Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Water John

So you disagree with other Beirbart headlines, calling him Amnesty Don?

Noel82

Water John wrote: »

So you disagree with other Beirbart headlines, calling him Amnesty Don?

If they throw out the bad ones and give the ones a chance who have contributed a chance I'm honestly fine with that. A period of 10-12 years to showcase your worth is a long time.

I do think it's unfair on those who spent a lot and immigrated legally or residents who feel they've been burned badly due to illegal immigration, whether that's crime or job opportunities, but he can't just throw out millions of people overnight.

Get rid of the bad ones and evaluate the others after a long period of time on whether or not to grant them citizenship. His demands in exchange for amnesty should help prevent this problem happening again.

Water John

Breaking: Trump ordered McGahn to fire Mueller in June 2017, but backed down as McGahn threatened to quit.

aloyisious

NYT has a story that Don ordered his W/House counsel, Don McGahn to fire Rob Mueller lst June but that McGahn told him he would resign from the w/House before he would do it. It seem's that Don McGahn might know a lot of what went on in the house, reportedly including that the last AG went to him about Gen Flynn 18 days before Flynn was fired. I can't see McGahn being able to reveal what he heard from Don, seeing as he's his legal counsel. It's be interesting to know if McGahn was able legally advise others in the W/house without ompromising himsel, if he is actually Don Trump's lawyer.

I'm wondering who the W/house lawyer is who gave Steve Bannon advice last week about "presidentil privilege" while he was testifying before the capitol hill house committee.

FreudianSlippers

I'm paraphrasing John Oliver here, but if this doesn't mean something... then something doesn't mean anything any more!

I'm not sure you could get clearer attempts at obstruction of justice.

Nody

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm paraphrasing John Oliver here, but if this doesn't mean something... then something doesn't mean anything any more!

I'm not sure you could get clearer attempts at obstruction of justice.

I think you can fudge it enough along the standard Trump versions of "Not trusting his impartiality due to Clinton / Democrat connections and wanting someone who's properly impartial" for the Republicans to hold their noses and agree. The Republicans don't need truth; only enough reason to be able to argue doubt in a future scenario to go along with it if Trump gets caught with his pants on fire.

FreudianSlippers

Nody wrote: »

I think you can fudge it enough along the standard Trump versions of "Not trusting his impartiality due to Clinton / Democrat connections and wanting someone who's properly impartial" for the Republicans to hold their noses and agree. The Republicans don't need truth; only enough reason to be able to argue doubt in a future scenario to go along with it if Trump gets caught with his pants on fire.

It's not as clear-cut as that. Firstly, we know that Executive privilege can't be claimed here.

Secondly, the question of attorney-client privilege is unclear. What is clear is that the White House lawyer is not the President's lawyer. This came up back in the 90s when Clinton's White House lawyers attempted to claim privilege and the argument was rejected. Not to mention that the DC Circuit (where the Mueller probe is lodged) has upheld this decision.

I think that you're correct - his base is never going to leave him - but moderate Republicans and, more importantly, Republican politicians will start to abandon ship when it looks like the water is starting to seep in. Regardless of what the base thinks, this is should be a big problem for Trump both legally and optically.

Water John

Mueller had the hump because of a golf fees issue and thus couldn't be impartial!!!
Watching Scarramucci on CNN, who stayed up in Davos until 3 in the morning to declare it was a, nothing issue. And then to see him stuck for words, once ever in his life, was priceless.

Leroy42

What is the reason given that Trump wanted to fire Mueller? I think it is important that the WH is asked to either deny it happened or that they give a reason as to why it was even considered.

It would be hard to justify on the grounds of impartiality, as there is nothing to show that he has done anything that isn't correct. If anything, one could argue that Mueller is taking a very even hand on the whole thing, certainly those that are anti-Trump would prefer that he moved quicker.

And when they inevitably claim that he can't be impartial because of some minor issue that has never caused any other problems, all other WH appointments should then be questioned. How can they conclude that any of the judges, including the SC, can be impartial on that basis.

Trump little press conference is another in a long line of his tactics. When he comes under pressure he seems to think that the best person to deal with it is himself. I can imagine him sitting with the lawyers thinking they are all useless and that all it needs is for him to get out there and tell it like it is. He did the exact same after the Comey firing. He did the same after Trump Jr was caught out. It is the obvious 'tell' that he knows he is on the defensive and he is looking to get back in front.

It is not a long term strategy, that is more what the lawyers are thinking. He plays for the next point and then will deal with the next issue when it arrives. They are trying to build a strategy.

TL:DR, Trump knows that Mueller is getting very close to causing him all sorts of problems and, even if they never tie anything directly to him (which I doubt they will) the fact that he had knowledge of what was going on will be enough to seriously damage even his closest allies belief.

robinph

Water John wrote: »

Mueller had the hump because of a golf fees issue and thus couldn't be impartial!!!
Watching Scarramucci on CNN, who stayed up in Davos until 3 in the morning to declare it was a, nothing issue. And then to see him stuck for words, once ever in his life, was priceless.

Well that is one of the reasons given for claiming impartiality. One of the others is that he worked for a law firm which acted for Kushner.

Surely they cancel each other out and show that he is impartial?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42827507

Leroy42

So we have a POTUS that has fired the Head of the FBI (Comey) tries to fire the Assit FBI head McCabe, stated publicly that he wished he had never hired Sessions and has ordered the firing of Mueller.

All because of an investigation that will totally exonerate him and show the DNC are the real problem.

Yeah, makes perfect sense.

Water John

And the third reason was, because he had not got the job of acting head of the FBI, just before his appointment as Special Counsel.
This thing would make Trump petulant. But he shouldn't judge others by his own, low standards.

Told in August, to the media and public that he had never considered the issue.
That's a lie.
And a whole lot of others lied. Spicer and SHS, just two days ago.

oscarBravo

Noel82 wrote: »

"The White House revealed a proposal to extend legal status and a path for citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants brought to the country as children in exchange for $25 billion in funding for the wall, an end to chain migration across the board, and an end to the visa lottery program..."

I thought Mexico was going to pay for the wall?

There's something strange about the idea that "an end to chain migration" and a demand for $25 billion is "reasonable". But then, when you've nailed your "immigrants are evil (apart from 'Norwegians', if you know what I mean, wink wink)" colours to the mast, concepts like "reasonable" become so subjective as to be meaningless.

mcmoustache

In other news last night that got drowned out by Trump's attempt to fire Mueller, Dutch intelligence services had been spying on Cozy bear prior to the DNC hack. Naturally they passed their findings on to the CIA and NSA.

According to the original Dutch report in Volkskrant (translated), they gained access to the CCTV system in the building used by Cozy Bear.

The Cozy Bear hackers are in a space in a university building near the Red Square. The group's composition varies, usually about ten people are active. The entrance is in a curved hallway. A security camera records who enters and who exits the room. The AIVD hackers manage to gain access to that camera. Not only can the intelligence service now see what the Russians are doing, they can also see who's doing it. Pictures are taken of every visitor. In Zoetermeer, these pictures are analyzed and compared to known Russian spies. Again, they've acquired information that will later prove to be vital.

Dutch intelligence wasn't too pleased with the info getting out, however.

This has led to anger in Zoetermeer and The Hague. Some Dutchmen even feel betrayed. It's absolutely not done to reveal the methods of a friendly intelligence service, especially if you're benefiting from their intelligence. But no matter how vehemently the heads of the AIVD and MIVD express their displeasure, they don't feel understood by the Americans. It's made the AIVD and MIVD a lot more cautious when it comes to sharing intelligence. They've become increasingly suspicious since Trump was elected president.

Trying to follow the thread of that article is difficult. When did the US say that the Dutch had access to Cozy Bear?

Christy42

mcmoustache wrote: »

In other news last night that got drowned out by Trump's attempt to fire Mueller, Dutch intelligence services had been spying on Cozy bear prior to the DNC hack. Naturally they passed their findings on to the CIA and NSA.

According to the original Dutch report in Volkskrant (translated), they gained access to the CCTV system in the building used by Cozy Bear.

The Cozy Bear hackers are in a space in a university building near the Red Square. The group's composition varies, usually about ten people are active. The entrance is in a curved hallway. A security camera records who enters and who exits the room. The AIVD hackers manage to gain access to that camera. Not only can the intelligence service now see what the Russians are doing, they can also see who's doing it. Pictures are taken of every visitor. In Zoetermeer, these pictures are analyzed and compared to known Russian spies. Again, they've acquired information that will later prove to be vital.

Dutch intelligence wasn't too pleased with the info getting out, however.

This has led to anger in Zoetermeer and The Hague. Some Dutchmen even feel betrayed. It's absolutely not done to reveal the methods of a friendly intelligence service, especially if you're benefiting from their intelligence. But no matter how vehemently the heads of the AIVD and MIVD express their displeasure, they don't feel understood by the Americans. It's made the AIVD and MIVD a lot more cautious when it comes to sharing intelligence. They've become increasingly suspicious since Trump was elected president.

Not the first time info from foreign agencies has ended up with the public via the US recently.

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

Trying to follow the thread of that article is difficult. When did the US say that the Dutch had access to Cozy Bear?

On second reading, I don't see it. All I can see is that the dutch intelligence service complained about it but I don't see anything about any specific leak.

FreudianSlippers

oscarBravo wrote: »

I thought Mexico was going to pay for the wall?

There's something strange about the idea that "an end to chain migration" and a demand for $25 billion is "reasonable". But then, when you've nailed your "immigrants are evil (apart from 'Norwegians', if you know what I mean, wink wink)" colours to the mast, concepts like "reasonable" become so subjective as to be meaningless.

That's not even starting to mention the fact that Trump clearly does not have the first clue about what "chain migration" is or how it operates in theory or in practise.

Nody

mcmoustache wrote: »

On second reading, I don't see it. All I can see is that the dutch intelligence service complained about it but I don't see anything about any specific leak.

Deleted User wrote: »

Trying to follow the thread of that article is difficult. When did the US say that the Dutch had access to Cozy Bear?

Sorry but is spelled out directly in the article...

Aftermath

There's a long aftermath to the Russian attacks, particularly the attack on the Democratic Party. Moreover, the FBI investigation into the Russian interference adds a political dimension. After her defeat in November 2016, Clinton will say that the controversy about her leaked emails are what cost her the presidency. President elect Donald Trump categorically refuses to explicitly acknowledge the Russian interference. It would tarnish the gleam of his electoral victory. He has also frequently praised Russia, and president Putin in particular. This is one of the reasons the American intelligence services eagerly leak information: to prove that the Russians did in fact interfere with the elections. And that is why intelligence services have told American media about the amazing access of a 'western ally'.

This has led to anger in Zoetermeer and The Hague. Some Dutchmen even feel betrayed. It's absolutely not done to reveal the methods of a friendly intelligence service, especially if you're benefiting from their intelligence. But no matter how vehemently the heads of the AIVD and MIVD express their displeasure, they don't feel understood by the Americans. It's made the AIVD and MIVD a lot more cautious when it comes to sharing intelligence. They've become increasingly suspicious since Trump was elected president.

US intelligence leaks the information (instead of Trump for a change ala Israel) and hence they are outed.

Quin_Dub

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's not even starting to mention the fact that Trump clearly does not have the first clue about what "chain migration" is or how it operates in theory or in practise.

Or the Visa Lottery program -

He keeps saying "They're not putting their best people on this list , believe me"

He seems to think that foreign governments decide who goes into the Lottery and use it as a way to empty their Prisons or something..

Leroy42

I love the fact that Trump comes out claiming the report of him trying to fire Mueller is fake news. This is after he told an interview that we would be prepared to fire Mueller if he crossed a line (if I recall it was digging into his financials).

So Trump has already stated that he would be more than willing to fire Mueller if he felt Mueller had gone too far, so its not hard to believe that he reached that point. Funnily enough, Trump brought this up in July 2017, just after he had apparently threatened to fire him.

If we have learned anything, we know that if Trumps doesn't get his way within the WH is is happy to tell reporters what he really thinks to prove that he is right.

Thepoet85

He just called a business man cheap, for only willing to spend 2bn dollars in investing in the US at the economic forum, Jesus.

everlast75

this is absolutely fantastic.

If I didn't despise the agitator Hannity, I would be embarrassed for the man

https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/956729170700259329

jobbridge4life

everlast75 wrote: »

this is absolutely fantastic.

If I didn't despise the agitator Hannity, I would be embarrassed for the man

The willingness of countless high-profile people to debase themselves for Trump is disturbing.

everlast75

jobbridge4life wrote: »

The willingness of countless high-profile people to debase themselves for Trump is disturbing.

According to Wolff's book, Roger Ailes was going to set up a TV network, more right wing than Fox and had allegedly Hannity and that other ***** O'Reilly signed up. Their plan was to hitch their wagon to Trump and his 35% base. Didn't go through obviously. So, when you consider that's where Hannity's market is, it is not surprising

ancapailldorcha

everlast75 wrote: »

According to Wolff's book, Roger Ailes was going to set up a TV network, more right wing than Fox and had allegedly Hannity and that other ***** O'Reilly signed up. Their plan was to hitch their wagon to Trump and his 35% base. Didn't go through obviously. So, when you consider that's where Hannity's market is, it is not surprising

I've started the book. I'm not sure what to make of it so far. If it was written about any other world leader, it'd be pure hogwash but it fits a bit to neatly for it to all be untrue.

everlast75

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've started the book. I'm not sure what to make of it so far. If it was written about any other world leader, it'd be pure hogwash but it fits a bit to neatly for it to all be untrue.

Even if half of it is true, it's astounding

ancapailldorcha

everlast75 wrote: »

Even if half of it is true, it's astounding

The author does admit to choosing which account he prefers at the start when multiple accounts of the same thing contrast but even with that, the narrative just fits too neatly to be entirely discounted.

everlast75

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The author does admit to choosing which account he prefers at the start when multiple accounts of the same thing contrast but even with that, the narrative just fits too neatly to be entirely discounted.

that is true, and it lends to his credibility as an honest historian.

In addition to that, later on in the book there are occasions where he actually gives both sides of the stories.

When you couple that with the amazing access he got to all meetings (based on the fact that there was no professionalism in the WH security and that he played to DT's arogance by pitching the idea of a book as being highly complimentary https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/wolff-pitched-positive-book-about-trump-to-gain-white-house-access-1.3358675) you would conclude that this guy had all the info he needed to get the book spot on.

Even now, with the revelation regarding the admission that he tried to fire Mueller, DT's wish to and discussions about it were referred to in the book. So as time goes on, more and more of the content of the book becomes verified fact

Nody

Nody wrote: »

Sorry but is spelled out directly in the article...
US intelligence leaks the information (instead of Trump for a change ala Israel) and hence they are outed.

Taking it at face value (auto-translated as it is) I don't get what the issue is exactly. They didn't say they had access to the CCTV or which country it was. Should they have kept shtum and not mentioned what the Russians did?