Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

TomOnBoard

blackwave wrote: »

The only thing is that some of the charges against the conspirators such as Manafort are at a state level which means that The Donald can't give a pardon for them.

All Manafort charges are being handled at a Federal level, in two separate states. Trump would have the power to issue a pardon if he wished, in due course.

The Cohen investigation is also based on a separate Federal investigation handled out of the Southern District of NY.

The only State litigation so far is the Stae of NY case against the Trumps and their Foundation, but that's a Civil rather than a Criminal case, so no one would be liable for Prison in that case anyway. Worst case would be fines and dissolution of the Foundation together with prohibition from being involved with a similar charitable foundation for 1 to 10 years.

Itssoeasy

TomOnBoard wrote: »

blackwave wrote: »

The only thing is that some of the charges against the conspirators such as Manafort are at a state level which means that The Donald can't give a pardon for them.

In other news I see Avenetti has offered any immigrant families that have been split up, free legal services. He is the perfect antidote to Trump.

All Manafort charges are being handled at a Federal level, in two separate states. Trump would have the power to issue a pardon if he wished, in due The Cohen investigation is also based on a separate Federal investigation handled out of the Southern District of NY.

The only State litigation so far is the Stae of NY case against the Trumps and their Foundation, but that's a Civil rather than a Criminal case, so no one would be liable for Prison in that case anyway. Worst case would be fines and dissolution of the Foundation together with prohibition from being involved with a similar charitable foundation for 1 to 10 years.

No, the cohen charges were brought by the SDNY and not by mueller so no trump can't pardon him. Mueller knew if he brought the charges against cohen he could be pardoned by trump. Also if trump is stupid enough to shut the mueller investigation down the cohen stuff would still continue.

TomOnBoard

Itssoeasy wrote: »

No, the cohen charges were brought by the SDNY and not by mueller so no trump can't pardon him. Mueller knew if he brought the charges against cohen he could be pardoned by trump. Also if trump is stupid enough to shut the mueller investigation down the cohen stuff would still continue.

Nope! The SDNY is part if the Federal system, not the State system! Mueller didn't charge Cohen because that Cohen investigation had (so far) nothing to do with the Russia probe.

Christy42

Interesting that Melania Trump made a statement against separating migrant families and sticking the kids into cages.

I mean it was coated with a both sides should work on this even though it would just take Trump asking the AG to stop this.

Trump wants money for his vanity project to stop this blaming democrats (note all serious news agencies have pointed out that the Democrats are not required in any way shape or form to stop and this is just another lie from the serial liar.

He is effectively holding these kids hostage for his wall. He is saying give me my monument or I will keep breaking up these families.

Billy Mays

Maybe she should have a word with the bloke she married rather than releasing a statement if she's that concerned about it


No surprise that piece of garbage Miller is the one who came up with the idea of separating children from their parents at the border

Water John

I think, FLOTUS releasing a public statement, says a lot more than a, private word.

VinLieger

Water John wrote: »

I think, FLOTUS releasing a public statement, says a lot more than a, private word.

Not when she is pushing the false narrative that this is congress ie the Dems fault. There is no law causing this, it directly comes from Trump.

Water John

Well, she couldn't come out and just accuse her husband, could she. She has put it out there, that it must be sorted. If Trump was any kind of normal person, he would say, 'I've listened to my wife and we'll resolve it'. That would get him, great kudos.

eagle eye

I seen that three country joint World Cup bid for 2026.
Like how is that going to work? Surely the wall will be but by them?!

Manic Moran

VinLieger wrote: »

Water John wrote: »

I think, FLOTUS releasing a public statement, says a lot more than a, private word.

Not when she is pushing the false narrative that this is congress ie the Dems fault. There is no law causing this, it directly comes from Trump.

Well, sort of, which is why he’s not losing too many votes from the law and order types on the conservative side. It is standard practice in the US to separate those arrested from their children, citizens or not. The reason it is suddenly an issue at the border is that unlike the previous two administrations, Trump doesn’t care about the optics, and thus lifted the exemption to this policy that had previously been granted. The line of thinking is break the law, get arrested. Get arrested, and the same thing happens to you as would a US citizen with a family. The main difference is that unlike the scores of arrested parents in the rest of the US, multiple arrestees At the border, and thus multiple children, are all within a single camera-pan.

There is no obligation for him to have lifted the exemption by policy, certainly. But neither is he doing anything particularly unusual in the US judicial system. Of note, the lack of a standard process for caring for children of arrestees led to a federal policy and national guideline on the matter in 2014.

spacecoyote

eagle eye wrote: »

I seen that three country joint World Cup bid for 2026.
Like how is that going to work? Surely the wall will be but by them?!

Yeah not sure on that one alright. Though the way things are going, they'll likely have ICE officers at the borders & every airport looking to see peoples match tickets, etc...I know that the final will be in NY, and one of the key things in winning the bid was because Trump had to make a promise that there wouldn't be problems with visas for visiting fans.

To me, its fairly sad that they have to explicitly make a statement like that.

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, sort of, which is why he’s not losing too many votes from the law and order types on the conservative side. It is standard practice in the US to separate those arrested from their children, citizens or not. The reason it is suddenly an issue at the border is that unlike the previous two administrations, Trump doesn’t care about the optics, and thus lifted the exemption to this policy that had previously been granted. The line of thinking is break the law, get arrested. Get arrested, and the same thing happens to you as would a US citizen with a family. The main difference is that unlike the scores of arrested parents in the rest of the US, multiple arrestees At the border, and thus multiple children, are all within a single camera-pan.

There is no obligation for him to have lifted the exemption by policy, certainly. But neither is he doing anything particularly unusual in the US judicial system. Of note, the lack of a standard process for caring for children of arrestees led to a federal policy and national guideline on the matter in 2014.

That might well be the case but this policy is clearly designed to get Trump funding for his wall. It is not about making America safer, or even doing anything about immigration.

It is purely being used as leverage so that Trump can get what he wants since he failed to get it any other way.

The US is a first world country, in fact the leading country in the world. Yet it needs to separate children from their parents to get back at them. We have the likes of Lebanon taking in millions of refugees not having to revert to this type of policy yet the mighty US, the greatest democracy in the world, is happy to put kids in detention camps.

spacecoyote

Looks like the Dems are trying to push back against the narrative that they're doing nothing about it & it's all their fault

https://twitter.com/SenFeinstein/status/1008482925099274241?s=19

Manic Moran

Havockk wrote: »

Of course it is. It is the same issue I have against the introduction of the covenant in the North, why should a veteran get preferential treatment on the NHS?

If you were a conscript I'd have no problem, but you are ALL volunteers.

Well, I can understand your reason to objecting to it. You may be an outlier, though: The NHS priority only applies to ailments or injuries relating to service. https://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/Militaryhealthcare/veterans-families-reservists/Pages/veterans.aspx The idea that the state-provided health system should treat as a priority issues directly resulting from service to the state is not one which I think is likely to be considered particularly unfair or unreasonable by the populace at large in the UK. It's not as if a veteran can go to the NHS, say "I've got the flu, I'm a vet so I'll skip the line please".

That might well be the case but this policy is clearly designed to get Trump funding for his wall. It is not about making America safer, or even doing anything about immigration.

It is purely being used as leverage so that Trump can get what he wants since he failed to get it any other way.

Agreed. That said, turn off your heart for a minute and tell me if I'm missing something here: From a campaign analyst position, I'm not sure how Trump loses.

1) He has created no new regulation or law. What he has done is started rigorously enforcing laws which have been on the books for years. That sort of thing plays well with large portions of the electorate, and it's fairly hard to tarnish a public official for "He enforced the law."
2) He already doesn't care about optics and perception. The folks most objecting are mainly the ones who aren't so keen on Trump in the first place.
3) If nothing else comes of this, if the policy is reversed tomorrow either by the administration or the "Keep Families Together Act" (Assuming it passes Congress and he doesn't veto it), he has just cemented further his determination to do something about illegal immigration. Given that this was a significant campaign issue for which he was elected in the first place, this seems to be a boon to his re-election campaign. That's the smallest possible win, and I think he's already achieved it.
4) This has very definitely re-focused attention on the border. It sortof dropped off the radar after the idea of a DACA deal fizzled out. Further, it renders relatively toothless the argument that illegal crossings of the Southern Border isn't a big problem. It's obviously big enough that thousands of families are being affected and making a big stink in the news.
5) The problem of the question of what to do with the children of arrested immigrants becomes much more manageable if the source problem is removed. If this is done by physical means (a wall), or because of the deterrence value of families not being sure they want to risk separation, as long as fewer folks come over, problem solved. If he gets a wall out of it, he wins. If immigrants get too scared to cross and the numbers drop that way, he wins. In basically every outcome, be it due to fewer immigrants or a political determination to keep families together, the number of affected families will drop and this will be long gone from the news cycle next year.

How does he lose?

Looks like the Dems are trying to push back against the narrative that they're doing nothing about it & it's all their fault

There are already memes going around social media as to how Democrats are attempting to give preferential treatment to illegal immigrants. If nothing else, the narrative they will have to beat is "why should families of illegal immigrants be allowed to stay together when US citizens and residents get no such consideration?" The 48 people mentioned are 46 of the 47 D senators, and both independents. Not one Republican. The Republicans have stated a willingness to place in legislation something which a similar effect, but only as part of a larger border deal. So, yes, they are pushing back, symbolically at least, but I strongly suspect the only people listening are their own voters.

Professor Moriarty

It's a sad country where memes determine how people vote.

everlast75

"1) He has created no new regulation or law. What he has done is started rigorously enforcing laws which have been on the books for years. That sort of thing plays well with large portions of the electorate, and it's fairly hard to tarnish a public official for "He enforced the law."

What law(s) exactly?

Leroy42

I totally agree Manic, this is clearly a win win for Trump.

It is just so depressing that a country such as the US has lowered itself to such a level that this is seen as something to be accepted. The land of the brave, home of the free, is now detaining children. And lets make this clear. This is not anything like when a parent get arrested in the US. In that case, the child stays with next of kin etc. In this case the children are being forcibly removed from the parents.

And why are the kids being detained? They have done nothing wrong? What crime have they committed? Surely a compassionate, christian country like the US likes to pretend it is, would look to find the children a proper home back in Mexico. Many are trying to paint this as simply a place to look after the children, but again that isn't it. It is clearly a policy to try to deter people from trying to cross on the basis they risk losing their children. The children, the effect it will have on them for years, that is simply collateral damage. Yet we have a POTUS that doesn't liked to be questioned in the press?

How did America become so scared and so uncaring? Instead of trying to find a way on which to portray this as necessary, you should be questioning why the greatest country in the world has been reduced to little more than a 3rd rate sh1thole. How can this be the best that they can come up with? We have countries around the world that take in hundreds of thousands of refugees every year, with far less resources than the US. Many of the refugees are moving as a direct result of US military interventions. Heck, one of US biggest allies, Israel, was given a new country so they could build a new life for themselves but a few families crossing the border is a direct threat to the US?

It is funny how Americans seem to be willing to fight to stave off the government coming for their guns, but they are completely ok with the government taking peoples kids.

looksee

This business of 'criminals being separated from their children' is not relevant. Normally a criminal with children also has a spouse, a neighbourhood, relatives and friends. Children may have to be fostered sometimes but they still usually have a base point and people who know them. These are children who have nothing but their parents. They are in no way responsible for their parents' actions but are separated in circumstances where they have no contact with anything familiar.

I can understand the desire to close the border, but using children as bargaining chips is wrong. It hasn't been necessary up to now, nothing has changed with the migrants, the difference is the leader who not only is willing to do this to children, he is also willing to lie about it.

Christy42

Maybe voters shouldn't be turning off their hearts. Honestly if voters are cool with this I would be OK with the Dems accepting the minority position and not going for votes because it would mean the majority position is inhumane.

Trump is also not really attempting to deal with illegal immigrants. He is just being a bit of a ass to children. We have already been over the fact that the wall will do very little. Trump just wants a monument to himself. He does not even believe in this policy himself since he seems happy to get rid of it for his little monument.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-child-migrants-immigration-detention-centres-trump-ice-texas-jacob-soboroff-casa-padre-a8398051.html?amp

To begin with if he was serious you would not have overcrowding. Things like this need to be funded first. You can't blame kids for being smuggled over so why put them in inhumane conditions. Unsurprisingly that some are run by private companies because nothing spells profit like human misery (let's he fair that is what this about).

Again and again he does stuff randomly and people desperately attempt to cover for him.

I get you can't take everyone in but taking people sneaking across a border for a better life and comparing them to bank robbers being put away from their families is idiotic.

Manic Moran

everlast75 wrote: »

"1) He has created no new regulation or law. What he has done is started rigorously enforcing laws which have been on the books for years. That sort of thing plays well with large portions of the electorate, and it's fairly hard to tarnish a public official for "He enforced the law."

What law(s) exactly?

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
Fine and punishable by up to 6 months in prison for a first offense, fine and up to two years for subsequent offenses.

It hasn't been necessary up to now, nothing has changed with the migrants

Isn't that the point, though? Nothing has changed. Trump tried to get changed without leverage, he tried to get change by leveraging DACA, now he's trying with children of illegal immigrants.

pixelburp

It's shameful, but between the 'indian' reservations and Japanese-American internment camps, it's scarcely a new situation the US finds itself in. I suppose treating the children as political bargaining chips is especially vile, cynical conduct & a new low, but here we are.

The country elected a man with a noted lack of empathy, though rumour has it Stephen Miller is behind this policy, and while Trump is arguably accidentally nasty by background, Miller seems to embrace it and is an all-round odious individual. Between the 2 of them this was always the kind of outcome possible; Trumps campaign made a point of dehumanising those crossing the border as much as possible - it's easier to square these actions away when this is the resting mentality.

In any case, there's an element of glass houses here, given there are boats being passed around the Mediterranean at the moment, with Italy closing its doors to migrants & generally causing ructions between the major EU powers. Perhaps not used openly as political capital, but it's equivalent enough.

MarinersBlues

Manic Moran wrote: »

1) He has created no new regulation or law. What he has done is started rigorously enforcing laws which have been on the books for years. That sort of thing plays well with large portions of the electorate, and it's fairly hard to tarnish a public official for "He enforced the law."

Enforcing a law in a morally questionable way can tarnish officials.

Manic Moran wrote: »

2) He already doesn't care about optics and perception. The folks most objecting are mainly the ones who aren't so keen on Trump in the first place.

He clearly does care about perception and optics. He refuses to talk to anyone who doesn't praise his every action

Manic Moran wrote: »

3) If nothing else comes of this, if the policy is reversed tomorrow either by the administration or the "Keep Families Together Act" (Assuming it passes Congress and he doesn't veto it), he has just cemented further his determination to do something about illegal immigration. Given that this was a significant campaign issue for which he was elected in the first place, this seems to be a boon to his re-election campaign. That's the smallest possible win, and I think he's already achieved it.

It will reinforce his core support. However I would imagine it will lose him some of the fringe support. Seeing as how the majority voted against him in the election, and his popularity has never risen past 50%, that can't be good for his re-election

Manic Moran wrote: »

4) This has very definitely re-focused attention on the border. It sortof dropped off the radar after the idea of a DACA deal fizzled out. Further, it renders relatively toothless the argument that illegal crossings of the Southern Border isn't a big problem. It's obviously big enough that thousands of families are being affected and making a big stink in the news.

True.

Manic Moran wrote: »

5) The problem of the question of what to do with the children of arrested immigrants becomes much more manageable if the source problem is removed. If this is done by physical means (a wall), or because of the deterrence value of families not being sure they want to risk separation, as long as fewer folks come over, problem solved. If he gets a wall out of it, he wins. If immigrants get too scared to cross and the numbers drop that way, he wins. In basically every outcome, be it due to fewer immigrants or a political determination to keep families together, the number of affected families will drop and this will be long gone from the news cycle next year.

Continuing trade agreements with Mexico which would increase the standard of living, both there and in the US, and create more jobs for the people who are trying to leave might be another way to curb the illegal immigration.
In Trump's head a deal where both parties win is a bad deal because there isn't a loser.

Professor Moriarty

MarinersBlues wrote: »

Enforcing a law in a morally questionable way can tarnish officials.



He clearly does care about perception and optics. He refuses to talk to anyone who doesn't praise his every action



It will reinforce his core support. However I would imagine it will lose him some of the fringe support. Seeing as how the majority voted against him in the election, and his popularity has never risen past 50%, that can't be good for his re-election



True.



Continuing trade agreements with Mexico which would increase the standard of living, both there and in the US, and create more jobs for the people who are trying to leave might be another way to curb the illegal immigration.
In Trump's head a deal where both parties win is a bad deal because there isn't a loser.

What is also interesting is that The Donald's wife has come out and declared that she is against separating children from their parents. Similarly, a scion of the GOP, Laura Bush, called the practice "cruel" and "immoral" and laid the blame at The Donald's feet. Such statements matter, especially to female voters.

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
Fine and punishable by up to 6 months in prison for a first offense, fine and up to two years for subsequent offenses.

Where is the law that states that the children must be separated from their parents?

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

everlast75 wrote: »

"1) He has created no new regulation or law. What he has done is started rigorously enforcing laws which have been on the books for years. That sort of thing plays well with large portions of the electorate, and it's fairly hard to tarnish a public official for "He enforced the law."

What law(s) exactly?

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
Fine and punishable by up to 6 months in prison for a first offense, fine and up to two years for subsequent offenses.

It hasn't been necessary up to now, nothing has changed with the migrants

Isn't that the point, though? Nothing has changed. Trump tried to get changed without leverage, he tried to get change by leveraging DACA, now he's trying with children of illegal immigrants.

I am going to presume that the last bit is pointing out how horrific this situation is.

I mean the man is using children as political hostages. I can't imagine too many feel that is not morally horrific.

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

Where is the law that states that the children must be separated from their parents?

I just wanted to add, I'm not being pinickity here. It was said that the laws were just being enforced. I want to know which one of those laws insist that children must be taken away from their families in the way in which they are is all.

seamus

everlast75 wrote: »

I just wanted to add, I'm not being pinickity here. It was said that the laws were just being enforced. I want to know which one of those laws insist that children must be taken away from their families in the way in which they are is all.

I don't believe that there is a specific law, it's a quirk of applying the laws on a zero-tolerance basis; adults crossing the border illegally will be imprisoned pending trial and subsequent conviction.

Children in their care haven't done anything wrong so can't/won't be sent to jail, but also can't just be sent back over the border without a parent.

So they end up stuck into what are basically concentration camps because rigid application of the law has left authorities unable to cope with the volume of migrant children.

I disagree that a public official can't be tarnished for enforcing the law. Enforcing a law which has previously been unenforced, or more flexible, without taking into account the effects of stricter enforcement, is most definitely the kind of thing people don't want, and the first step on the road to a fascist state.

In most jurisdictions, the difference between a tolerant free society, and an authoritarian police state, is not the laws on the books, but how strictly and frequently those laws are enforced.

Manic Moran

everlast75 wrote: »

Where is the law that states that the children must be separated from their parents?

That's regulation. See http://www.theiacp.org/model-policy/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2017/07/Safeguarding-Children-of-Arrested-Parents-Final_Web_v3.pdf for standard practice following an arrest of a parent.

Captain Obvious

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's regulation. See http://www.theiacp.org/model-policy/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2017/07/Safeguarding-Children-of-Arrested-Parents-Final_Web_v3.pdf for standard practice following an arrest of a parent.

The first thing in the policies section

It is the policy of this department that
officers will be trained to identify and respond
effectively to a child, present or not present,
whose parent is arrested in order to help
minimize potential trauma and support a
child’s physical safety and well-being following
an arrest.

So you tell me how that policy is applied properly here

A teenager at a US Border Patrol facility had to teach other children how to help change the diaper of a young girl who had been separated from family members. According to the Associated Press, a 16-year-old girl in a South Texas facility took care of a four-year-old girl she didn't know for at least three days when they were kept in the same chain-link cage together.

Manic Moran

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So you tell me how that policy is applied properly here

Not very pleasantly, obviously.

But the policy is simple enough. Of all the various options listed, the one which is not listed is the ability for the arrested parent to retain the child. Policies usually have an exemption for newborns.

Out of mild curiousity, what is the policy of Gardai when arresting an immigrant, or a sole parent? Is the child taken to the jail cell with the parent?