Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Leroy42

mattser wrote: »

According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, (Chapter 4, Article 87, Section 1) the President is the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The President approves the military doctrine and appoints the defence minister and the chief and other members of the general staff.

So any actual outcomes from this summit? Nothing concrete that I can find.

Plenty of talk about what may happen in the future, things that might happen.

Trump is like a landlord going in to deal with a poor behaving tenant that hasn't paid rent for years. He tells all the other apartment holders he'll sort it out as it dragging down the whole building and they all have to pick up the unpaid management fees and pay for the services.

After a great meeting, he has agreed that the tenant can continue to live there, should think about paying some rent and some time in the future if that suits them, but if they want the place painted and decorated then the landlord is willing to invest in that.

How anyone can claim that there is anything achieved by Trump, yet they were screaming at the failure of Obama with Iran is beyond me. Trump's main 'skill', according to himself, was a deal maker.

So what was this deal?

jooksavage

Quin_Dub wrote: »

From reading some of the details , one of the accusations was that they were using the foundations tax free status as a a charity to funnel payments for various things , both inbound and outbound payments.

Yep. They even have a handwitten note from Trump instructing that $100K of charitable funds be paid to settle a legal dispute. The charity has been prevented from winding down so we can expect all of the details to come out in the suit... providing Trump doesnt settle, but he never settles, right?

Manic Moran

Blowfish wrote: »

Oh I've no problem at all with him showing respect or courtesy to others when engaged in diplomacy, he can salute whomever he wants as far as I'm concerned. The issue is, and always has been how utterly hypocritical he and his supporters are when others do the same or similar.

With respect, if that is what you actually believe, it is certainly not the way your post reads. Yours isn't alone.

It's not that it's hypocritical, exactly, given that I don't believe that there is any particular protocol written on bowing but there absolutely is on salutes, even of "the enemy", but focusing on it as an topic, even if either action is just common courtesy, is simply proving that one side isn't any better than that which they decry.

I reckon he salutes them now. In the beginning he was prone to forgetting, particularly when getting off the Helo on the White House lawn. I think he forgot to salute one of the Marines on video at one point and he went back and saluted him in a very gracious way.

You may be thinking of Obama, who did that. That said, you are correct, Trump hasn't always.

To address Robinph, there is no requirement for the President to return salutes. However, the practice goes back at least to the 1950s, and it has become the de-facto thing to do since Reagan did it by default starting in 1981. I will always return salutes even when I am not obligated to do so (eg in civilian attire to uniformed sentries at the base entrance), it seems only polite. There is equally no prohibition, so if one has decided as a matter of course to return salutes, it would be entirely consistent and appropriate to return one from a foreign officer.

Leroy42

But Manic you are missing the very important point.

He is saluting generals of Armies that are threatening nuclear attack against the US, that have held and abused US citizens.

Yet he demeans the parents of dead soldiers, he calls into question the bravery of men like McCain.

It is not that he saluted them, but he very much chooses who is respect and who he doesn't and it is not based on military grade. It is based purely on what they can do for him.

One needs to ask why he felt he needed to salute? Does he respect their rank, their courage? And thus why not hold the same respect in terms of the likes of McCain. It seems utterly bizarre. And as usual it needs his supporters to hold and support two opposite position in order to stay with him.

mcmoustache

mcmoustache wrote: »

ABC is reporting that Cohen's lawyers are leaving the case and suggesting that he may be about to cooperate with prosecutors.


It's worth noting that these reports aren't confirmed as yet so pinch of salt and all that. We should know whether the first part is true by Friday at the latest but I've no idea about when we'll know about any cooperation with prosecutors. It's still possible that his legal team is leaving but that Cohen has no intention of cooperating.

Just to update this, it has been reported that at least two law firms are known to have turned down Cohen.

A lawyer who turned down overtures from Cohen’s camp said he did so because he wasn’t experienced in plea deals, which he said was one of the areas of strength Cohen had been seeking in new legal representation.

The source, mcclatchydc, is a good one but this only tells us that plea deals was just "one of the areas". It's possible he wants a team to defend him while also having expertise in plea deals should it come to that.

As I said before, when he actually hires a new law firm, we'll have a pretty good idea about whether he's going to defend himself or cooperate with prosecutors.


EDIT: Also, Manafort is up in court later so that should be interesting.

robinph

Manic Moran wrote: »

To address Robinph, there is no requirement for the President to return salutes. However, the practice goes back at least to the 1950s, and it has become the de-facto thing to do since Reagan did it by default starting in 1981. I will always return salutes even when I am not obligated to do so (eg in civilian attire to uniformed sentries at the base entrance), it seems only polite. There is equally no prohibition, so if one has decided as a matter of course to return salutes, it would be entirely consistent and appropriate to return one from a foreign officer.

It's not actually that weird for a president to be saluting back as you say, it's just that unless they were in the military themselves then they do it completely wrong and it looks like more of a piss take salute. If you can't do it then don't.

It would of course not look odd for yourself dressed in civies to salute back to someone in military garb saluting you, but you would know how to do it. You'd probably also only be getting saluted if they happened to know that you out ranked them? Otherwise you would just be a person in a suit.

aloyisious

robinph wrote: »

It's not actually that weird for a president to be saluting back as you say, it's just that unless they were in the military themselves then they do it completely wrong and it looks like more of a piss take salute. If you can't do it then don't.

It would of course not look odd for yourself dressed in civies to salute back to someone in military garb saluting you, but you would know how to do it. You'd probably also only be getting saluted if they happened to know that you out ranked them? Otherwise you would just be a person in a suit.

I reckon Don sees returning the salute in that fashion as a polite courtesy practice, probably something he's learned from the short time he's been in office and picked up from watching others, cos he hasn't been in service he isn't nuanced in the practice. It might sound strange but holding the right hand to the chest would be better for him as he's a civilian and it's a good response to a military salute. Stopping & offering a handshake work's wonders if the officer is ranked enough.

In the meantime, back to politics. 1PM RTE Radio news has China threatening to respond in kind to US Govt 50$ Million sanctions against it with similar sanctions against US goods.

Gwen Cooper

Donnie obsessively retweeting Fox & Friends this morning, he must be in a lovely mood.

amandstu

What is the fallout from the finding that Comey broke protocol (but did not show bias) by revealing the investigation into Hilary's email had been reopened just before the election ? (I realize there were other findings)

Was Trump obstructing justice by firing him correctly but for the wrong reasons ?(there were other ways in which he may also have obstructed justice apart from the dismissal of Comey -asking him to drop the investigation into Flynn I think)

By the way (and conspiratorily) any reason to think any third party could have tripped Comey up into finding the "new" emails or was it entirely coincidental that he did?

Hande hoche!

amandstu wrote: »

By the way (and conspiratorily) any reason to think any third party could have tripped Comey up into finding the "new" emails or was it entirely coincidental that he did?

Well according to the report, the FBI was prompted when the SDNY "raised concern about the lack of action".



Pg. 295 of the report.


https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download

everlast75

amandstu wrote: »

What is the fallout from the finding that Comey broke protocol (but did not show bias) by revealing the investigation into Hilary's email had been reopened just before the election ? (I realize there were other findings)

Was Trump obstructing justice by firing him correctly but for the wrong reasons ?(there were other ways in which he may also have obstructed justice apart from the dismissal of Comey -asking him to drop the investigation into Flynn I think)

By the way (and conspiratorily) any reason to think any third party could have tripped Comey up into finding the "new" emails or was it entirely coincidental that he did?

The fallout for Comey should be exactly what the protocol says it should be.

The benefit of being fair minded is that the choice is easy for us. No "whataboutery" - just follow the rules.

The problem for Trump supporters is they can't say that as they need to pick and choose which rules they like and what should be applied, depending on who is in trouble.

And if you ever doubted what Trump would like, if it were up to him, he will tell you, straight out of his mouth


https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1007611199591206913?s=19

mcmoustache

amandstu wrote: »

What is the fallout from the finding that Comey broke protocol (but did not show bias) by revealing the investigation into Hilary's email had been reopened just before the election ? (I realize there were other findings)

Hillary supporters will see vindication. Trump supporters will gloss over it and fixate on the Page/Strzok texts. The rest will see that Comey and others in the FBI didn't act perfectly but that they sure as hell weren't conspiring to get Hillary elected. There will be another report into the NY Field Office leaking to Giuliani which should be a little more interesting.

amandstu wrote: »

Was Trump obstructing justice by firing him correctly but for the wrong reasons ?(there were other ways in which he may also have obstructed justice apart from the dismissal of Comey -asking him to drop the investigation into Flynn I think)

He would be obstructing justice if he fired Comey to stop or hinder the investigation. If he's smart he won't admit to firing Comey because of the Russia investigation on TV or anything like that. If he's going to claim that he fired him because of how he treated Hillary, then he'll need to make sure that he didn't have an earlier draft of the reasons for his firing that Mueller could get his hands on. He also needs to stick to one reason if he wishes to be credible.

amandstu wrote: »

By the way (and conspiratorily) any reason to think any third party could have tripped Comey up into finding the "new" emails or was it entirely coincidental that he did?

It's not too conspiratorial at all. The NY FBI Field office is being investigated for leaking to Giuliani. Who knows what else they were up to.

mcmoustache

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1007611199591206913?s=19

How people can't see that this tool fancies himself as a king is baffling. His statements have been very consistent about this.

pixelburp

mcmoustache wrote: »

How people can't see that this tool fancies himself as a king is baffling. His statements have been very consistent about this.

He's the old school tycoon, 'fat cat' billionaire and in many respects something of an anachronism in the business world. Flaunting power or wealth with the barest restraint. Trump truly belongs in the era of the Randolph Hearst and the like, the business-king ruling from the penthouse, his every underling cowering or fighting each other for a seat at the top table. Or should I say: this is the image he cultivates (and one that tends to get confirmed from ex-employees and White House staffers).

Now, I'm not so naive as to think the Jeff Bezos of this world are cuddly, friendly CEOs - where once the trappings of wealth meant gold embossed penthouses, now it's a Tesla roadster parked at your carbon neutral condo - but there's a cultural & economic shift in how the modern billionaire conducts him/her self. Apart from anything else, dynastic businesses are a thing of the past - again making Trump a bit of a relic of the old world.

Whoever seriously thought this man would be beholden to such trivialities as laws or Constitutions is naive. The office of the President certainly confers more executive power than other similar positions, and I think it's the 'power' part that attracted Trump.

But then hey, let's be honest here - some people WANT a king. They want power in the hands of one man, so long as it's THEIR man, and many countries have slumped into autocracy because a cynical public just got tired of the inherent sluggish bureaucratic inertia that comes with embracing democracy.

Leroy42

Everytime Trump gets to speak on his own, like at a speech when he goes off the script or todays press pool at the WH, he makes an absolute balls of things.

He line about Kim, that he wants his people to set up and do stuff he says.

Later at a press pool he called a reporters obnoxious, and when asked "what will the (NK denuke) verification process look like?" his response was "We are going to have a very strong verification process".

He hasn't a scoobies what that means, what it entails. ASked how he could be confident that Kim will stick to his word he said that Kim now has his phone number. That's it. He gave Kim his mobile on case he wants to talk.

Christ on a bike. A total lack of leadership or ability.

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

Everytime Trump gets to speak on his own, like at a speech when he goes off the script or todays press pool at the WH, he makes an absolute balls of things.

He line about Kim, that he wants his people to set up and do stuff he says.

Later at a press pool he called a reporters obnoxious, and when asked "what will the (NK denuke) verification process look like?" his response was "We are going to have a very strong verification process".

He hasn't a scoobies what that means, what it entails. ASked how he could be confident that Kim will stick to his word he said that Kim now has his phone number. That's it. He gave Kim his mobile on case he wants to talk.

Christ on a bike. A total lack of leadership or ability.

You would think off the back of that, The Media would lead with the headlines 'Phoney President' and stuff the articles with Quotes.

This sort of stuff shouldnt be just another byline it has to be core to the story.

Hande hoche!

Manafort's bail revoked. Really wouldn't want to be in his shoes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2JOg-z4bBc

Itssoeasy

Paul Manafort will be doing a Ronnie Barker I see.

Gbear

With Trump announcing tariffs on Chinese goods, I really have to wonder what game he's playing.

On the one hand there seems to be deals going on between China and his family, which would suggest a rapprochement (a corrupt one) while on the other hand he's sabotaging trade.

I can believe that Trump would try to enrich himself and his family, because he's doing it constantly, and I could believe that he's ignorant enough to launch trade wars willy nilly, because, again, he's always at it, but he seems to be doing both simultaneously. Even by the low, subterranean levels by which he is now judged, it seems beyond comprehension.

TomOnBoard

There's a load of stuff happening that, taken together, is looking like we're entering the 'end game'!

Manafort bail revoked
Cohen signalling frustration and possible break with DJT
NY State suing DJT and kids re. the Foundation
IG report failing to produce much in the way of smoking guns
Etc.

All separate but interrelated as elements that undermine President's positions

And if Manafort is turned, then Roger Stone is next and that will be the clincher!!!

jooksavage

Well, there it is. Manafort is off to jail. If things dont go his way in July, he may never leave. I wonder if the next few days will loosen his tongue.

pixelburp

Fielding a question about the revocation of bail, Trump said Manafort had nothing to do with 'the campaign' - you know, despite leading it for 5 months. Reflexive lying sentence to sentence; I mean credit where it's due, nobody can keep a handle on the man when nearly every second sentence contains a bald-faced lie or exaggeration.

Edit: Actually, I just watched Trumps comments; he lies about Manafort never working for the campaign. Then IMMEDIATELY contradicts himself in the next sentence, by saying it was 'only for a short space of time'. I mean ... FFS like. He also seems to be under the impression that digging up 12 year crimes / dirt is 'unfair'. I'm pretty sure if someone talked about the statute of limitations Trump would think it was next to the Lincoln memorial

TomOnBoard

And, if Cohen flips, that also snags Ivanka, given that Cohen was apparently under her orders in respect of Trump Moscow negotiations during the Campaign...

amandstu

Anyone following this?

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1007668864304500741
It is very recent.

TomOnBoard

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Paul Manafort will be doing a Ronnie Barker I see.

I suspect that'll be Manafort's first taste of porridge ever...

mcmoustache

amandstu wrote: »

Anyone following this?

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1007668864304500741
It is very recent.

I'm following it all. I need a life.

TomOnBoard

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'm following it all. I need a life.

Some great memes there! But, yes you do need a life!

everlast75

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'm following it all. I need a life.

Me too.

Its both riveting and incredibly frustrating at the same time.

everlast75

amandstu wrote: »

Anyone following this?

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1007668864304500741
It is very recent.

More importantly for Cohen, today is D day for his (now extinct) legal team to advise on which items they are claiming Attorney Client privilege in default of which the taint team will go through it

mcmoustache

everlast75 wrote: »

Me too.

Its both riveting and incredibly frustrating at the same time.

It's my version of reality tv. The world's longest car crash. I can't look away.


On a serious note, it's a big deal. Is the Don working for Russia? Is there a manchurian candidate in the Whitehouse? I don't know the answer to that but the amount of Russian contacts was ridiculous and the Trump people and his supporters keep lying and changing their story so my cynical side is very suspicious about that.