Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Billy86

InTheTrees wrote: »

In case anyone missed the side show farce of Trumps speech to the Boy Scouts:

Mexico had to do the same over Trump lying about them "praising" the border situation the other day - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/01/mexican-president-enrique-penanietodenies-calling-donald-trump/

It's been the case for months, absolutely regardless of what it is they say about anything, it is best to assume the Trump regime is lying with every statement they make and then see if any sources actually show otherwise. It's about a 80 plus percent change whatever the statement is is a lie anyway anyway.

everlast75

InTheTrees wrote: »

In case anyone missed the side show farce of Trumps speech to the Boy Scouts:

In spite of the tradition of presidents giving non-political speeches to the boy scouts, trump laced his speech with the same paranoid political nonsense that he cant seem to let go of.

The Boy Scouts organisation had to to issue an apology for the Presidents speech. That's a rare enough occurrence.

But just as he cant leave anything alone, trump gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal in which he claimed the boy scouts leadership had called him after his talk and told him it was the best speech ever delivered to their organisation ever in thsi history, and that the standing ovation lasted so long it went on for five minutes after he had left.

All. Lies.

So now the Boy Scouts have had to refute that story too.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boy-scouts-disputes-trumps-greatest-ever-claim-about-his-speech/

Jesus - this is Kim Jong-Un stuff

Quin_Dub

demfad wrote: »

Negating the need?

The need will be negated when the investigations are finished. The Senate is already preparing for a bill that will require a judicial review before removing the special prosecutor.

Trump may try, but he will not survive any removal of Mueller under any circumstances.

And leaving Mueller there means he doesn't survive anyway.

I guess I mean in his mind...

The viewpoint was -

He gets to move Sessions to DHS without Firing him..He then fires Rosenstein for "something something , conflict of interest" and gets his new AG to remove Mueller citing (again) conflict of interest and the fact that the new AG will take over the Russian investigation and in fact will expand it to cover Crooked Hillary and the Democrats etc.

I'd agree that I think that the Senate and Congress would blow a gasket and it would likely lead to possible impeachment etc.

It doesn't mean he wouldn't try it though..

InTheTrees

Quin_Dub wrote: »

He moves Sessions from AG to DHS citing Sessions passion for Immigration reform etc. etc. allowing him to bring in a new AG that doesn't have a conflict of interest and thus negating the need for Mueller.

There's nothing to say Sessions would accept such a demotion. He could just as easily run for the senate seat (Election in November) he gave up to become AG.

Part of the rift between the senate and the executive branch right now is because of trumps treatment of Sessions. Sessions was a senator for ten years before giving it up to be AG.

Quin_Dub

Trump signs Russia sanctions bill

So , he's signed it , but not without taking a dig at it though..

The White House announced the signing shortly after 11 a.m. ET, saying the bill includes "a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions" that "purport to displace the President's exclusive constitutional authority to recognize foreign governments, including their territorial bounds."

Trent Houseboat

wrote:

saying the bill includes "a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions" that "purport to displace the President's exclusive constitutional authority to recognize foreign governments, including their territorial bounds."

Did he just admit to being cucked? By the swamp?

Leroy42

So he is saying that he is signing something into law that he knows to be unconstitutional?

The man has has taken an oath to protect the constitution just knowing signed a law which is against that?

This is the man that was going to stand up to the elites, drain the swamp?

Seriously, how can anyone take this man seriously

A GOP POTUS getting dictated to by his own party? So now its the MSM, Dems, GOP al against him. And Mexico of course

BabyCheeses

Leroy42 wrote: »

So he is saying that he is signing something into law that he knows to be unconstitutional?

The man has has taken an oath to protect the constitution just knowing signed a law which is against that?

This is the man that was going to stand up to the elites, drain the swamp?

Seriously, how can anyone take this man seriously

A GOP POTUS getting dictated to by his own party? So now its the MSM, Dems, GOP al against him. And Mexico of course

Doesn't the POTUS have the same role as the Irish precedent in not signing stuff they believe to be unconstitutional?

He does know he can veto right?

Really Interested

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Doesn't the POTUS have the same role as the Irish precedent in not signing stuff they believe to be unconstitutional?

He does know he can veto right?

Yes and the veto can be overturned by 67 if i remember votes in senate, the original bill passed with 96 votes if i remember. I am not sure if the President can send a bill to the SC for a declaration on constitutionality like irish president can.

StringerBell

demfad wrote: »

Negating the need?

The need will be negated when the investigations are finished. The Senate is already preparing for a bill that will require a judicial review before removing the special prosecutor.

Trump may try, but he will not survive any removal of Mueller under any circumstances.

And leaving Mueller there means he doesn't survive anyway.

Oh sweet summer child, if we have learned nothing else from this last 18 months its that teflon Don has incredible powers of surviving. The Republicans will be "concerned" they will be "disappointed" but from what we have seen they will also be happy to continue about their business until they start losing seats en masse

InTheTrees

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Doesn't the POTUS have the same role as the Irish precedent in not signing stuff they believe to be unconstitutional?

He does know he can veto right?

There's a threshold beyond which he cant veto it. And it was passed 96-2(?) so he cant do anything.

And even if he hadn't signed it, I think it becomes law after ten days anyway.

InTheTrees

Really Interested wrote: »

I am not sure if the President can send a bill to the SC for a declaration on constitutionality like irish president can.

I'm not sure about that. I dont think so, but i'm no expert. I think it takes some kind of challenge after its law to cause it to be reviewed by the SC.

And I think this sanctions bill is just an extension of the already existing sanctions bill so if it had some unconstitutional elements to it then you would expect them to have been challenged before now.

ECO_Mental

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/donald-trump-wsj-interview/index.html

Here is a summary of the "interview" with the New York Times all it is really the ramblings of a man with mental issues. He cannot string a sentence together and doesn't have a grip on reality and whats actually happened and what he thinks happened.

Best one is all the farmers where hugging and kissing him because of the "cattle thing" he doesn't even know what the cattle thing is him self or when if there is a cattle thing..

aloyisious

WH press briefing [Miller?] live on Fox News channel: we are changing immigration policy to protect the high paid american workers jobs, to prevent unskilled workers from coming in and taking US jobs at cheaper pay rate. to limit family-based migration, members will be limited to immediate members. They must speak english. We must have compassion for american workers.... incl the african-american workers.

Now I thought a federal court had ruled a few days ago that family members must extend to grandparents and cousins, and that other courts had ruled the english-language stipulation was a NO NO.

He's putting a lot of hypo's to the reporters and got one question back from the floor asking about Mar-a-Lago and Don hiring foreign workers there...

jooksavage

That grudging statement that went along with the sanctions bill was seriously mealy mouthed crap. Instead of enthusiastically signing it and using it as a way of demonstrating his indendence to Russia in front of the American people, he makes a show of signing it reluctantly for the benefit of one particular Russian and only ends up looking weak in front of everyone.

StringerBell

Press conference was fun, Miller was awful of course and incredibly cringey when expressing his faux outrage at one of the questions put to him, SHS is much better at this job then her predecessor, but she does not have an ounce of integrity or much class going by how she carries herself and answers or sometimes doesn't answer the questions.

My favourtie question, do you think its ever appropriate to lie from the podium Sarah?
No yada yada never appropriate to lie blah blah


And with a straight face too!

Billy86

Trump reaching a new low of 33% approval vs 61% disapproval (-28%) - http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/president-trump-approval-rating-historic-new-low-poll . According to a quick look at Wikipedia, just another 3% and he only has Nixon, Bush and Truman at the end of their tenures ahead of him, he's already only got them ahead of him in terms of disapproval.

He has also dipped -again- on the glorified Republican propaganda Rasmussen poll to 38% approval and -25% total.

Republicans in Congress are starting to make more and more noise against him, and with elections in a little over a year this is only going to get worse. Come Halloween expect the ship to have been totally jumped by them in an effort to save themselves. Another amazing Trump achievement in only a little over six months.

red ears

I think the Raise Act is a very important piece of legislation for the future of America. Hopefully it goes through and we in Europe follow suit.

It is a merit based immigration system. Its a competitive application process that will favor applicants who can speak English, financially support themselves and their families, and demonstrate skills that will contribute to the American economy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTD-wo7__dY

aloyisious

StringerBell wrote: »

Press conference was fun, Miller was awful of course and incredibly cringey when expressing his faux outrage at one of the questions put to him, SHS is much better at this job then her predecessor, but she does not have an ounce of integrity or much class going by how she carries herself and answers or sometimes doesn't answer the questions.

My favourtie question, do you think its ever appropriate to lie from the podium Sarah?
No yada yada never appropriate to lie blah blah


And with a straight face too!

Miller and the "you must think english is only spoken in Australia and Britain" & "how despicable of you" response to the reporter shows they've decided to attack the reporters, plus the novel way of running a briefing by inventing hypothetical situations and asking questions from the podium instead of answering questions from the floor. Attack and avoid being caught out lying to protect a self-deceiving boss. The irony is the exchange was in english.

rossie1977

jooksavage wrote: »

That grudging statement that went along with the sanctions bill was seriously mealy mouthed crap. Instead of enthusiastically signing it and using it as a way of demonstrating his indendence to Russia in front of the American people, he makes a show of signing it reluctantly for the benefit of one particular Russian and only ends up looking weak in front of everyone.

His statement makes no sense either. He claims that provisions are unconstitutional but still signed it. If he really believed it was unconstitutional he shouldn't under any circumstances have signed it given the responsibility of the president is to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the US.

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

Trump reaching a new low of 33% approval vs 61% disapproval (-28%) - http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/president-trump-approval-rating-historic-new-low-poll . According to a quick look at Wikipedia, just another 3% and he only has Nixon, Bush and Truman at the end of their tenures ahead of him, he's already only got them ahead of him in terms of disapproval.

He has also dipped -again- on the glorified Republican propaganda Rasmussen poll to 38% approval and -25% total.

Republicans in Congress are starting to make more and more noise against him, and with elections in a little over a year this is only going to get worse. Come Halloween expect the ship to have been totally jumped by them in an effort to save themselves. Another amazing Trump achievement in only a little over six months.

How could he be -25% on? If 38% approve even if the rest disapprove it'd be 62-38 which is only -24%. Fake news. :pac:

Igotadose

InTheTrees wrote: »

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Doesn't the POTUS have the same role as the Irish precedent in not signing stuff they believe to be unconstitutional?

He does know he can veto right?

There's a threshold beyond which he cant veto it. And it was passed 96-2(?) so he cant do anything.

And even if he hadn't signed it, I think it becomes law after ten days anyway.

No, he can veto whatever. He can pocket veto by just letting the bill languish.

It's then up to the House to overturn the veto (afaik - away from decent computing while on this trip so the preceding is from memory.) Nothing stops a Prez from veto even if he knows it's likely to be overturned. That is a rare thing, remember the Obama/"Sue the Saudis" bill that Obama vetoed and was overturned? It was (again I am trying to remember here) one of the few, if any bills that was vetoed and overturned.

Igotadose

Sorry if this looks confused. The 'edit' thing looks like it's retype. Anyway, I got on a faster computer:
2/3 votes of both houses to override a veto. Prez can veto whatever - this is why Obama kept vetoing the tGOP ACA repeals they passed every few weeks for 8 years. The tGOP never had enough seats to override the veto. The only Obama veto I can recall being overridden, was the Sue the Saudis law he didn't want passed that's now being used to sue the US.

So, the POTUS could easily veto the sanctions bill, had he the desire to do so.

Christy42

I have never understood the Republican desire to limit immigration. I mean they try and say that people should be able to stand on their own two feet without the aid of the government and yet also claim they are inable to compete for a job against foreigners. Incredibly anti competition and anti free market really.

As for the method I would it done on humanitarian grounds. If they wanted to do it fairer then that is ok but they are simply changing the rules to limit the numbers as opposed to anything else. The merit based systen is the red herring. It is designed to let fewer people not simply more people who can succeed as the merit based system suggests.

However if it ends up not simply being a way to limit immigration than there are benefits to ensuring you don't turn away those who can succeed in the US. Maybe even helping some of them do it so I will reserve complete judgement on this.

I would like to see the numbers about the cost. I mean how much does it cost to quiz them all about their English. How much will it cost to check all the claims of higher degrees? Will it get past Congress (and be the closest thing to a win Trump has)? What level of English is required? I mean will they have to describe the meaning of covfefe?

Incidentally I am unsure if it is the white house chaos or health Bill failure but his approval rating is collapsing across the board. Even the slow to move aggregate has him at -20.5%

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Quin_Dub

Christy42 wrote: »

I have never understood the Republican desire to limit immigration.

Politically it's a very smart piece of legislation - Not saying I agree at all, but for an Administration looking for any sort of legislative win , it's very smart.

It ticks all the boxes for them. It plays to their base (not just Trumps) and if the Democrats block it they get to accuse them of being weak on Immigration/National Security and for not caring about "American Jobs" , again further feeding their base.

It of course ignores the utter irony of Trump hotels applying for special visas to bring in cheap foreign labour etc. but that will be ignored by the base as they won't see it - There's not a chance that information will appear on Fox et al.

Christy42

On another topic may I introduce the new lead scientist for the department of agriculture

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/02/donald-trump-sam-clovis-old-blog-progressives-obama

Who has referred to progressives as race traitors. What a pick from Trump. Where does he dig these guys up?

20Cent

Land of the free:


http://teamrock.com/news/2017-08-02/peter-the-test-tube-babies-singer-deported-for-mocking-trump


Peter & The Test Tube Babies singer Peter Bywaters was refused entry to the US late last week for dressing up as president Donald Trump during a tour of Germany in 2016.

He had planned to hook up with his bandmates at the Punk Invasion Festival in Santa Ana, Orange County, California on Saturday. But after landing in San Francisco, Bywaters was taken aside and interrogated for six hours by customs and border protection officers.

They confronted him with photos and videos of himself dressed as Trump from the band’s German Jinx 'Presidential' Tour last year – where the singer also spoke out against the president.

Following the ordeal, Bywaters had his phone and passport confiscated, was finger printed, DNA swabbed, photographed and forced to make a sworn statement before being escorted to his seat on the plane.

He was denied alcohol on the 11-hour flight back to London after being told that it was United Airlines policy to refuse alcohol to deportees. Once he landed back in the UK, his phone and passport were returned.

Really Interested

rossie1977 wrote: »

His statement makes no sense either. He claims that provisions are unconstitutional but still signed it. If he really believed it was unconstitutional he shouldn't under any circumstances have signed it given the responsibility of the president is to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the US.

I am not sure he has the power to do so. If he does that sign it as Congress is still sitting then it just goes back to congress as if he had vetoed it, then comes back veto proof as it originally passed with 96 votes it is veto proof. I am open to correction but unlike the Irish President who can send a bill to Supreme Court I do not think the US president can do the same. Of course if it is unconstitutional nothing stopping a person seeking the determination from the COurts, but as I said I am unsure if the president can do so.

LeinsterDub

Really Interested wrote: »

I am not sure he has the power to do so. If he does that sign it as Congress is still sitting then it just goes back to congress as if he had vetoed it, then comes back veto proof as it originally passed with 96 votes it is veto proof. I am open to correction but unlike the Irish President who can send a bill to Supreme Court I do not think the US president can do the same. Of course if it is unconstitutional nothing stopping a person seeking the determination from the COurts, but as I said I am unsure if the president can do so.

At least he'd be making a statement out the unconstitutionality of it and Congress would be approving it. He could also files a case against it when approved.

Really Interested

LeinsterDub wrote: »

At least he'd be making a statement out the unconstitutionality of it and Congress would be approving it. He could also files a case against it when approved.

I am not a constitutional USA lawyer but can the president sue himself after he signs the bill into law?

Quin_Dub

Trumps reaction to the statement from Medvedev should be interesting to say the least..

The U.S. establishment fully outwitted Trump; the President is not happy about the new sanctions, yet he could not but sign the bill. The issue of new sanctions came about, primarily, as another way to knock Trump down a peg. New steps are to come, and they will ultimately aim to remove him from power.

And this one..

The Trump administration has shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way

LeinsterDub

Really Interested wrote: »

I am not a constitutional USA lawyer but can the president sue himself after he signs the bill into law?

This veto can be overridden only by a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House. If this occurs, the bill becomes law over the President's objections

https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Vetoes_vrd.htm

Either am I but it would appear no signature is required and he'd be effectively sueing congress / challenging the constitutionality of it

Really Interested

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Vetoes_vrd.htm

Either am I but it would appear no signature is required and he'd be effectively sueing congress / challenging the constitutionality of it

The link does not say he can sue. In any event he has signed so I do not know if he can sue as he would in effect be a case of Trump v Trump.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/08/trump_says_the_russia_sanctions_bill_is_unconstitutional_he_s_mostly_right.html

Interesting article which says Trump may be correct on at least two issues. The main issue is that Trump is so weak he is allowing Congress to do serious damage to the Office of President. It does not matter if you pro Trump or Anti this shows how putting a muppet in the office can cause serious long term damage.

circadian

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/boy-scouts-dispute-trumps-claim-about-call-praising-speech/

I wonder if this is a sign of Kelly reigning things in.

Leroy42

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Trumps reaction to the statement from Medvedev should be interesting to say the least..



And this one..

I wouldn't hold your breath. They still haven't said anything about Putin kicking out 755 diplomats and seizing property in Moscow.

Can you imagine if Obama had simply taken it and said nothing, or HC? The GOP would be going mad. SHS was asked again yesterday about it, after being asked about it on Monday, and all she said was they had nothing to say.

So message from US is that Putin can do whatever he likes as Trump doesn't care too much. And then he attacks the sanctions bill drawn up by the houses!

Billy86

Trump knows who his owner is, so he'll keep his mouth shut like a good boy.

Quin_Dub

Leroy42 wrote: »

I wouldn't hold your breath. They still haven't said anything about Putin kicking out 755 diplomats and seizing property in Moscow.

Can you imagine if Obama had simply taken it and said nothing, or HC? The GOP would be going mad. SHS was asked again yesterday about it, after being asked about it on Monday, and all she said was they had nothing to say.

So message from US is that Putin can do whatever he likes as Trump doesn't care too much. And then he attacks the sanctions bill drawn up by the houses!

Response to that would be a political , Medvedev's comments are a direct personal attack on Trump.

Whilst there may not be any official statements , which as you point further compounds the political weakness , I cannot imagine he'll be able to simply ignore those digs and I suspect that we may have some collateral damage today as he seethes over being called out by Medvedev.

Expect a barrage of tweets this morning attacking Congress/Senate for something or other.

Christy42

circadian wrote: »

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/boy-scouts-dispute-trumps-claim-about-call-praising-speech/

I wonder if this is a sign of Kelly reigning things in.

Wonder how long he will last calling Trump a liar. I mean he is correct and it is the right thing to do so fair played to him but not sure that will be good for his career.

LeinsterDub

Really Interested wrote: »

The link does not say he can sue.

Congress sued the President I don't see why the opposite can't apply but as you say neither of us are lawyers and he'd signed so its moot.

Leroy42

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Response to that would be a political , Medvedev's comments are a direct personal attack on Trump.

Whilst there may not be any official statements , which as you point further compounds the political weakness , I cannot imagine he'll be able to simply ignore those digs and I suspect that we may have some collateral damage today as he seethes over being called out by Medvedev.

Expect a barrage of tweets this morning attacking Congress/Senate for something or other.

If the collusion allegations are true, then Russia really have played a blinder.

Even if HC had won, they had created such a fuss around her that her time in office would be one marked with constant fighting with the GOP and the houses.

That Trump won, well, now they have perfection. They can push him around at will, it would appear, and he can't really say much in response least they decide to 'leak' some stories on him.

And at the moment, given his apparent reluctance to impose sanctions (this was a GOP lead bill that was supported by the Dems so he is railing against his own party!) it seems the most obvious reason for his behaviour

Really Interested

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Congress sued the President I don't see why the opposite can't apply but as you say neither of us are lawyers and he'd signed so its moot.

But the President signed the bill. What ever about the possibility of him suing if they had invoked the Veto as the person who signs the bill he would have to possibly sue himself. The sad thing he has been outplayed and reduced the power of the Office.

Akrasia

Really Interested wrote: »

But the President signed the bill. What ever about the possibility of him suing if they had invoked the Veto as the person who signs the bill he would have to possibly sue himself. The sad thing he has been outplayed and reduced the power of the Office.

Yeah, he's screwed himself. He is the executive branch, he is the only person who has standing to challenge the parts of the bill that remove authority from the executive branch to revoke sanctions, but by signing the bill, he has taken ownership over it. His only option would be to argue that he signed under duress but that would be ridiculous. (and hilarious if he tried to do it)

Trump should have not signed the bill, or signed it and said he signed it willingly to show the Russians that they can't meddle in US elections. At least that wouldn't have made him look like a russian stooge. By signing it and saying he thinks it's an unconstitutional bill that he doesn't agree with, he has shown that he is weak and stupid and has no idea what's going on.

Leroy42

Well, he used the excuse of 'National Unity'. in other words he is taking one for the team on this.

For such an amazing deal maker, he sure struggles to get any deals that he actually likes

everlast75

One of the unofficial advisors to POTUS comes out swinging in his defence..

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/337905-hannity-calls-on-mueller-rosenstein-to-resign

"Conservative talk show host Sean Hannity responded to a bombshell report claiming President Trump is under investigation for obstruction of justice on Wednesday and called on special counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to resign Wednesday.

“Mueller and Rod Rosenstein? Recuse themselves, resign immediately,” Hannity said on Fox News.

The conservative firebrand cited Mueller’s conflicts of interest with ousted FBI Director James Comey as reason for him to resign.

“Robert Mueller, this guy has more conflicts of interest than, by the way, that we can count on this show, which are also violations of federal law,” he continued.
“Mueller and Comey have been close friends for a long time. Comey admitted he leaked the memo to The New York Times, to the press, hoping it would bring about a special counsel which, by the way, turned out to be his best buddy, his BFF Robert Mueller.”

Hannity’s comments come as The Washington Post reported on Wednesday Mueller, who was tapped to lead the probe into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, is investigating whether the president obstructed justice.

The Fox News star dismissed the Post’s report, saying the newspaper is “once again citing anonymous sources as if they haven’t been wrong enough recently.”

Mueller was brought on to lead the probe into Russian election meddling after Trump fired Comey in May. The former FBI director testified last week that the president had asked him to let go of the FBI probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn."



So there ya go - Mueller is a criminal!

VinLieger

everlast75 wrote: »

One of the unofficial advisors to POTUS comes out swinging in his defence..

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/337905-hannity-calls-on-mueller-rosenstein-to-resign

"Conservative talk show host Sean Hannity responded to a bombshell report claiming President Trump is under investigation for obstruction of justice on Wednesday and called on special counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to resign Wednesday.

“Mueller and Rod Rosenstein? Recuse themselves, resign immediately,” Hannity said on Fox News.

The conservative firebrand cited Mueller’s conflicts of interest with ousted FBI Director James Comey as reason for him to resign.

“Robert Mueller, this guy has more conflicts of interest than, by the way, that we can count on this show, which are also violations of federal law,” he continued.
“Mueller and Comey have been close friends for a long time. Comey admitted he leaked the memo to The New York Times, to the press, hoping it would bring about a special counsel which, by the way, turned out to be his best buddy, his BFF Robert Mueller.”

Hannity’s comments come as The Washington Post reported on Wednesday Mueller, who was tapped to lead the probe into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, is investigating whether the president obstructed justice.

The Fox News star dismissed the Post’s report, saying the newspaper is “once again citing anonymous sources as if they haven’t been wrong enough recently.”

Mueller was brought on to lead the probe into Russian election meddling after Trump fired Comey in May. The former FBI director testified last week that the president had asked him to let go of the FBI probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn."



So there ya go - Mueller is a criminal!

Hannity is bricking it cus he's right at the center of the seth rich case.

Deflect is the name of the game at fox now more than ever

demfad

The Kremlin and Trump are again echoing eachothers sentiments on the sanctions Bill. Both essentially attack the congress, accusing it of diminishing the presidents power.

Medvedev's comments put the development as a step towards the president's removal by the establishment. Medvedev also mentions the Business community suffering.

https://www.facebook.com/Dmitry.Medvedev/posts/10154587161801851

Third, the Trump administration has shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way. This changes the power balance in US political circles.
What does it mean for them? The US establishment fully outwitted Trump; the President is not happy about the new sanctions, yet he could not but sign the bill. The issue of new sanctions came about, primarily, as another way to knock Trump down a peg. New steps are to come, and they will ultimately aim to remove him from power. A non-systemic player has to be removed. Meanwhile, the interests of the US business community are all but ignored, with politics chosen over a pragmatic approach.


Trump's statement is on the same page. Below is the classic authoritarian stance that any limits to the leaders power and authority is damaging for the country and people.

"Congress could not even negotiate a healthcare bill after seven years of talking, By limiting the Executive’s flexibility, this bill makes it harder for the United States to strike good deals for the American people, and will drive China, Russia, and North Korea much closer together.
The Framers of our Constitution put foreign affairs in the hands of the President. This bill will prove the wisdom of that choice."

I built a truly great company worth many billions of dollars. That is a big part of the reason I was elected. As President, I can make far better deals with foreign countries than Congress.

Avove, he reiterates why he was elected. This is largely true. With people like the former head of British intelligence stating that Trump has been financed by Russia since his Casino's failed: We can now be sure that the real kompromat on Trump is not a pee-pee tape. It is proof that the Russians have of his financial vulnerability and business failures requiring bailouts from foreigners having totally failed in the US.


It represents the will of the American people to see Russia take steps to improve relations with the United States, we hope there will be cooperation between our two countries on major global issues so that these sanctions will no longer be necessary.

And here Trump leaves it open that sanctions could be dropped with cooperation. This was his existing 'position'.

Since healthcare was defeated Trump's narrative towards the congress has been accelerated and revealed:

Congress (the establishment) are hamstringing this great president from doing great deals for the American people. They are cheating the people by making their champion impotent. It is in Americas interest that Trump has more power and authority. And the message is choreographed with Russia, who add a little antagonism to rile Trump. The Russian bots on twitter are out in Force apparently. This is the new message for his base. He is preparing them for and pre-justifying a power grab/coup.

EDIT: From this it can be seen that the revelations that will hurt Trump most with his base are financial: the ones that shatter the great businessman myth.

LeinsterDub

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uak9Y1v4S7E

Interesting video from Lawrence O'Donnell pondering if trump is mentally incapable of being in charge. His Russian example is very apt.

everlast75

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uak9Y1v4S7E

Interesting video from Lawrence O'Donnell pondering if trump is mentally incapable being in charge. His Russian example is very apt.

That, or he is and always full of bullshít. In order to consider if he is mentally incapable due to age (which is what they are saying) I would need to see a progression down that road. Old footage showing him to be sharp and then later, over time, that not being apparent anymore. Just my two cents.

Anyhoo - MSNBC have dirtied their bib too much when it comes to Trump. I can't take them too seriously anymore

Leroy42

No doubt MSNBC have a bias but O'Donnells review of what he said about Mueller is, IMO, pretty much on the ball.

My own opinion is that Trump isn't incoherent due to mental issues, but rather than he is not used to having to weigh his words. I would imagine that he is used to being able to say whatever he likes, and the people around him either agree, put up with it, or get out.

Look at any of his depositions etc. It seems he looks at legal documents with a case of "wel, I signed it but so what, that was then" sort of thing. What he said yesterday, well things change.

Except in politics. What you said yesterday is compared to what you say today and they look for cracks in the story. That is why he starts off seemingly in one direction and then stops himself before babbling a bit and then finally just stopping. The start is what he is actually thinking. Then he cops that he shouldn't say that and tries to change course but he struggles to think quickly enough so end up with a few meaningless words.

Asked about if Muellers job is safe, his answer is

"No". Pretty clear, but then he changes to say "we're going to see", he can't bring himself to say yes, although he knows that the 'correct' answer to give but he doesn't believe it.
Then he goes onto say "I mean, I have no comment yet", despite the fat that he has just given a comment on it. "Its too early". Its too early to say if you are going to fire a guy? Either you have thought about it or you haven't. Finally he says "We are going to see". Back to we, he is try to distance himself from it and then says they are actively looking into it.

The guy may be con man, but he is a very poor liar. He is used to getting people on board with his personality, he isn't a details guy. I would say that he very rarely is quizzed too deeply but now he knows that anything he says will be reviewed, dissected and commented on and he is not very good at it.

Look at any of his speeches. He constantly looks behind him as if to see if people agree with him. When he makes a point he either finishes with "Believe me" or he will look around and ask "Right, Right?" He is seeking the approval of those around him.

oscarBravo

Leroy42 wrote: »

My own opinion is that Trump isn't incoherent due to mental issues, but rather than he is not used to having to weigh his words. I would imagine that he is used to being able to say whatever he likes, and the people around him either agree, put up with it, or get out.

I reckon it's both. All of what you said, and he's insane.