Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

aloyisious

Umm, the Washigton Post is running a story, based on info from people "familiar with the matter", that Meuller has been investigating a period of time last summer when President Trump seemed determined to drive Attorney General Jeff Sessions from his job. Now that poses a question or two as to what Meuller supposes or maybe has reliable proof of and is on the way to getting the 2 + 2 to present as obstruction of evidence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mueller-investigation-examining-trumps-apparent-efforts-to-oust-sessions-in-july/2018/02/28/909cfa7c-1cd7-11e8-b2d9-08e748f892c0_story.html

The NYT is reporting on a spat between Don and Jeff Sessions over what Don publicly tweeted about a "disgraceful" delay of the DOJ in investigating surveillance abuse allegations, to which the AG reportedly responded defending his honour.... The thing is that Don was annoyed by Jeff saying the Inspector General of the DOJ was investigating whether the FBI improperly used the courts to improperly get warrants on the FISA affair, a thing the GOP was upset about the FBI doing calling it an abuse of the court warrants.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/us/politics/trump-jeff-sessions-inspector-general-surveillance.html

Sonics2k

On mobile so it's a pain to pop in a link, but apparently Trump said overnight he'd take all the guns away. The usual places are losing their minds as a result.

Christy42

Sonics2k wrote: »

On mobile so it's a pain to pop in a link, but apparently Trump said overnight he'd take all the guns away. The usual places are losing their minds as a result.

This is one session where he impressed me. https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/28/politics/gun-laws-donald-trump-congress/index.html

Seems more like take away the guns of those suspected of having issues but still a progressive measure.

I am still worried that he did not back any pieces of legislation specifically. Still he called out legislators for being scared of the NRA which is far too powerful and urged for strong gun control. He also batted away legislation that only closed a minor loophole about concealed carry that would have slowed down actually serious legislation.

He did go back to his point of arming teachers which is worrying but he is at least trying to do things about an issue Republicans have desperately attempted to ignore for years.

pixelburp

Sonics2k wrote: »

On mobile so it's a pain to pop in a link, but apparently Trump said overnight he'd take all the guns away. The usual places are losing their minds as a result.

Of course, this scattershot approach of saying the first thing that pops into his head has brought nothing but scorn & ridicule from most folks, except his most ardent supporters and Republican lackeys - said approach was always defended as just one of his charms. It was only inevitable though that Trumps insecurity in his reach for popularity and to be seen as a genius with 'good ideas' and all the 'best words', would result in a brainfart diametrically opposed to his core support.

Ultimately I don't believe for one second he WOULD spearhead a radical gun control measure, the man simply doesn't have the capacity for followthrough on these lightbulb moments, but watching the fallout from the Republicans & co. will make for entertainment alone if nothing else. They're being squeezed at the moment, their position arguably becoming slowly more untenable as they attack teenagers, and now, potentially, their own president.

Water John

The loss of Hicks is probably the biggest personnel loss for Trump. She was invaluable to him. It really kicks out one leg from under the stool.

spacecoyote

Sonics2k wrote: »

On mobile so it's a pain to pop in a link, but apparently Trump said overnight he'd take all the guns away. The usual places are losing their minds as a result.

I still have to wonder though. If he really had any conviction to his assertions, why not just sign an executive order on it.

It still feels like he is saying what he thinks people want to hear, knowing full well that the Reps won't ultimately back real changes that would upset the base.

He comes out smelling of roses with a message of:

"I tried to make a change, but was blocked by the other branches of government... but the NRA really are great people at the end of the day"

Appeals to the all sides

pixelburp

spacecoyote wrote: »

I still have to wonder though. If he really had any conviction to his assertions, why not just sign an executive order on it.

It still feels like he is saying what he thinks people want to hear, knowing full well that the Reps won't ultimately back real changes that would upset the base.

He comes out smelling of roses with a message of:

"I tried to make a change, but was blocked by the other branches of government... but the NRA really are great people at the end of the day"

Appeals to the all sides

I genuinely don't believe Donald Trump thinks that far or that strategically; if you go back & watch any of his many stump speeches during the 2016 campaign, you'll see a consistent form of that same type of waffling brainfart - arguably the most famous of which has become his policy albatross, the Mexican wall. It's clearly insane and utterly unworkable, yet because his fans loved it after he blurted out, he couldn't resist running with the idea, especially when it became a chant among the braying crowds. The adoration meant Trump couldn't let go of the equivalent of a drunken 3am text.

Heck, even if you go back to when he was 'just' a business man, you could see those brain-farts manifest in his many failed business ventures. The branded water, vodka, airlines, multimedia services, etc: I think 'Trump Steaks' is the most emblematic of this though, the infamously stupid idea to sell frozen steaks (not fresh mind) from Sharper Image, the US equivalent of Currys / Dixons, for between $200 - $1000. Needless to say it was a total flop, but I'm certain this was borne from Trump just getting a sudden brainwave, yet having the latitude to command it done.

everlast75

Water John wrote: »

The loss of Hicks is probably the biggest personnel loss for Trump. She was invaluable to him. It really kicks out one leg from under the stool.

Pun intended?

Water John

Are you referring to ' (h)kicks' or 'stool'???

oscarBravo

...or person[al|nel] loss?

Manic Moran

Sign an executive order saying what? Do to any of the things he has said he supports, it is necessary to have an act of Congress. EOs are purely administrative measures

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sign an executive order saying what? Do to any of the things he has said he supports, it is necessary to have an act of Congress. EOs are purely administrative measures

wasn't Trump only recently claiming that he had signed more EO's that Obama etc in the 1st X number of months? Wasn't the travel ban initiated by EO?

So all of a sudden EO's are pointless? Wow, so when he signs them to get things you agree with he is delivering on his promises, when he comes for your guns then they are not worth the paper they are written on.

How ironic would it be if Trump was the POTUS to actually take your guns away, and not that evil Obama or HC.

As much as I dislike how he operates, I said before that he is actually in a position to deliver on this and make a real difference.

I think Trumps latest Brainwheeze (for that is all I would class it has, it could change by the time I finish typing this) show the GOP how unstable is the man they have tied their wagon to. He is not a conviction politician, he is populist and he will happily ditch the NRA if he thinks he will get votes.

CelticRambler

Trump said that he will sign an executive order banning (or limiting) the sale of bump stocks "very soon", that someone somewhere is currently working on the text of the order. Whether that will count for anything remains to be seen. Various US newspapers have recently published lists of numerous EOs that have been overturned by the courts, as a result of having being drafted and signed in haste.

On the broader question of gun control, what ... ... impressed me (do I have to say that? ) about Trump's approach during this week's meeting was that he seemed to set out a fairly straighforward plan, to agree a set of not-too-contentious measures in one single piece of legislation, rather than set up a dozen different squabbles over things that could never be agreed.

The essence of that plan seemed to be simple: raise the age for purchasing to 21 years for all types of weapon, and require all sales to be checked against a meaningful database of "red flagged" individuals.

Mind you, the commentators on CNN were quick enough to point out that they're all too familiar with the commonsense of "Tuesday Trump" being undermined by the madness of "Thursday Trump" so maybe he'll yet destroy this uncharacteristic presidentialness before anyone signs anything! :pac:

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

wasn't Trump only recently claiming that he had signed more EO's that Obama etc in the 1st X number of months? Wasn't the travel ban initiated by EO?

So all of a sudden EO's are pointless? Wow, so when he signs them to get things you agree with he is delivering on his promises, when he comes for your guns then they are not worth the paper they are written on.

How ironic would it be if Trump was the POTUS to actually take your guns away, and not that evil Obama or HC.

You miss my point. I am not saying that EOs are inherently good or bad, but that they are limited in what they can do. The travel ban was indeed initiated by EO. How is that getting on in the courts recently?

Same with an EO on bump stocks. He can certainly sign an EO directing that BATF consider a bump-stock-equipped weapon to be a machinegun. That's an administrative declaration on how the BATF is to operate. I strongly suspect it won't hold up in court, though, on the merits (As 'machinegun' is defined in statute) but he can do it until the court says otherwise.

Declaring that a person has to be 21 to purchase a rifle, however, as he has stated support for, is not a matter of how BATF interprets or acts upon a law. It -is- a law (at least, would be if enacted). An EO can't do it. The EOs Obama signed on firearms are similarly of very limited effect.

everlast75

The Senate have already put the dampeners on any agreement to restrict. They are saying "let's think about upping the age to 21".. "think about". They're hoping it'll all blow over before they have to act

FatherTed

Lots of shock about the Trump comments yesterday but we all know it was just for show and doesn't actually mean anything. The GOP will block any such suggestions and Trump will fall in line. He has 1 eye on 2020 and won't want to miss out on all that $$$ from the NRA and the likes.

spacecoyote

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sign an executive order saying what? Do to any of the things he has said he supports, it is necessary to have an act of Congress. EOs are purely administrative measures

I'm not saying he would sign it & it would be immediately enacted.

I'm saying he should sign it because it would be signing his name & declaration to do something & it forces peoples hands to address the order. But instead it becomes empty rhetoric & bluster

recedite

spacecoyote wrote: »

I'm saying he should sign it because it would be signing his name & declaration to do something & it forces peoples hands to address the order.

Anyone remember Executive Order 13492 ?

Water John

The imposition of steel tarriffs is extremely dangerous. Especially, citing national security, as the mechanism.
This most likely to trigger a trade war.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/01/trump-to-impose-tariffs-on-steel-and-aluminum-imports-in-bold-trade-move

aloyisious

CNN is reporting that Gen McMaster is leaving his job as President Trump's NSA by the end of the month and has been in contact with friends and private institutions [college] on the next [job] stage of his life.

The network is also running a report tht FBI counterintelligence is investigating Ivanka Trump's business deals, and those of her husband, ref the chance that the deals could leave them open to foreign influence.

Manic Moran

That would be unfortunate. McMaster was one of the best moves Trump has made.

Water John

Even Scaramucci is saying the WH is in chaos.

Even Trump’s former aides acknowledged the volatility at the White House had soared to new heights.

“The morale is terrible … It’s messed up,” another former White House communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, told CNN Thursday.

“It’ll be up to the president to figure out if he wants to fix it or not.”
Guardian.

Leroy42

Or if he is capable of fixing it!

Perhaps all this chaos is simply an outcome of someone incapable of doing his job.

There seems to be this accepted thinking that this is all part of Trumps plan, he is the ring master.

Yet the stream of resignations, the constant flip flops, the failure of repeal n replace, muslim ban etc etc.

In any other position a person with this many issues would be removed from that position

Hande hoche!

Manic Moran wrote: »

That would be unfortunate. McMaster was one of the best moves Trump has made.

Would be unfortunate. Particularly if he was replaced by someone like John Bolton.

AbusesToilets

Manic Moran wrote: »

That would be unfortunate. McMaster was one of the best moves Trump has made.

I'd be seriously worried if Mattis follows him out the door. At times it seems they are the only thing keeping Trump somewhat on the rails.

aloyisious

Update and background to story....... https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/22/politics/hr-mcmaster-future-trump-white-house/index.html

Leroy42

Didn't we hear the same 'Trump to fire' type stories regarding Kelly a few months ago?

Not saying there isn't truth in the rumours, but my feeling is that apart from his close family and advisors (KAC etc) nobody is ever far away from being shafted by Trump

Water John

McMaster isn't, touchy feely, enough for his brittle ego. FFS.

david75

Worrying comments from Putin yesterday. Russia is developing new nukes that are impervious to detection and any nuclear attack on Russian allies will be treated as an attack on Russia itself.

Russia has allies??? Where??

Leroy42

david75 wrote: »

Russia has allies??? Where??

POTUS
Oval Office,
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW,
Washington,
DC 20500,
USA