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

ThisRegard

aloyisious wrote: »

Umm. CNN reporting that a Russian "fake news" story is behind what's happened to Qatar.

I think it's Qatar putting that out there.

mcmoustache

Igotadose wrote: »

There's a firehose of reports streaming out now from all over about Comey, Trump, this that and the other scandal.

Trump allegedly asked Dan Coats to get Comey to back off according to WaPo.

On March 22, less than a week after being confirmed by the Senate, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats attended a briefing at the White House together with officials from several government agencies. As the briefing was wrapping up, Trump asked everyone to leave the room except for Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

A day or two after the March 22 meeting, the president followed up with a phone call to Coats, according to officials familiar with the discussions. In the call, Trump asked Coats to issue a public statement denying the existence of any evidence of coordination between his campaign and the Russian government. Again, Coats decided not to act on the request.

Trump similarly approached Adm. Mike Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, to ask him to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of coordination, as The Post previously reported, according to current and former officials. Like Coats, Rogers refused to comply with the president’s request.

What makes this especially juicy is the timing. Today, Coats and Rogers are testifying before the Senate Intel committee later today. With this incident fresh in the minds, hopefully Coats will get to clear this up under oath.

Of further interest is that Pompeo was with Coats when Trump made that request. Pompeo was rather evasive last time I saw him testify and I got the impression that he was hiding something. Coats's testimony could require Pompeo to appear and answer questions at a later time.

Oh, and Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe are also appearing.


But wait, theres more.

From the failing New York Times...

WASHINGTON — The day after President Trump asked James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, to end an investigation into his former national security adviser, Mr. Comey confronted Attorney General Jeff Sessions and said he did not want to be left alone again with the president, according to current and former law enforcement officials.

As we know, Comey testifies tomorrow. It's expected to be rather interesting. I don't think anyone's expecting any bombshells, just some confirmations under oath of what the papers have been reporting over the past few weeks. I'd like a bombshell or two but there'll be constraints on what Comey can say due to the Mueller investigation. Trump's expected to be live tweeting so we can expect a bit of light entertainment and an opportunity for Trump to tweet something self incriminating.

Naturally, the obvious go-to option for Trump is to try smearing Comey with an ad on Fox and CNN.

An ad created by the pro-Trump Great America Alliance — a nonprofit “issues” group that isn’t required to disclose its donors — casts Comey as a “showboat” who was “consumed with election meddling” instead of focusing on combating terrorism. The 30-second spot is slated to run digitally on Wednesday and appear the next day on CNN and Fox News.

As a top sports commentator once said; "It’s a bold strategy Cotton. Let’s see if it pays off for him."

And finally, at least for now, James Clapper asks Trump Supporter to "Cop on ta Fúck" when they think about misrepresenting what he said about not seeing evidence. Just kidding. But he did say, at least according to FAKE NEWS Time magazine

The Watergate scandal pales in comparison to events in Washington surrounding U.S. President Donald Trump and alleged links between his campaign and Russia, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said on Wednesday.
Clapper questioned Trump's continued pro-Russian stance, saying his sharing of intelligence with Russia "reflect either ignorance or disrespect, and either is very problematic".

Trump's twitter should be great fun this week.

Leroy42

I think the MSM (I don't use that in the derogatory sense but merely as a catch all) are bigging up this Comey testimony too much. Like mcmoustache said, I don't think there will be any bombshells, and I certainly expect the GOP members to derail as much as possible into other areas.

But CNN etc have made this out to be the day of reckoning almost, as if Comey will ride in with a subpena in one hand and an impeachment announcement in the other. So anything other than that will be played by the GOP and the WH as a failure and much ado about nothing.

You can bet that the WH and GOP have there attack lines already drawn, Spicer already has his press conference prepared.

This is just another step on the road. Nothing will actually come out of tomorrow, IMO, the real juicy stuff will be kept behind closed doors (if there is any)

mcmoustache

Leroy42 wrote: »

But CNN etc have made this out to be the day of reckoning almost, as if Comey will ride in with a subpena in one hand and an impeachment announcement in the other. So anything other than that will be played by the GOP and the WH as a failure and much ado about nothing.

I really dislike the CNN TV station. There's so much filler and hype there that it's infuriating. Breaking news that's two hours old. Sorry, had to rant.

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is just another step on the road. Nothing will actually come out of tomorrow, IMO, the real juicy stuff will be kept behind closed doors (if there is any)

You're not wrong. I'd be happy enough with confirmation on record and under oath of what we know from the press.

But then again, between now and tomorrow's hearing, who knows what the WaPo and NYT have up their sleeves. The timing of all these stories is no accident. Last night's WaPo story features Coats and Rogers, for example, which has provided the committee with some interesting questions to ask. I would be surprised if those papers didn't have something else saved for tonight.

Also, let's not forget that the wildcard in all this - Trump himself. Unless his phone's taken away for the next few days, there's always a chance that he'll tweet some rubbish that can be confirmed or refuted at these hearings.

So, yeah, I'm trying to be realistic about what to expect but given how things are going these days, it's hard not to expect some surprises too.

CMOTDibbler

If the Russians actually did play an active part in getting Trump elected, they couldn't possibly have expected that he would have been such a spectacular success for them in such a short time.

ScumLord

If it's proved that Trump is a Russian shill would that be treason? Could trump end up getting executed?

Professor Moriarty

ScumLord wrote: »

If it's proved that Trump is a Russian shill would that be treason? Could trump end up getting executed?

Now that's funny!

mcmoustache

ScumLord wrote: »

If it's proved that Trump is a Russian shill would that be treason? Could trump end up getting executed?

Treason defined as per constitution

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

It's a bit tricky. I guess it comes down to what an Enemy is.

According to 50 USCS § 2204 [Title 50. War and National Defense; Chapter 39. Spoils of War], enemy of the United States means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States;

(3) the term "person" means

(A) any natural person;

(B) any corporation, partnership, or other legal entity; and

(C) any organization, association, or group.

Could cyber attacks be described as hostilities?


The penalty

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

I'm not a lawyer but I would think that if you could argue that Russia's actions constituted hostilities and that Donald Trump aided them, that he could be prosecuted for treason and executed. Theoretically. To reiterate, I am not a lawyer.

If someone from Legal Discussion could chime in, I'd like to hear their interpretations.

ThisRegard

It's been claimed that Trump is violating the 1st Amendment by blocking people on twitter that mock, disagree or criticise him.

And a former labour secretary of Clinton and professor of public policy in Berkley has said Trump is loosing his mind and it's time to start considering the 25th Amendment of the Constitution which allows for the removal of a president who is unable to discharge their duties while in office.

“We know he’s a sociopath, but he seems to be growing worse,” Mr Reich said, citing a source close to Mr Trump, who claimed to CNN that the president “now lives within himself, which is a dangerous place for Donald Trump to be”.

CMOTDibbler

mcmoustache wrote: »

Could cyber attacks be described as hostilities?

I very much doubt it. Apart from the difficulty in attributing such attacks to states rather than individuals, pretty much every definition of hostilities in war seems to be restricted to armed hostilities.

Having said that, spying during the cold war era resulted in executions, most notably the Rosenbergs in 1953. So even though they carried out treasonous acts (in a broad sense), they were convicted and executed for espionage.

mcmoustache

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I very much doubt it. Apart from the difficulty in attributing such attacks to states rather than individuals, pretty much every definition of hostilities in war seems to be restricted to armed hostilities.

Thanks for that. A bit of googling gives me the impression that international agreements, treaties and conventions are a bit behind on this.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Having said that, spying during the cold war era resulted in executions, most notably the Rosenbergs in 1953. So even though they carried out treasonous acts (in a broad sense), they were convicted and executed for espionage.

Espionage eh? I haven't heard that word in relation to Trump or his team yet (Flynn excepted but only rumour) but it wouldn't surprise me at this point.

robinph

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's been claimed that Trump is violating the 1st Amendment by blocking people on twitter that mock, disagree or criticise him.

Has he blocked them from the official POTUS account as well? That could be considered restricting people from contacting their government, doubt they could argue the same over his personal account.

It's then if Twitter is considered a valid form of contacting the government, but as Trump considers it a valid form of speaking to the population at large I think he's loose that argument.

CMOTDibbler

robinph wrote: »

Has he blocked them from the official POTUS account as well? That could be considered restricting people from contacting their government, doubt they could argue the same over his personal account.

It's then if Twitter is considered a valid form of contacting the government, but as Trump considers it a valid form of speaking to the population at large I think he's loose that argument.

Iirc, his twitter ramblings on the @Potus account have been declared to be part of the presidential record and he's not supposed to delete any tweets he posts there. Not sure if people replying to him would receive the same protection. I doubt it somehow.

ThisRegard

robinph wrote: »

Has he blocked them from the official POTUS account as well? That could be considered restricting people from contacting their government, doubt they could argue the same over his personal account.

It's then if Twitter is considered a valid form of contacting the government, but as Trump considers it a valid form of speaking to the population at large I think he's loose that argument.

I think so, but not 100% sure. However the argument was put forward that due to the way he uses his accounts, it's irrelevant what account the blocks people from.

Independent.co.uk also cover the story
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-twitter-blocking-accounts-users-violates-us-constitution-columbia-university-knight-a7776486.html

Igotadose

Interesting article in the WaPO: Seems like your average Trump voter is well off, not working class, and white. Not the narrative I heard through the election season and immediately afterwards, how Trump was the populist candidate from the left-behind rust belters yadda yadda.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/?utm_term=.bc052c7625e6

Some interesting quotes if the paywall gets in the way:
Primaries: "a March 2016 NBC survey that we analyzed showed that only a third of Trump supporters had household incomes at or below the national median of about $50,000. Another third made $50,000 to $100,000, and another third made $100,000 or more and that was true even when we limited the analysis to only non-Hispanic whites. If being working class means being in the bottom half of the income distribution, the vast majority of Trump supporters during the primaries were not working class"

Education: "...although more than 70 percent of Trump supporters didn’t have college degrees, when we looked at the NBC polling data, we noticed something the pundits left out: during the primaries, about 70 percent of all Republicans didn’t have college degrees, close to the national average (71 percent according to the 2013 Census). Far from being a magnet for the less educated, Trump seemed to have about as many people without college degrees in his camp as we would expect any successful Republican candidate to have."

General election: pretty much tracks the primary demographics: "To look at it another way, among white people without college degrees who voted for Trump, nearly 60 percent were in the top half of the income distribution. In fact, one in five white Trump voters without a college degree had a household income over $100,000. In short, the narrative that attributes Trump’s victory to a “coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters” just doesn’t square with the 2016 election data. According to the election study, white non-Hispanic voters without college degrees making below the median household income made up only 25 percent of Trump voters. That’s a far cry from the working-class-fueled victory many journalists have imagined."

Billy86

So uhhh... Trump's after nominating a guy to be head of the FBI that doesn't seem to have much experience in the field, and who is a lawyer who has Rosneft (of Steele dossier fame) as a client.

Anyone have faith in evne just three of the 52 Republican senators voting against the appointment?

CMOTDibbler

Billy86 wrote: »

So uhhh... Trump's after nominating a guy to be head of the FBI that doesn't seem to have much experience in the field, and who is a lawyer who has Rosneft (of Steele dossier fame) as a client.

Anyone have faith in evne just three of the 52 Republican senators voting against the appointment?

That may depend on what the previous incumbent says tomorrow...

ThisRegard

Billy86 wrote: »

So uhhh... Trump's after nominating a guy to be head of the FBI that doesn't seem to have much experience in the field, and who is a lawyer who has Rosneft (of Steele dossier fame) as a client.

Anyone have faith in evne just three of the 52 Republican senators voting against the appointment?

But?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/872419018799550464

Impeccable I tell ya!

dudara

robinph wrote: »

Has he blocked them from the official POTUS account as well? That could be considered restricting people from contacting their government, doubt they could argue the same over his personal account.

I see where you're coming from - the problem is that Trump is using his personal account far more than the official POTUS account. He is however President, and he really doesn't get to have a separate personal voice while he occupies that office. Therefore the tweets from his personal account should (*IMO) be considered presidential statements.

Professor Moriarty

ThisRegard wrote: »

But?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/872419018799550464

Impeccable I tell ya!

TBF, the NYT approves. If they had an opportunity to attack Trump on this appointment they would certainly take it. From the article:

Mr. Wray is a safe, mainstream pick from a president who at one point was considering politicians for a job that has historically been kept outside of politics. Mr. Wray, a former assistant attorney general overseeing the criminal division under President George W. Bush, is likely to allay the fears of F.B.I. agents who worried that Mr. Trump would try to weaken or politicize the F.B.I.

CMOTDibbler

ThisRegard wrote: »

But?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/872419018799550464

Impeccable I tell ya!

The guy does seem to have impeccable credentials and even a backbone. It appears that he worked with James Comey in the past.

Trump could get himself another 'turbulent priest' if this appointment goes ahead.

robinph

dudara wrote: »

I see where you're coming from - the problem is that Trump is using his personal account far more than the official POTUS account. He is however President, and he really doesn't get to have a separate personal voice while he occupies that office. Therefore the tweets from his personal account should (*IMO) be considered presidential statements.

Absolutely, I was astounded that he was allowed to still have access to Twitter after the election let alone after the inauguration. I'd assumed there was someone sensible in the government machine somewhere who have taken any direct uncensored access to the public, or from the public, away from the person occupying the office of president at that point.

Call me Al

Rogers and Coats are declining to answer specific questions on the controversy 're Trump's alleged requests to intervene with the FBI's Russia investigation.

Eta both say that they've never felt pressure to interfere. Coats said that he doesn't feel that the process they were undergoing there was the appropriate way to address this.

Peregrinus

robinph wrote: »

Absolutely, I was astounded that he was allowed to still have access to Twitter after the election let alone after the inauguration. I'd assumed there was someone sensible in the government machine somewhere who have taken any direct uncensored access to the public, or from the public, away from the person occupying the office of president at that point.

There are many who would like to do so, no doubt, but nobody with the authority to. Everyone in the executive branch reports to the President; he's their boss, not the other way around.

CMOTDibbler

Call me Al wrote: »

Rogers and Coats are declining to answer specific questions on the controversy 're Trump's alleged requests to intervene with the FBI's Russia investigation.

Eta both say that they've never felt pressure to interfere. Coats said that he doesn't feel that the process they were undergoing there was the appropriate way to address this.

Nearly every question seems to be getting the response that it won't be answered in public session. So clearly there's an answer of some significance to those ones.

Professor Moriarty

Definitive article regarding latest research on Trump's negative impact on tourism. From the article:

The Global Business Travel Association estimates that the U.S. will lose $1.3 billion in travel-related expenditures in 2017, taking hotels, food, rental cars and shopping into account. The organization thinks more than 4,200 jobs could be lost as a result.

And:

"We know that politics does influence travel," said David Tarsh, a spokesman for ForwardKeys, a research firm that tracks 16 million airline bookings a day. In a report out last week, ForwardKeys found that the U.S. is the only major country in which summer travel bookings are down year over year. Airline reservations for June, July and August are down 3.5% from 2016.
Tarsh said the firm can clearly chart the impact of the travel ban on tourism. "When Donald Trump came in with his travel ban, there was a noticeable drop [in travel] to the U.S.," Tarsh said. " ... And then when the ban was overturned, there was a recovery. And when a new ban was announced, there was a drop off."

mcmoustache

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Nearly every question seems to be getting the response that it won't be answered in public session. So clearly there's an answer of some significance to those ones.

No. You misunderstand. This is definitive proof that Donald Trump is innocent /s.

What I mean is, this is how it'll be spun by Trumpers.

Call me Al

mcmoustache wrote: »

No. You misunderstand. This is definitive proof that Donald Trump is innocent /s.

What I mean is, this is how it'll be spun by Trumpers.

And that is pretty much the sentiment uttered by the republican senator, who took his few minutes at the mike directly after Mark Warner got the generic "computer says no" replies.
And so it begins... yet again.
Circles round and round.

MadYaker

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The guy does seem to have impeccable credentials and even a backbone. It appears that he worked with James Comey in the past.

Trump could get himself another 'turbulent priest' if this appointment goes ahead.

Yeah this guy actually sounds like he might be good.

I expect he'll last about a month until Trump fires him for not dropping the Russia investigation.

mcmoustache

Anyone want some Comey memos?

Near the end of our dinner, the President returned to the subject of my job,
saying he was very glad I wanted to stay, adding that he had heard great things
about me from Jim Mattis, Jeff Sessions, and many others. He then said, “I need
loyalty.” I replied, “You will always get honesty from me.” He paused and then
said, “That’s what I want, honest loyalty.” I paused, and then said, “You will get
that from me.” As I wrote in the memo I created immediately after the dinner, it is
possible we understood the phrase “honest loyalty” differently, but I decided it
wouldn’t be productive to push it further. The term – honest loyalty – had helped
end a very awkward conversation and my explanations had made clear what he
should expect.