Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

1124125127129130330

Comments

  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,831 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    jooksavage wrote: »
    Apparently Trump lost his s*** when he heard how many dipolmats were being expelled. "There were curse words. A lot of curse words" according to an official who witnessed the reaction.

    Definitely agree though i think that all this goes back to the when American banks wouldn't give him the time of day and he had to turn to, ahem, alternative sources of capital. Mueller just needs to "follow the money".

    As I saw it reported, he was told during meetings that "The European Countries are expelling 60" and he responded "we'll match them"..believing that each EU country was kicking out 60.

    Unfortunately for him , the Aide/Civil Servant meant "All of the EU together" were expelling 60 so when Trump saw that somewhere like Germany had only expelled 5 or 6 as part of the wider EU response he lost it as that meant that the US had by some margin expelled more than any other individual country..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,714 ✭✭✭amandstu


    jooksavage wrote: »
    Apparently Trump lost his s*** when he heard how many dipolmats were being expelled. "There were curse words. A lot of curse words" according to an official who witnessed the reaction.

    Definitely agree though i think that all this goes back to the when American banks wouldn't give him the time of day and he had to turn to, ahem, alternative sources of capital. Mueller just needs to "follow the money".
    That would be seriously funny.(laughing all the way to ......)


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    amandstu wrote: »
    notobtuse wrote: »
    I am not a fan of the bombing of Syria.  The US can’t be the world’s moral police.  Trump called Putin’s bluff to shoot down all missiles and gave him a black eye.  Putin will retaliate, no doubt... not with bombs, but with 1’s and 0’s in the form of cyber attacks, IMO.  But I think the UK, rather than the US, will be his primary target.

    He would need to be very careful,I would have thought. Very far from  expert but I would be very  surprised (and worried) if both the UK and the USA would not be able to defend themselves  -both reactively and proactively.

    He may also believe his own hype that his population really supports him.
    I think Putin does have the support of his people.  He’s made the country relevant again.  National pride is some strong stuff.  But Syria is probably the most important geopolitical region at the moment.  Iran appears to have goals of controlling Syria.  They already dominate Iraq since the US left.  And Iran is committed to destroying Israel.   The US is aligned with Israel and Russia with Syria.  Israel will not let themselves become virtually surrounded by Iranian influence.  I don’t see anything good coming out of the Middle East in the near future.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,216 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    notobtuse wrote: »
    The Tea party was issue-based in nature, promoted fiscal responsibility, limited government, and a stricter adherence to the US Constitution.

    And was entirely funded and organised by the Koch's so none of the above was really true or stuck to when any tea party members got into congress or the senate


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,216 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    As I saw it reported, he was told during meetings that "The European Countries are expelling 60" and he responded "we'll match them"..believing that each EU country was kicking out 60.

    Unfortunately for him , the Aide/Civil Servant meant "All of the EU together" were expelling 60 so when Trump saw that somewhere like Germany had only expelled 5 or 6 as part of the wider EU response he lost it as that meant that the US had by some margin expelled more than any other individual country..

    ****ing hilarious


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,714 ✭✭✭amandstu


    VinLieger wrote: »
    ****ing hilarious
    Reminds me of the time they sent up the Mars Climate Orbiter with metric measurements instead of imperial (or vice versa)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urcQAKKAAl0


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,532 ✭✭✭jooksavage


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I think Putin does have the support of his people.  He’s made the country relevant again.  National pride is some strong stuff.  

    If Putin was all that popular, prominent opponents would be able to run against him without being barred because of spurious convictions (Navalny) or winding up dead in the street (Nemtsov).

    I heard Timothy Snyder speak recently about Russia and the way Putins "politics of eternity" were creeping into the US: maintaining power by accommplishing nothing except blocking out alternatives, blaming all the countrys ills on outsiders and bombarding the population with contradictory information to the point where they become cynical enough to really believe that all politicians are equally corrupt.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,714 ✭✭✭amandstu


    jooksavage wrote: »
    If Putin was all that popular, prominent opponents would be able to run against him without being barred because of spurious convictions (Navalny) or winding up dead in the street (Nemtsov).

    I heard Timothy Snyder speak recently about Russia and the way Putins "politics of eternity" were creeping into the US: maintaining power by accommplishing nothing except blocking out alternatives, blaming all the countrys ills on outsiders and bombarding the population with contradictory information to the point where they become cynical enough to really believe that all politicians are equally corrupt.

    The dilemma I see is that ,if Putin went we could be looking at someone even worse.That is ,I seem to remember why he was given a wary welcome at the start.

    .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,193 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Really?  I was a member of the Tea Party for about 2 years.  I must have missed the memo that the Tea Party (d)evolved into the Freedom Caucus.  The Freedom Caucus was always sympathetic to the diminished Tea Party movement, but quite different. The Tea party was issue-based in nature, promoted fiscal responsibility, limited government, and a stricter adherence to the US Constitution.  The Freedom Caucus supports an open, accountable and limited government, supports the US Constitution and the rule of law, and adheres to policies that promote the liberty, safety and prosperity of all Americans.  But yes, the Freedom Caucus worries the establishment Republicans as the FC strives to move the GOP more to the right.


    How could you have been a member but not got the memo? I'd look into that if I were you. The Tea party was set up due to Obama, directly. His mortgage relief plan was the catalyst iirc

    Whats the difference between the Tea party ideology and the House Freedom one?

    Right Wing/Hard Right Christian Conservative. Nationalist Populism. Fiscal Conservative ideology shared by both groups too.

    Yes, since the Tea Party is more or less defunct at this point, most of its member caucus with the HFC or the Liberty Caucus. Not much difference between the Tea Party or the HFC at all.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,532 ✭✭✭jooksavage


    amandstu wrote: »
    The dilemma I see is that ,if Putin went we could be looking at someone even worse.That is ,I seem to remember why he was given a wary welcome at the start.

    .

    You could fill a library with the books and dissertations that have been written about the struggle at the heart of Russian politics between western-style democracy and eastern despotism. Functioning democracies, though, have risen from worse situations than contemporary Russia. The current system of a tiny ruling class of parasites is not any more sustainable than the Tsars court - the interference in foreign elections isn't idle mischief: the oligarchs and Putin are fighting for survival.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    I know for a fact that Putin is like a God in Russia, he has made Russia great again for want of a better term.  He is a very effective leader and any Russian I know only has good things to say about him and the country how it is now, except for Moscow traffic....
    They are very patriotic people who love their country and take great pride in it and the one thing that annoys them the most is that they are treated as the eternal bad guys, which they arent all the time, there is propaganda on both sides 
    You could argue that the US over the past 20 years have been much worse than any country and have brought about so many conflicts by their hand


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Really?  I was a member of the Tea Party for about 2 years.  I must have missed the memo that the Tea Party (d)evolved into the Freedom Caucus.  The Freedom Caucus was always sympathetic to the diminished Tea Party movement, but quite different. The Tea party was issue-based in nature, promoted fiscal responsibility, limited government, and a stricter adherence to the US Constitution.  The Freedom Caucus supports an open, accountable and limited government, supports the US Constitution and the rule of law, and adheres to policies that promote the liberty, safety and prosperity of all Americans.  But yes, the Freedom Caucus worries the establishment Republicans as the FC strives to move the GOP more to the right.


    How could you have been a member but not got the memo? I'd look into that if I were you. The Tea party was set up due to Obama, directly. His mortgage relief plan was the catalyst iirc

    Whats the difference between the Tea party ideology and the House Freedom one?

    Right Wing/Hard Right Christian Conservative. Nationalist Populism. Fiscal Conservative ideology shared by both groups too.

    Yes, since the Tea Party is more or less defunct at this point, most of its member caucus with the HFC or the Liberty Caucus. Not much difference between the Tea Party or the HFC at all.
    Actually, the Tea Party had its roots with GW Bush’s spending in regard to the financial crisis of 2008. But it did take off as a major force in reaction to Rick Santelli’s rant in response to President Obama's mortgage relief plan in 2009.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,071 ✭✭✭✭josip


    kilns wrote: »
    You could argue that the US over the past 20 years have been much worse than any country and have brought about so many conflicts by their hand

    You could, but that would be for another thread.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,930 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/986243741857058817?s=19

    the latest tweet by Avenatti. I'm not sure I grasp what he is saying here...


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,379 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    everlast75 wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/986243741857058817?s=19

    the latest tweet by Avenatti. I'm not sure I grasp what he is saying here...

    I think it means that if Cohen spoke to a third party in relation to legal matters that he discussed with Hannity then there is no Attorney-Client Privilege. And that Hannity hasn't denied this. But I'm not a lawyer!


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    The courts have continuously held that any communication with an attorney falls under the attorney-client privilege if the communication was intended to be confidential and made for the purpose of securing legal advice. And payment is not necessary.  The Supreme Court of the United States has held that payment is not required to create an attorney-client relationship in Alexander vs. United States.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,045 ✭✭✭Christy42


    It's all about the optics. In reality, The Donald doesn't give a crap about Mexicans coming and going across the border in California. Trump Tower is along way from San Diego.

    Indeed. You can easily see a stolen apple by an illegal immigrant in San Diego being used by Trump to claim there is an issue (same reason for his desire for a specific public list of crimes by illegal immigrants).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,710 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    The problem is that Trump has said he knew nothing of the Stormy deal and as such there can be no communication and Hannity has denied getting any legal advice so no confidentiality there either.

    Either Cohen is lying or his 'clients' are.

    Also priviledge does not cover any illegal act.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Also priviledge does not cover any illegal act.
    I believe this statement to be wrong.  Discussions of previous acts are generally subject to the attorney-client privilege. But if a client initiates a communication with a lawyer for the purpose of committing a crime in the future, the attorney-client privilege typically doesn’t apply.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,379 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I believe this statement to be wrong.  Discussions of previous acts are generally subject to the attorney-client privilege. But if a client initiates a communication with a lawyer for the purpose of committing a crime in the future, the attorney-client privilege typically doesn’t apply.

    Such as having a woman threatened with physical violence?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Mumha


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I believe this statement to be wrong.  Discussions of previous acts are generally subject to the attorney-client privilege. But if a client initiates a communication with a lawyer for the purpose of committing a crime in the future, the attorney-client privilege typically doesn’t apply.

    I don't believe that is incorrect. I was listening to a former DA earlier who said that a lot of mobsters would have a lawyer present, in the mistaken belief that it would later be covered by attorney-client privilege. Can you provide links where past, present or future matters ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,830 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    everlast75 wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/986243741857058817?s=19

    the latest tweet by Avenatti. I'm not sure I grasp what he is saying here...

    He might mean if Cohen mentioned to Don any legal issue conversation he has with Sean, or mentioned same to Sean in respect of Don, an error made [maybe via email, text or phone] as they were all cosy with each other.

    If there is sonething like that in the material seized by the FBI, it's possible that the judge would say to Cohen's lawyers [or whomever the judge has appointed] checking the seized material "No, you can't keep that from the FBI as your client [Cohen] disclosed it to a 3rd party breaking the client/lawyer bond, which is a two-party agreement"......


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I believe this statement to be wrong.  Discussions of previous acts are generally subject to the attorney-client privilege. But if a client initiates a communication with a lawyer for the purpose of committing a crime in the future, the attorney-client privilege typically doesn’t apply.

    Such as having a woman threatened with physical violence?
    Possibly.  Here’s the problem, as I see it, regarding attorney-client privilege in this matter.  I’ve had some legal dealings in New York.  Everything is political. Many judgments it seems go to those who contribute most to campaigns (and have been told as much by legal representation)... as many public legal positions are determined at the ballots.  Many are essentially political posts that rely on contributions to win and hold the positions.  Cohen asked Judge Wood to appoint a special master to parse through the documents recovered during the raid before investigators can take a peek. He said many of the documents are protected from disclosure because they fall under attorney-client privilege.  He knows even if some of what was confiscated IS determined to be attorney-client privilege, it will be leaked to the press, anyway, by investigators with political motives or future ambitions.  And the leakers will never be found out and prosecuted.  I would bet money that it will happen.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Mumha wrote: »
    notobtuse wrote: »
    I believe this statement to be wrong.  Discussions of previous acts are generally subject to the attorney-client privilege. But if a client initiates a communication with a lawyer for the purpose of committing a crime in the future, the attorney-client privilege typically doesn’t apply.

    I don't believe that is incorrect. I was listening to a former DA earlier who said that a lot of mobsters would have a lawyer present, in the mistaken belief that it would later be covered by attorney-client privilege. Can you provide links where past, present or future matters ?
    Don't know if it is exactly what you are looking for, but it does explain what I was trying to get across.
    https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/sean-hannity-protected-attorney-client-privilege-michael-cohen/

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,831 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I believe this statement to be wrong.  Discussions of previous acts are generally subject to the attorney-client privilege. But if a client initiates a communication with a lawyer for the purpose of committing a crime in the future, the attorney-client privilege typically doesn’t apply.

    I heard it described like this , You can tell your lawyer that you murdered someone but you can't ask them to help you hide the body.

    In short ,

    Discussion of past crimes - Covered by Attorney/Client Privilege .

    Discussion of future crimes or requests for assistance in committing said crimes - Not covered..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭BabyCheeses


    Blowfish wrote: »
    The more this go on, the more I get the feeling that it's not actually Putin, at least not directly, that he's in thrall to. He seemed ok with kicking diplomats out and bombing Syria, both which affect the Russian nation directly. The main part that he ends up wriggling out of is the imposing of sanctions, which is targeted not at Russia as a nation, but directly at the oligarchs. Some went through in April, but on at least 2 other occasions he hasn't implemented them.

    If I had an alternative career as an investigative journalist, I'd be looking at the powerful in Russia to try to find specifically who Trump is avoiding hitting with sanctions as that's who most likely has the dirt on him.

    Someone already mentioned that Trump was mad about the number of diplomats kicked out and now Israeli intelligence is saying that the Syria strike was mostly for show and was ineffective.

    For whatever reason, Trump is uncharacteristically worried about displeasing Russia.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,640 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    So the legal process in NY, is already being set up to be vilified. Thanks Notobuse.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Water John wrote: »
    So the legal process in NY, is already being set up to be vilified. Thanks Notobuse.
    Just my experience with the NY court system.

    https://nypost.com/2017/06/07/how-the-politically-connected-control-the-new-york-court-system/

    In my opinion, in this case, Judge Wood is highly qualified and highly respected.  I just feel she is playing dumb to what will most probably happen because of the political system that seems to control the NY courts... and that controlling political system is the Democrats.  Just a fair fight is all Cohen is asking for... and seemingly won't get it, IMO.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,930 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Just my experience with the NY court system.

    https://nypost.com/2017/06/07/how-the-politically-connected-control-the-new-york-court-system/

    In my opinion, in this case, Judge Wood is highly qualified and highly respected.  I just feel she is playing dumb to what will most probably happen because of the political system that seems to control the NY courts... and that controlling political system is the Democrats.  Just a fair fight is all Cohen is asking for... and seemingly won't get it, IMO.

    Always someone else's fault.. never Trump.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    everlast75 wrote: »
    notobtuse wrote: »
    Just my experience with the NY court system.

    https://nypost.com/2017/06/07/how-the-politically-connected-control-the-new-york-court-system/

    In my opinion, in this case, Judge Wood is highly qualified and highly respected.  I just feel she is playing dumb to what will most probably happen because of the political system that seems to control the NY courts... and that controlling political system is the Democrats.  Just a fair fight is all Cohen is asking for... and seemingly won't get it, IMO.

    Always someone else's fault.. never Trump.
    Personally, I don't think it's too much to ask for not to be forced to walk through a minefield.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement