Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Mumha

derb12 wrote: »

Really? That seems like pretty trivial grounds for approval of a raid on a lawyers offices (highly unusual) and the presidents attorney at that (unheard of).
I guess we won't know for another while yet but I assume there must have been something relating to manaforts conspiracy charges or money laundering.
I would think as well that mueller must be considering how justice can be served if he is shut down, so he is separating some tangential aspects of the investigation into state level law enforcement resources (not pardonable by trump).

I did say it was part of the reason for the raid, not the only reason.

The significance is that Cohen may have paid people off to bury the tape, which would be another campaign violation. So not so trivial. If they can get Cohen on a number of criminal violations, they will attempt to flip him, and as the fixer for Trump, that would be massive.

Water John

Great to see Kate Bolduan back on State of America. Very quirky take on things.

Pelvis

Lest we forget Podesta's emails were leaked by wikileaks within 30 minutes of the Hollywood access tape being made public.

Could be big if they could tie the trump campaign to that leak.

everlast75

Trump sent a tweet urging people to watch Hannity tonight at 9.

On that show diGenova urged Sessions to fire RR and calls Comey a "dirty cop".

Politically it would be safer for DJT to fire RR as opposed to Comey so the groundwork is being done by Fox for him

Peregrinus

everlast75 wrote: »

Trump sent a tweet urging people to watch Hannity tonight at 9.

On that show diGenova urged Sessions to fire RR and calls Comey a "dirty cop".

Politically it would be safer for DJT to fire RR as opposed to Comey so the groundwork is being done by Fox for him

Trump can't fire Mueller directly; as matters stand, only Rosenstein can fire him (and he can only do that for good cause). So firing Rosenstein isn't an alternative to firing Mueller; it's a step in a plan to bring about the firing of Mueller. The idea would be that Rosenstein's replacement would fire Mueller.

But this can't be taken for granted. Rosenstein is Deputy Attorney General; if he's fired (or resigns, or dies, or whatever) federal law prescribes an "order of succession" of other officials who would act in his post until a replacement appointment was made. Those who would act include the Solicitor General, or failing him the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, or failing him the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, and so on down the food chain. It's not at all clear that any of these people would be willing to fire Mueller (for the same reason that Rosenstein is unwilling; there is no good cause). So Trump might have to fire a succession of officials before someone willing to fire Mueller was acting in Rosenstein's place. That's exactly what Richard Nixon had to do in order to get his Special Prosecutor fired, and in fact it's what he did, but the political cost was so high that support for his presidency never recovered. And we know how it ended for Nixon. Even Trump knows how it ended.

The alternative for Trump is not to rely on any Acting Deputy Attorney General to fire Mueller, but to rush through a the appointment of a new Deputy Attorney General. But that's not so easily done; the Deputy Attorney General is one of the appointments that has to be confirmed by the Senate, which takes time. More to the point, with John McCain out of action the Republicans only have a 50-49 position in the Senate; it only takes one Republican senator to find this strategy repulsive for it to fail. Plus, it's a racing certainty that in any confirmation hearings the nominee would be asked by at least one senator to give a commitment not to fire Mueller, or to commit to the view that he doesn't believe Mueller to be guilty of anything which would justify his firing, which would make it very difficult for him to fire Mueller after being confirmed.

If you believe all you read in the twittersphere - and you probably shouldn't - Trump has already decided on at least two occasions to bring about the firing of Mueller, and each time he has been dissuaded by his staff from following through, because of the difficulty of bringing it about, the enormous political cost involved, and the very real risk that the attempt would fail.

everlast75

I agree with most of what you say, except that DJT "thinks" he CAN fire Mueller (see SHS press conference" and this seems to be why Dems are trying to rush legislation though to protect Mueller) and secondly, people need to stop thinking that because something appears to be "political suicide" that DJT won't do it. Timer and time again he has proven that he will and there seems to be no ramifications.
Even if there are this time, ala Saturday night massacre, the alternative of doing nothing could be worse.
All options are on the table for him and he is unstable enough to do any one of them

Really Interested

notobtuse wrote: »

I’m no lawyer, but it seems very restrictive what investigators can and can’t use and how they can and can’t obtain information when raiding an attorney’s office.  I'd be interested in how the warrant was written and what the explanation is as to why the investigators couldn't get the information they were looking for by any other possible means.  NPR has a pretty good article on the subject.

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/10/601153729/does-fbi-raid-on-trump-lawyer-cohen-mean-attorney-client-privilege-is-dead

Yes a very interesting article but it does not deal with your original claim. The article dealers with for the most part lawyer client privilege.

Water John

there seems to be a body of opinion that some other agent was used alongside chlorine in the Syrian gas attack. If this is so, POTUS would be well advised to wait and try to get confirmation of this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/12/syria-attack-experts-check-signs-nerve-agent

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

I agree with most of what you say, except that DJT "thinks" he CAN fire Mueller

and here he is, saying it again minutes ago..

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984371491277099010

Professor Moriarty

everlast75 wrote: »

and here he is, saying it again minutes ago..

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984371491277099010

And now this latest twaddle:

Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job of ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our “Thank you America?”


Government by tweet. Wonder what the Senate, House, Pentagon, Kelly et al make of this.

aloyisious

Don has reportedly tweeted that he never said Syria would be attacked and maybe it will be or maybe it won't be. The tweet has more on it. Going back to the actual threat, I've heard three times since yesterday that the Russian ambassador to Lebanon made his we'll shoot down US missiles and maybe attack their source as well on Tuesday. I got to wondering if he was referring to the location responsible for the unidentified attack a few days ago, supposedly Israel. I'm not referring to the gas attack placed at the door of the Syrian Govt.

I'm also wondering if his threat was made before Don tweeted about his missiles coming to Syria as the braodcast was made on Tuesday. It's the different time zones that both were issued from that has me confused, which came first.....

Looking back at the history of Don using missiles on Syria, it was reported that mote than two thirds of that launch were shot down by/over Syria. That might have been covered by Don's mention of the new missiles being smarter.

Sean O'Rourke has specifically mentioned on his show, while talking to a UK MP, that the Russian threat to include an attack on the US launch site was that the ship would be sunk. Now I hadn't heard that mentioned before, just thought it coild be the logical outcome if the launch site would be attacked by Russia.

everlast75

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

And now this latest twaddle:

Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job of ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our “Thank you America?"

this guy's constant need for affirmation and praise is truly a sign of someone who has huge insecurity issues.

pixelburp

We all have our different political outlooks - I daresay I'd disagree with a lot of others' own viewpoints were the subject to turn to subjects closer to home - but I'm genuinely baffled how the few Trump supporters around these parts can find solace and respect in such blatantly childish and insecure tweets (and these are considered official communications from the White House, let's not forget this - it's not just a personal account).

"... Could be very soon or not so soon at all! ...", "If I wanted to fire him ... I would have fired him...", I mean ... holy god. That's literally playground rhetoric. Even if I could park all the conduct he has made in his personal life, or even his flakey business affairs, I could never support a political leader who talks like a spoilt brat of a child and is in such constant need of approval or sycophantic praise.

Professor Moriarty

pixelburp wrote: »

We all have our different political outlooks - I daresay I'd disagree with a lot of others' own viewpoints were the subject to turn to subjects closer to home - but I'm genuinely baffled how the few Trump supporters around these parts can find solace and respect in such blatantly childish and insecure tweets (and these are considered official communications from the White House, let's not forget this - it's not just a personal account).

"... Could be very soon or not so soon at all! ...", I mean ... holy god. That's literally playground rhetoric. Even if I could park all the conduct he has made in his personal life, or even his flakey business affairs, I could never support a political leader who talks like a spoilt brat of a child and is in such constant need of approval or sycophantic praise.

I suspect that there are backchannels between the US and various other countries (including Russia) and that it is implicitly agreed that his tweets should be given lip service only and not taken seriously. Ditto the man himself.

aloyisious

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I suspect that there are backchannels between the US and various other countries (including Russia) and that it is implicitly agreed that his tweets should be given lip service only and not taken seriously. Ditto the man himself.

Kind'a been thinking that way myself, a new handbook to diplomacy on how to interpret his tweets. I reckon his actual lack of action backing up his tweeted threats is down to his staff holding him back, letting him know he has no power to do some of the things he tweeted. That would account for his high turn-over in staff, there's only so much of him they can stand before burn-out.

demfad

derb12 wrote: »

Really? That seems like pretty trivial grounds for approval of a raid on a lawyers offices (highly unusual) and the presidents attorney at that (unheard of).
I guess we won't know for another while yet but I assume there must have been something relating to manaforts conspiracy charges or money laundering.
I would think as well that mueller must be considering how justice can be served if he is shut down, so he is separating some tangential aspects of the investigation into state level law enforcement resources (not pardonable by trump).

Not really. The choice of a raid rather than a subpoena must be based on the fear that Cohen would destroy such evidence if subpoenaed.

It is not easy to get such a search order and you have to go cross many legal hurdles to do so.

We can infer that there may be evidence in Cohen's possession (his house etc. was raided also) that makes him ethically or criminally liable.

The access hollywood stuff may be relevent for two reasons:

Russia related: Wikileaks dumped tranche of Clinton emails 30 minutes after the access holywood tape was released by WAPO. Did Cohen arrange this?

Media related: NBC had this story since the very start of the Republican primaries. It was leaked urgently to Wapo on the day it broke. Same day as story of Russian interference officially broke. Possibly leaked by Trump campaign as the optimum time for damage limitation.
Again Cohen may have evidence of illegal activity around this.

everlast75

demfad wrote: »

Not really. The choice of a raid rather than a subpoena must be based on the fear that Cohen would destroy such evidence if subpoenaed.

It is not easy to get such a search order and you have to go cross many legal hurdles to do so.

We can infer that there may be evidence in Cohen's possession (his house etc. was raided also) that makes him ethically or criminally liable.

The access hollywood stuff may be relevent for two reasons:

Russia related: Wikileaks dumped tranche of Clinton emails 30 minutes after the access holywood tape was released by WAPO. Did Cohen arrange this?

Media related: NBC had this story since the very start of the Republican primaries. It was leaked urgently to Wapo on the day it broke. Same day as story of Russian interference officially broke. Possibly leaked by Trump campaign as the optimum time for damage limitation.
Again Cohen may have evidence of illegal activity around this.

This.

Preet Bahara (previously US Attorney for SDNY) opined that in order to get such a warrant, there is a high probability that the evidence used to get that warrant would be enough to arrest him as is, and that's without the possible further incriminating material that might be found.

Anything found that is not within the remit of the warrant, but may be evidence of further crimes can and will be passed along to the relevant authorities.

For the record, from the way things currently stand, I believe Trump will ask for RR to recuse himself on the grounds that he is overseeing the Russia investigation and that he may be a possible witness, and if he refuses he will fire him.

Leroy42

So Trump tells everyone yesterday for Russia to get ready because the 'smart' missiles are coming.

Then today he claims he never said they were or weren't. As I said in a post yesterday, he had yet again, backed himself into a corner.

He was faced with firing the missiles and possible having them shot down by Russia, or even worse the ****s that fired them attacked, firing them and Russia doing nothing, or not firing them.

It seems as if, yet again, Trump has backed down. Like he did on the border wall with Mexico paying, like he did with making China a currency manipulator, like he did the last time NK tested a missile.

Now, I for one am glad if he is listening and taking a more considered approach and he may yet fire some missiles, but one must compare the language he is using today with the language he was using on Monday. Calling out Russia, calling Assad a monster, telling Russia to get ready for the attack etc etc.

At what point do people simply ignore him? As mentioned above, the diplomats probably already do, the military certainly do.

How can anyone take him at all seriously?

MarinersBlues

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I suspect that there are backchannels between the US and various other countries (including Russia) and that it is implicitly agreed that his tweets should be given lip service only and not taken seriously. Ditto the man himself.

Do you think they Russians told the Americans this, or vice versa?

Professor Moriarty

MarinersBlues wrote: »

Do you think they Russians told the Americans this, or vice versa?

I'd say anyone on the planet with half a brain would know it instinctively. It's a self-evident truth.

Always wondered what others in power around the world must think when they wake up to yet another Trump Tweet. You can almost feel the earth move from the global eye rolling every time there is a new tweet

Mr.Micro

Deleted User wrote: »

Always wondered what others in power around the world must think when they wake up to yet another Trump Tweet. You can almost feel the earth move from the global eye rolling every time there is a new tweet

When are the Americans going to realize they have a dangerous, more than likely unhinged person as President? No doubt when it's too late.

everlast75

Mr.Micro wrote: »

When are the Americans going to realize they have a dangerous, more than likely unhinged person as President? No doubt when it's too late.

That thought went through my mind this morning.

He is actually insane. That's not hyperbole; he has severe mental issues which are not appropriate for the head of a business, never mind one of the most powerful in the world.

He is impulsive, impatient, immature, egotistical, bullish, arrogant and lives in his own little world. He could literally do anything and one might think "Hmm.. I'm not surprised".

For those following politics, you wonder going to bed at night what on earth he might say or do the next morning. That is an outrageous situation.

How the people who voted for him could not see that he was a snake oil salesman beggars belief.

If just one of the scandals currently surrounding him surrounded any other previous president that dominate the news. Unfortunately, we have become a little desensitised - probably due to the sheer amount of scandals and the continual lowering of the moral bar.

Mr.Micro

everlast75 wrote: »

That thought went through my mind this morning.

He is actually insane. That's not hyperbole; he has severe mental issues which are not appropriate for the head of a business, never mind one of the most powerful in the world.

He is impulsive, impatient, immature, egotistical, bullish, arrogant and lives in his own little world. He could literally do anything and one might think "Hmm.. I'm not surprised".

For those following politics, you wonder going to bed at night what on earth he might say or do the next morning. That is an outrageous situation.

How the people who voted for him could not see that he was a snake oil salesman beggars belief.

If just one of the scandals currently surrounding him surrounded any other previous president that dominate the news. Unfortunately, we have become a little desensitised - probably due to the sheer amount of scandals and the continual lowering of the moral bar.

That is the biggest worry, that he will lash out to deflect from himself, with no regard to right or wrong. He is embroiled in controversy and personal scandal even before he deals with the day to day job as POTUS. Something has to give and we are getting close.

Kiith

everlast75 wrote: »

How the people who voted for him could not see that he was a snake oil salesman beggars belief.

I've been curious for a while now just what it would take for his die hard base to stop supporting him. Cause it seems like he can say or do anything, and they will continue to swear by the man.

pixelburp

Honestly, I could see the appeal of Trump during the election, in a certain light: he & his mouthpieces managed to build a narrative that portrayed him as the outsider, the maverick business-man who Got Sh*t Done, and wasn't beholden to Washington (it can't be over-emphasised just how much distrust there is for the concept of 'Washington DC' in certain states; politicians have sewn that hatred for years now - and it works). Equally there's the persistent theory that business people are the ideal candidates to run countries: the lure of the private sector against the waste of the public; think of all the money he could make the nation; etc. etc.

Certainly when Hillary Clinton referred to Trump supporters as 'deplorables', it was the kind of own-goal the architects of the above narrative would never have imagined in their wildest dreams; it played perfectly into this myth. Here was Washington incarnate snubbing its nose at those suffering the most from America's slow decline.

Now, obviously the idea of a trust-fund real-estate billionaire from New York being the champion of the forgotten, rust-belt states was - and remains - the height of foolishness, but again I can see how his core supporters might cling to this idea of Trump swooping in, destroying all the evil liberals and lobby groups in Washington before reopening the steel plants & coal mines (let's ignore the reality of those mine owners generally being lobbyists themselves, not to mention awful employers in many cases).

It's the sunk cost fallacy in action: better to maintain said fallacy, than admit that you might have been conned into believing the blustering braggadocio of someone very far from being self-made - or as successful as he laboriously claims. Mind you, I've read more than a few accounts from Trump supporters, of reality sinking in and quietly conceding that maybe he wasn't the best choice and is doing more harm than good. The mid-terms will be the real litmus test there, and whether those with voters remorse will validate the presidency or kick against it.

Gbear

everlast75 wrote: »

How the people who voted for him could not see that he was a snake oil salesman beggars belief.

Many people are too petty-minded to understand the gravity of what that means.

They know what he's like. The problem is they don't care.
They don't have any empathetic understanding of what his antics can result in.

You can go one way or the other over matters of complicated economic or foreign policy, and while there's right and wrong answers, it's easy to see why people can go one way or the other.

However, there's a whole set of people for whom the whole notion is too complicated, and they dismiss its importance as a result, and instead, because of limited vision, can only apply their own experience to the role, so they give undue weight to ideas like "telling it as it is", or they support thumbing ones nose at political enemies or foreign leaders, even though it's ultimately pointless and self-defeating, because that's what they'd do.

It's bog-standard anti-intellectualism. "We're sick of experts". All that bollocks.
The idea that you'd rather piss in the pool out of spite for everyone else just because you can't swim.

everlast75

Well said.

Here is the front of Time magazine. Very clever...

https://twitter.com/axios/status/984422544974413835?s=19

Leroy42

Good post, and to further that I think that is why Ryan is going. I'm sure he does want to spend time with the kids (although bizarrely he also stated that the last thing his kids want!) but I think he has fought hard to get to the place where the GOP was in complete control. House, Senate and POTUS. He has dealt with a GOP POTUS with a DNC controlled house, and the 8 years of Obama and this was the holy grail.

And now he finds that rather than being perfect, he is faced with a POTUS that is totally off the wall and almost makes things more difficult. H Even if the GOP hands on to the majority in November, with Trump as POTUS nothing will be done. The more likely is that the DNC take over the house and then he loses even the semblance of power. Added with that, if things continue on, it is likely that the DNC will win back the POTUS at 2020. Why would he hang around for.

When even your own party cannot see an advantage in you being there it really is open time on the point of it all.

PopePalpatine

Kiith wrote: »

I've been curious for a while now just what it would take for his die hard base to stop supporting him. Cause it seems like he can say or do anything, and they will continue to swear by the man.

Something along the lines of watching the Supreme Neckbeard of Da'esh having sex with Melania.