men stay out of it and let the underlings, like Flynn, do the dirty work so that they can be got rid of if things get hot.

I am actually starting to think that Trump is not interested in any of it. He only wants to tackle Tax rates etc that directly effect him. He wants the healthcare pushed through so that he can get on to cutting taxes. He doesn't really care what the health plan actually is but he said he would do something so do it.

He wants to play golf and help his businesses. He wants to be told everyday how he not only thinks he is the most important person in the world, but actually is. I don't believe he has any underlying set of core values. I think those around him certainly do, and he is happy to let them off on their hobby horses as it doesn't affect him or anyone he knows.

Healthcare, won't effect him.
EPA, he doesn't believe Climate Change is true and even if it was, he can afford to deal with whatever happens. Move to a better place, easy, get clean water, pay for it.
State education. He never had it, and nobody he knows will ever have to deal with it. So teach whatever you want, do whatever you want, the important people go to private schools anyway.
Military, hell yes, cause no matter how much money he has he can't stop terrorism on his own. So use taxpayers to deal with that.

He is not worried about poll numbers, or his likability factor, or how Spicer is being laughed at by the press corp etc. He believes that when the next election comes around he will simply have to roll out the same razzmataz as this time since the DNC have really nothing to put up against him

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am actually starting to think that Trump is not interested in any of it. He only wants to tackle Tax rates etc that directly effect him. He wants the healthcare pushed through so that he can get on to cutting taxes. He doesn't really care what the health plan actually is but he said he would do something so do it.

You give him far too much credit. He doesn't know or care about taxes or healthcare - he expects the Republicans in congress to handle all of that.

This is just another reality TV show to Trump.

26000 Elephants

Harika wrote: »

That is surprising: Fox axes one of their anchor heads over the wiretap scandal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/21/fox-news-takes-judge-napolitano-air-amid-furore-claims-gchq/

Judge Napolitano was heavily used on air like O'Reilly or Pirro. Latter already forgot everything she learned in law school when joining into the quackery of federal judges shutting down presidential orders.

To be fair to Pirro, her husband was jailed for tax evasion and conspiracy and when he was released his new friends bankrolled her political career. She was then subject to a federal investigation for illegally wiretapping her husband's phone calls.

There is nowhere else for a legal mind like that except Fox.

Christy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You give him far too much credit. He doesn't know or care about taxes or healthcare - he expects the Republicans in congress to handle all of that.

This is just another reality TV show to Trump.

I think he cares about the taxes his company and he himself pays.

While I doubt he has read it he has nailed his flag to the healthcare bill as far as I am concerned and can take some of the fall out for it after using his position to endorse it.

ThisRegard

Harika wrote: »

That is surprising: Fox axes one of their anchor heads over the wiretap scandal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/21/fox-news-takes-judge-napolitano-air-amid-furore-claims-gchq/

Judge Napolitano was heavily used on air like O'Reilly or Pirro. Latter already forgot everything she learned in law school when joining into the quackery of federal judges shutting down presidential orders.

The most recent Last Week Tonight with John Oliver had a good piece about that guy.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Folks a quick reminder that this is a discussion site and news dumps are against the forum rules. This includes Tweets.

If you want to discuss a tweet that's fine, but a substantial contribution is required with it.

26000 Elephants

Interesting article trying to put Comey into some context. You would think that he is a died in the wool G-man, but nothing could be further from the truth. He has been involved in business for years as head of Lockheed Martin, and running a hedge fund for Bridgewater Associates before joining the board of HSBC Holdings.

A swamp critter as much as the rest of the Goldman Sachs boys?

Comey, the ultimate chameleon

In B 4 'fake news' pundits - thats a right wing site, about one of your own!

Christy42

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Interesting article trying to put Comey into some context. You would think that he is a died in the wool G-man, but nothing could be further from the truth. He has been involved in business for years as head of Lockheed Martin, and running a hedge fund for Bridgewater Associates before joining the board of HSBC Holdings.

A swamp critter as much as the rest of the Goldman Sachs boys?

Comey, the ultimate chameleon

In B 4 'fake news' pundits - thats a right wing site, about one of your own!

I reckon the right are quite happy to discredit Conwy at this point given he has effectively put himself in opposition to Trump by stating facts.

Indeed I am quite unsure as to the point you are making here. Is he a good human being, no not really. Do I think he lied under oath about wiretaps- no I don't. The repeated changes of story seems to indicate that the whitehouse is lying here given everywhere they have tried to shift this story has been met with denial from multiple sources.

jooksavage

Christy42 wrote: »

I reckon the right are quite happy to discredit Conwy at this point given he has effectively put himself in opposition to Trump by stating facts.

The most galling part of it all for me is the Republicans' defense of Trump. This investigation is unprecedented territory, a bizarre, once-in-a-civilization turn of events and they're treating it like any other partisan dispute. The only conclusion one could draw from the performance of Nunes, Turner, Gowdy and the gang yesterday was that they don't really care. Their guy is in and that's that.

They're readily turning a blind eye to the possibility of collusion, all for Trump. That's treachery.

Call me Al

jooksavage wrote: »

The most galling part of it all for me is the Republicans' defense of Trump. This investigation is unprecedented territory, a bizarre, once-in-a-civilization turn of events and they're treating it like any other partisan dispute. The only conclusion one could draw from the performance of Nunes, Turner, Gowdy and the gang yesterday was that they don't really care. Their guy is in and that's that.

They're readily turning a blind eye to the possibility of collusion, all for Trump. That's treachery.

It was all about the leaks for them. That, and Gowdy's hellbent need for punishment of the reporters writing the details.

No matter how many times that went to pains to tell us everything would be investigated in a bipartisan manner that just couldn't help themselves.

From what I saw I don't think Russia was mentioned once by Nunes or Gowdy. .. I can't comment on Turner's q&a timeslot as I didn't see it.

26000 Elephants

Christy42 wrote: »

I reckon the right are quite happy to discredit Conwy at this point given he has effectively put himself in opposition to Trump by stating facts.

Indeed I am quite unsure as to the point you are making here. Is he a good human being, no not really. Do I think he lied under oath about wiretaps- no I don't. The repeated changes of story seems to indicate that the whitehouse is lying here given everywhere they have tried to shift this story has been met with denial from multiple sources.

My point I was making (albeit mostly in my head!) was that it was Comeys letter that threw the election for Trump. All the 'interventions' by the kremlin or otherwise ( which will be difficult to prove) had failed to impact the result as much as this single event. I have had trouble understanding Comeys motives, and this article goes some ways towards explaining that.

Amerika

jooksavage wrote: »

The most galling part of it all for me is the Republicans' defense of Trump. This investigation is unprecedented territory, a bizarre, once-in-a-civilization turn of events and they're treating it like any other partisan dispute. The only conclusion one could draw from the performance of Nunes, Turner, Gowdy and the gang yesterday was that they don't really care. Their guy is in and that's that.

They're readily turning a blind eye to the possibility of collusion, all for Trump. That's treachery.

Oh, come on. This is what is important… the parsing of words? :rolleyes:

Bottom line… What we found out from the hearing was the core claim underlying Trump’s tweets is true... That people acting on the authority of Obama opened an investigation into Trump’s campaign. Then someone criminally leaked information to news outlets in an attempt to derail his election.

Why was Comey investigating the Trump campaign in the first place? Where did Comey get the idea to investigate the Trump campaign? We know the Hillary Clinton campaign also had contact with the Russians. Was there also an investigation into her campaign? If not, why not. And most importantly... Who criminally leaked the information to news outlets? These are big questions that need to be answered.

One thing we can agree on, and that’s Trump and the newspapers that printed the story agree… Obama was investigating him.

Obama's hands appear to be all over this. Whether they can find any proof that leads back to him is another story. But one thing they apparently got wrong is... If you're going to pull off these kind of dirty deeds you better damn well make sure your gal wins.

demfad

Amerika wrote: »

Bottom line… What we found out from the hearing was the core claim underlying Trump’s tweets is true... That people acting on the authority of Obama opened an investigation into Trump’s campaign. Then someone criminally leaked information to news outlets in an attempt to derail his election.

Can you please reference the part in bold from the hearing yesterday?
This is not part of FBI procedure (as outlined by Director Comey) nor was it 'found out' yesterday.

demfad

Amerika wrote: »

Bottom line… What we found out from the hearing was the core claim underlying Trump’s tweets is true... That people acting on the authority of Obama opened an investigation into Trump’s campaign. Then someone criminally leaked information to news outlets in an attempt to derail his election....
One thing we can agree on, and that’s Trump and the newspapers that printed the story agree… Obama was investigating him.

Can you please reference the part in bold from the hearing yesterday and teh newspapers mentioned?
This is not part of FBI procedure (as outlined by Director Comey) nor was it 'found out' yesterday. As far as I can see what you are claiming as truth is patently false.

Igotadose

Amerika wrote: »

Oh, come on. This is what is important… the parsing of words? :rolleyes:

Bottom line… What we found out from the hearing was the core claim underlying Trump’s tweets is true... That people acting on the authority of Obama opened an investigation into Trump’s campaign. Then someone criminally leaked information to news outlets in an attempt to derail his election.

Why was Comey investigating the Trump campaign in the first place? Where did Comey get the idea to investigate the Trump campaign? We know the Hillary Clinton campaign also had contact with the Russians. Was there also an investigation into her campaign? If not, why not. And most importantly... Who criminally leaked the information to news outlets? These are big questions that need to be answered.

One thing we can agree on, and that’s Trump and the newspapers that printed the story agree… Obama was investigating him.

Obama's hands appear to be all over this. Whether they can find any proof that leads back to him is another story. But one thing they apparently got wrong is... If you're going to pull off these kind of dirty deeds you better damn well make sure your gal wins.

Ah let the deflection dance begin.

O.K. so what we found out:
1. No wiretapping/surveillance ordered by Obama. Kinda missed that fact in your observation about tweets above. Trump's tweets DEBUNKED. Hint: If he tweets about it, assume it's FALSE before wasting time following up. Trump's pretty much lying all the time.
2. FBI doesn't need orders to investigate anyone; they can investigate the President if they feel the need. So, let's not, uhh, parse words in funny ways.
3. FBI might very well be investigating HRC. Did that come up in the questioning? Perhaps because she's not president, it didn't. The campaign's over - now the FBI's looking into crimes potentially committed by the President's team. Perhaps even the POTUS himself - we won't know till the indictments show up. As stated earlier on the thread, I doubt the POTUS was complicit in anything nefarious, he's way too dumb for the smart criminals to let him in on it, he'd take them all down.
4. Obama's hand indeed - Putin's hand is firmly up your man Trump's keister, is what the investigation will prove. Then hopefully he'll go away and you'll need new whataboutery to bring up once Pence is sworn in.
5. Where the FBI gets ideas, is a great question. Comey indicated they get an enormous amount of suggested investigation and based on their mandate choose which ones to spend resources on. That's as much as anyone's going to ever learn about their process for choosing investigations.
6. FWIW, Trump's been leaking things like crazy - he recently let it fly that the CIA was hacked earlier this year. That'd never been officially confirmed - it is now. So.... was that criminal? http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/03/16/house-intel-ranking-member-says-trump-may-have-unintentionally-exposed-classified

And I'm absolutely certain that the CLASSIFIED stamp was pretty clear on whatever Trump read that confirmed the hack, or whatever meeting he was in when it was confirmed. Tell me - you think the email confirming the hack that Trump read was sent to a gmail account?