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

PopePalpatine

Peregrinus wrote: »

Another possibilty is that Trump increasingly becomes a figurehead, with real executive direction and policymaking being handed over to Pence and others. Trump does the photo-ops, and continues with his bizarre non-election election rallies, which I think massage his ego in a way that he finds necessary to maintain his self-esteem. For this to work, I think there'll have to be a compromise; Trump can posture all he likes, provided he doesn't posture in a way which makes the real work done by his VP and others more difficult. So no more claims about being phone-tapped; no more abusing US allies; no more making foreign policy up on the fly. But you can pretty much open the throttle on tweets of the self-congratulatory kind, Mr. President.

I'm wondering if that's happened already, either with Bannon or the GOP establishment pulling the strings. The jingoism suggests the former, and the trickle-down-on-cocaine in the ACA repeal bills suggests the latter.

Peregrinus

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm wondering if that's happened already, either with Bannon or the GOP establishment pulling the strings. The jingoism suggests the former, and the trickle-down-on-cocaine in the ACA repeal bills suggests the latter.

The second part of it - Trump agrees not to interfere with the grown-ups when they are working - certainly has not happened.

Kitsunegari

The pressure doesn't seem to be easing off Trump and I would say his chances of lasting the term are decreasing by the day. It would be interesting if another election was called in the next 6-12 months to see what the outcome would be. I doubt either party would likely benefit as the Democrats aren't able to mount a current, coherent opposition to Trump and have been hemorrhaging seats for nearly a decade now but at the same time you would imagine that they will be under.

I don't think there has been a better chance for a new party to break up the status quo in the US.

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

The pressure doesn't seem to be easing off Trump and I would say his chances of lasting the term are decreasing by the day. It would be interesting if another election was called in the next 6-12 months to see what the outcome would be. I doubt either party would likely benefit as the Democrats aren't able to mount a current, coherent opposition to Trump and have been hemorrhaging seats for nearly a decade now but at the same time you would imagine that they will be under.

I don't think there has been a better chance for a new party to break up the status quo in the US.

Can't see an election getting called but he is being reduced in power. I mean he got the cool limit on lobbying in (which I agree with). He has his picks to destroy various segments and the government but going forward he seems to have little.

Trumpcare will be roasted, his signature wall looks to be dying through a lack of funding, he has made not one but two failed attempts at the promised Muslim ban (granted the second attempt is still being fought but new vetting procedures will be in place by the time it has any chance to come in). He libelled the last sitting president and relations with numerous countries have deteriorated.

Russia is still dominating news cycles. He tried his usual deflection from this in December. It is still here while his supposed proof of Russia's innocence is no where to be seen.

Since becoming president. What major issue has he actually managed to push forward? His main plans have died a death thus far. Early days but do you really want to keep trying the same strategy repeatedly?

InTheTrees

Kitsunegari wrote: »

The pressure doesn't seem to be easing off Trump and I would say his chances of lasting the term are decreasing by the day. It would be interesting if another election was called in the next 6-12 months to see what the outcome would be.

The entire house of representatives and half the senate are up for election again in November 2018.

Impeachment would be far more likely if the democratic party had control of the house or the senate.

relax carry on

Can an election be run again to replace Trump? Is it not a case of working down through the chain of succession for the next 4 years? Has an election ever been run again in the US?

Leroy42

Trump faces a pretty big test on Thursday with the vote to repeal and replace Obamacare.

Whilst he has been lukewarm about it, at best, this was one of his signature slogans on the campaign and to have it fail, given the current issues swirling around him, will be a massive blow. It will show that he has little actual power and call into question his ability to get anything done.

However, I can only see the vote going through. Whatever belating some R members have been making in terms of the Trumpcare, at the end of the day they want to save their seats and save the GOP party and keeping Obamacare after 7 years of complaining about it isn't really on option.

The fact that the new plan seems to be hopelessly worse is a minor inconvenience. Spicer already had started the narrative through this as saying that this vote is only phase 1, with phase 2 and 3 to make everything great again. Just no actual details, and no time frame.

We will know Friday which way it has gone. Lose, and Trump could well be on the way out (albeit over a number of years). Win and everything will be back to normal and the whole Russia thing etc will be allowed to die a death in 'investigations' much like our tribunals.

Peregrinus

No. Presidential elections are on fixed dates. Congress fills any vacancies arising under the process already outlined.

Vacancies in the House of Representatives are filled by special elections - what we would call bye-elections. Vacancies in the Senate are filled in various ways - it depends on the law of the state which the Senator represents. In most states the state governor appoints someone to replace a US Senator who has resigned or died, but in a minority of states there is a special election.

Peregrinus

InTheTrees wrote: »

The entire house of representatives and half the senate are up for election again in November 2018.

Impeachment would be far more likely if the democratic party had control of the house or the senate.

Nitpick: only one-third of the Senate is up for election in 2018.

There's every prospect that the Democrats could take control of the House of Representatives in 2018, but it's very unlikely that they can win the Senate. Only a third of the seats are up for grabs, and as luck would have it the great majority of them are seat already held by Democrats.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

Trump faces a pretty big test on Thursday with the vote to repeal and replace Obamacare.

The problem I think will be the replace part; I think the repeal will go down easy enough but the replace will face problems or intentionally be set up to not actually cover anything etc.

Professor Moriarty

More blood in the water around Trump. This is a very serious claim. AP reporting that:

President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics, The Associated Press has learned. The work appears to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests.

Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics to benefit the Putin government, even as U.S.-Russia relations under Republican President George W. Bush grew worse.

PopePalpatine

Leroy42 wrote: »

However, I can only see the vote going through. Whatever bleating some R members have been making in terms of the Trumpcare, at the end of the day they want to save their seats and save the GOP party and keeping Obamacare after 7 years of complaining about it isn't really on option.

Something tells me all the tax breaks they've stuffed into the bill will get the GOP's Representatives & Senators to hold their noses and approve it.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Whatever belating some R members have been making in terms of the Trumpcare, at the end of the day they want to save their seats and save the GOP party and keeping Obamacare after 7 years of complaining about it isn't really on option.

Well, exactly. They promised to repeal Obamacare, and this bill doesn't do that. The hardliners will not vote for it for fear of being primaried by even nuttier teaparty types.

Count Dooku

Kitsunegari wrote: »

The pressure doesn't seem to be easing off Trump and I would say his chances of lasting the term are decreasing by the day.

Reminds me


Meanwhile one the biggest supporter of "Kremlin intervention" conspiracy theory Louise Mensch become laughing stock

• Louise Mensch's claim that the FBI obtained a warrant to examine members of the Trump campaign's communications was made in November
• It has been cited by the White House as part of its defense of President's claim that he was 'wiretapped' by his predecessor
• Now she alleges that a 15-year-old girl who was sexted by Anthony Weiner, sparking the renewed FBI prove into Hillary Clinton's emails, did not exist
• She alleges it was part of Kremlin conspiracy to discredit Clinton during election
• She has also claimed that the Kremlin had conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart murdered to make way for Steve Bannon
• Author on intelligence and counter-terrorism calls her 'bats*** crazy' while New York Times reporters criticized her being allowed to write an op-ed in the paper

Source
and her actual grilling by BBC

BTW

Members of the Donald Trump transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under U.S. government surveillance following November’s presidential election, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) told reporters Wednesday.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/devin-nunes-donald-trump-surveillance-obama-236366

Looks like it is time discuss what is the difference between "U.S. government surveillance" and wiretapping

Billy86

Count Dooku wrote: »

Reminds me

An award given to (among others), Stalin and Hitler, because it is given to the person that "for better or for worse... has done the most to influence the events of the year". Had he lost it would have likely gone to him too for this reason, though retrospectively it might have been better served being awarded to Putin.

Question, why do you think so many members of Trump's team (including Trump himself) repeatedly and adamantly lied about their connections and contact made with Russia?

Kitsunegari

Billy86 wrote: »

An award given to (among others), Stalin and Hitler, because it is given to the person that "for better or for worse... has done the most to influence the events of the year". Had he lost it would have likely gone to him too for this reason, though retrospectively it might have been better served being awarded to Putin.

Question, why do you think so many members of Trump's team (including Trump himself) repeatedly and adamantly lied about their connections and contact made with Russia?

I think we all know why some have lied about their connections to Russia. Russia is a toxic brand in US politics. Obama and the Democrats wanted to push ties further away and Trump has said repeatedly that he wants better relations with Russia. I don't think it's a massive shock that behind the scenes something went on between someone in Trumps team and Russia. I'm not sure if that's necessarily a bad thing if the focus was to bring ties closer together but if the FBI are correct and think that Russia's goal was just to hurt Clinton. But if you're investigating Russia and their ties to Republicans you should investigate Soros and his ties to the Democrats and is his interference in US politics ok because he didn't hack a server?

The message missed is that both parties are toxic to the very core. But let's continue this partisan mud slinging contest. The fact that Trump continues to support Ryancare shows that he has no interest in the average American either. Trump is the reward for inept leadership from both parties over the past 8 years.

Yourself isit

I think Louis mensch acts as a canary in the mine. If the absurd theories the deep state engages in using her as a feeler fail then it's because she is an idiot. If they gain traction some "reputable" source quotes her, but they can later blame louise

Yourself isit

Count Dooku wrote: »

Reminds me


Meanwhile one the biggest supporter of "Kremlin intervention" conspiracy theory Louise Mensch become laughing stock

Source
and her actual grilling by BBC

BTW

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/devin-nunes-donald-trump-surveillance-obama-236366

Looks like it is time discuss what is the difference between "U.S. government surveillance" and wiretapping

Yes. I've been thinking the use of the term wiretapping was deliberate. It doesn't describe modern surveillance.

Billy86

Kitsunegari wrote: »

I think we all know why some have lied about their connections to Russia. Russia is a toxic brand in US politics. Obama and the Democrats wanted to push ties further away and Trump has said repeatedly that he wants better relations with Russia. I don't think it's a massive shock that behind the scenes something went on between someone in Trumps team and Russia. I'm not sure if that's necessarily a bad thing if the focus was to bring ties closer together but if the FBI are correct and think that Russia's goal was just to hurt Clinton. But if you're investigating Russia and their ties to Republicans you should investigate Soros and his ties to the Democrats and is his interference in US politics ok because he didn't hack a server?

The message missed is that both parties are toxic to the very core. But let's continue this partisan mud slinging contest. The fact that Trump continues to support Ryancare shows that he has no interest in the average American either. Trump is the reward for inept leadership from both parties over the past 8 years.

That excuse doesn't wash at all though, since Trump was very open about his claims to want to improve relations with Russia. Talking to Russian officials would have played nicely into that if they felt it was a benefit to their election chances, and if they didn't they would not have been talking quite frequently as they were about Russian relations. What would make no sense whatsoever would be to talk about improving relations with Russia over and over... and then repeatedly, adamantly, lie about having made any contacts or having any connection with any of them. Unless that is, there is something very dodgy that they were trying to hide.

It has just out that Trump's campaign manager for five months - including the time when Trump called on Russia to hack the US government, and indeed when Russia hacked the US government - had for over a decade been working explicitly in Russia's interest (something which was brought up at the time and only when it started becoming more and more publicly reported, wound up in his resignation), yet just the other day Spicer openly lied (...again) by claiming Manafort only had a "very limited role" when, again, he was the campaign manager for nearly half a year late in the game.

It also doesn't wash at all because many of these lies about connections with Russia were uttered after the election was over and done with. So if they had nothing very questionable to hide and publicly spent a lot of time talking about improving Russia relations, why would so many members of Trump's campaign adamantly and repeatedly lie about their connections to and contacts with Russia?

Leroy42

Count Dooku wrote: »

Reminds me


Meanwhile one the biggest supporter of "Kremlin intervention" conspiracy theory Louise Mensch become laughing stock

BTW

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/devin-nunes-donald-trump-surveillance-obama-236366

Looks like it is time discuss what is the difference between "U.S. government surveillance" and wiretapping

How very odd. How can anyone who supports Trump in any way claim that someone else is a laughing stock, particularly when the laughing stock is caused by making outlandish and non evidence claims.

This Louise Mensch seems to be the DNC version of Trump.

Maybe you shouldn't take what she says literally!

Hank Scorpio

https://twitter.com/AP/status/844601141908455425

https://www.c-span.org/video/?425829-1/devin-nunes-confirms-surveillance-trump-transition-team-informs-speaker

Summary:

During the open hearing on Monday, he encouraged anyone with relevant information regarding surveillance of President-elect Trump or his transition team to come forward and speak to the House Intelligence Committee.

Information was legally brought to him by official sources that "thought we should know it", presumably due to his request at the hearing. NSA, CIA, FBI leadership did not know that the information was going to be given to him (looks like a whistleblower).

He can confirm that on numerous occasions, the US intelligence community incidentally collected intelligence information about US citizens involved in the Trump transition. Details about US persons associated with the incoming administration, with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value, were widely disseminated in Intelligence Community reporting.
He can confirm that additional names of Trump transition team members were unmasked, similar to how General Flynn's name was unmasked.

None of the information he was able to see in the dozens of reports was related to Russia or the investigation of Russian activities regarding the Trump team.

Information was not part of a criminal investigation. It looks like "normal Foreign surveillance" under FISA where there was "incidental collection" that was then widely disseminated with unmasked names, but he still needs to get more information.
He informed Paul Ryan just this morning of this new information.

He is briefing the President and his team at the White House this afternoon.

Doesn't know if the information was picked up at Trump Tower, but working to find out details by Friday. Rogers (NSA) appears to be wanting to comply. He's concerned because he doesn't know yet if the FBI will comply. He has called the FBI, no response yet, hoping to talk to Comey later today.

He has seen intelligence reports that clearly show that the President-elect and his team were monitored and the information disseminated to the IC in a "raw" format.

Believes collection was performed legally, but the main question is why the names were unmasked and widely disseminated throughout the IC.

Most of the intercepts occurred in November, December, and January. During the transition period. This does not rule out any other periods of surveillance, this is just what he was able to see today.

It was "a lot of information about the President-elect, his transition team, and what they were doing".
He is surprised and "alarmed" by the discovery of this information, because it reminds him of when members of Congress were "incidentally" surveilled a year and a half ago. He doesn't understand how the intelligence regarding what President-elect Trump and his transition team were doing had any relation to foreign intelligence activities.

Kitsunegari

Billy86 wrote: »

That excuse doesn't wash at all though, since Trump was very open about his claims to want to improve relations with Russia. Talking to Russian officials would have played nicely into that if they felt it was a benefit to their election chances, and if they didn't they would not have been talking quite frequently as they were about Russian relations. What would make no sense whatsoever would be to talk about improving relations with Russia over and over... and then repeatedly, adamantly, lie about having made any contacts or having any connection with any of them. Unless that is, there is something very dodgy that they were trying to hide.

It has just out that Trump's campaign manager for five months - including the time when Trump called on Russia to hack the US government, and indeed when Russia hacked the US government - had for over a decade been working explicitly in Russia's interest (something which was brought up at the time and only when it started becoming more and more publicly reported, wound up in his resignation), yet just the other day Spicer openly lied (...again) by claiming Manafort only had a "very limited role" when, again, he was the campaign manager for nearly half a year late in the game.

It also doesn't wash at all because many of these lies about connections with Russia were uttered after the election was over and done with. So if they had nothing very questionable to hide and publicly spent a lot of time talking about improving Russia relations, why would so many members of Trump's campaign adamantly and repeatedly lie about their connections to and contacts with Russia?

Let's assume all your assumptions are correct; what if ties to Russia are proven. What do you want done about it? What do you think those ties actually are? You suggest that something extremely devious is going on behind the scenes.

Why focus on ties with Russia? Why not ties with the Saudis? Or is it just some despots we aren't allowed to talk to or plot with behind the scenes? isn't that a bit hyocrital? Or are we just focusing on interference in the US elections in which case Comey already said that the Russians wanted to discredit Clinton anyway. Why aren't the likes of Soros and his ilk being investigated too if we are looking to interference in US elections? Or is he okay because he helps the Democrats? Hypocrital, no?

26000 Elephants

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

GOP lawmakers in 'say something to help Trump' shocker

.

Thats all very empty, and when stacked against the very real and possibly highly treasonous actions of Trumps team will probably fall flat. At best it wont be enough to save his skin.

If Nunes' objective was to highlight the need for a special prosecutor, mission accomplished.

Billy86

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Let's assume all your assumptions are correct; what if ties to Russia are proven. What do you want done about it? What do you think those ties actually are? You suggest that something extremely devious is going on behind the scenes.

What gets done about it is up to the authorities, but I think colluding with foreign powers to undermine the democratic process of your own country would have pretty heavy consequences for many involved.

Why focus on ties with Russia? Why not ties with the Saudis? Or is it just some despots we aren't allowed to talk to or plot with behind the scenes? isn't that a bit hyocrital? Or are we just focusing on interference in the US elections in which case Comey already said that the Russians wanted to discredit Clinton anyway. Why aren't the likes of Soros and his ilk being investigated too if we are looking to interference in US elections? Or is he okay because he helps the Democrats? Hypocrital, no?

Besides the fact that "but Hillary/Obama/Soros!" is so worn out as to barely even be a meme anymore, if the intelligence community believed they had sufficient evidence on it they would also be investigating it, but (as best we know) they're not. After the song and dance they made about the Clinton emails right before the election that turned out to be nothing, while keeping completely quiet on their investigations into Russia and Trump, claims of bias against Trump on this front hold no water whatsoever.

But sure, we can talk about Trump's relations with the Saudi's plenty if you like too, like how they got left off the Muslim bans and all of his business dealings there (you know he opened, if I recall, eight different business ventures there during the campaign itself, right?). You also know that Trump and his campaign sent emails to politicians all around the world asking for donations in exchange for favour? And that when they were told this was illegal... they continued to do it, with the chairman of Trump's own PAC explicitly stating that illegal donations would grant access to "whisper in the President's ear" as caught during a Telegraph sting? We could go on and on, and I'd imagine the American IC are way, way deeper into this info than you or I could ever hope to be.

None of this however does anything to explain the motivations behind Trump and his campaign/staff repeatedly and adamantly lying about their connections to and contact with Russia, both before and after the election, despite improving relations with Russia being one of their election platforms. Like you just said, they wanted to discredit Clinton and this is common knowledge... not sure if intentional or not, but you've pretty much connected the dots on that one.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Don't just dump links here. Please add some sort of contribution as well.

uncle_sam_ie

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: Don't just dump links here. Please add some sort of contribution as well.

Sorry.

Seems Tump was right after all,

U.S. House Intelligence Committee confirms: US Spies intercepted Trump team communications

DEVIN NUNES PRESS CONFERENCE ON “INAPPROPRIATE SURVEILLANCE” ON PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP.

Billy86

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

Sorry.

Seems Tump was right after all,

Not quite... despite Nunes being pretty questionable in his intentions and statements over the last few days/weeks, even he didn't say it was wiretapping but rather "incidental collection" of evidence which could mean just about anything in terms of the type of collection, and apparently typically refers to when someone (in this case Trump) comes into contact with another party that -is- being monitored (like say, Russian officials, perhaps), and also that it was entirely legal.

Though it really is the cherry on the top of the farcical cake that is modern American politics that they've gone and got two hyper partisan prosecutors, one D the other R, to oversee this case.

wonderfullife

I'm stunned and saddened how many blithering idiots we have a) in this world b) online and c) on this forum.

Let me simplify this for those who fall in one of the above categories or those not following this mess.

TIMELINE

1. Trump accuses Obama of a felony. "Bad (or sick) guy." He accused him of ORDERING a wiretap of Trump Tower.

2. FBI Director Comey, Former DNI Clapper, NSA Chief Rogers, the DOJ, the House Intel Committee ALL publicly dismiss this as untrue. In fact, they go further and state a President CAN'T order a wiretap. It is a process decided by a Judge upon seeing probable cause presented in a court-room.

3. Devin Nunes today, based on anonymous sources, stated that certain Team Trump members were swept up in "legal, incidental collection".

If he is telling the truth, this means that a Judge was presented with probable cause of criminality and surveillance of FOREIGN PERSONS was granted under FISA by a JUDGE.

Team Trump were then caught up conversing, talking, possibly colluding with these foreigners who were suspected of criminality.


In short, what Nunes revealed is the following:

1. Trump is still bat-sh1t crazy and lying about Obama.
2. Team Trump all need lawyers and fast.
3. That the GOP have no intention of conducting a bipartisan investigation into this.

Trump was not "right" on any of his assertions.

It's also stunning that the narrative is "A-ha! See! We WERE caught up talking to foreign criminals".

That would be like any of us telling our parents we were being staked out by the cops for no reason and then boasting we were right when it's uncovered that the cops were staking out drug dealers & we were in their house buying weed at the time.

Sad!

Count Dooku

demfad wrote: »

Another body blow to the Trump administration breaking:

Yesterday Sean Spicer seemed to distance the Trump campaign from former campaign manager Paul Manafort saying the campaign manager of 4 months only had a small role in the campaign.

Today a story has broken showing why Spicer made that unusual statement.



Manafort is apparently also wanted in Ukraine for money laundering.

A lot of the evidence against the Trump team is circumstantial (apparently).
But Trump (and Manafort) has stated that Manafort had no dealings with Russia.
Now not alone has Manafort lied about dealings with Russia but the dealings were to directly help Putin outside of Russia including the USA.
We may be getting close to the first human domino about to fall.

Do you mean that Manafort worked with Putin to make sure that Hillary would lose to Obama in 2008 and then would lose to Trump in 2016?

26000 Elephants

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

Sorry.

Seems Tump was right after all,

U.S. House Intelligence Committee confirms: US Spies intercepted Trump team communications

Is that your best reading if it? I reckon he has blown whatever sliver of credibility he had with this round of playing "silly beggars".

How are the rest of the committee going to deal with this?

Adam Schiff tweeted this a minute ago....

Today, Chairman Nunes shared information with WH still withheld from our committee. He cannot conduct a credible investigation this way.