Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Leroy42

spacecoyote wrote: »

But on the other hand, he has kind of worked with the agenda of wanting to see the whole system burn to the ground. Seeing a President impeached, and the two sides of political system in chaos would play massively into that agenda. There would be no bigger step he could really take in relation to that than to throw Trump & a large faction of the Rep party under the bus (maybe this is purely wishful thinking)

Well that is if you believe he wanted to burn it all down. I get the impression he didn't want to burn it down, but to change it to what he wanted. It wasn't the GOP he had a problem with, it was that they weren't hardline enough.

He was more than happy for the system to continue as long as the GOP were in charge of it.

Water John

I presume, not answering before the grand jury, is an option?

Mr.Micro

Overheal wrote: »

Of course, Republicans won't give a damn about balancing a budget while in power - neither did the Democrats

http://reason.com/blog/2018/01/16/gop-leaders-tell-fiscal-hawks-to-fly-awa

I'm more and more convinced the country is just royally ****ed over; I can't imagine how we get back to any sort of rational, bipartisan medium, short of another great disaster - which will probably just cause a huge war, and more spending.

Pessimistic, but you are right. I would add that much of the world is losing respect for the USA. Trump has been/ is the icing on the cake. The double standards really grates on thinking people. Then absolute nonsense to explain away things. In effect neither the Republicians of the Democrats are fit for power IMO.

listermint

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Pessimistic, but you are right. I would add that much of the world is losing respect for the USA. Trump has been/ is the icing on the cake. The double standards really grates on thinking people. Then absolute nonsense to explain away things. In effect neither the Republicians of the Democrats are fit for power IMO.

In a way the entire system is currently being powered by negativity. Its like the goo under the sewers in Ghostbusters. Trump shouts out negativity and the media pick up on it and clicks grow. Trumps minions say negative things the goo grows the media latch on to it and his supporters love it.

The whole thing is just negative and the impression of the US is now also negative. If the democrats really want to combat this they need to start a massive campaign of positivity. Forget everything Trump is saying or doing and concentrate on positive message of what their senators have done their party members do. The US past positive actions and push that through a massive marketing campaign.

They need to go hammer and thongs at undermining the negative as its feeding itself.

demfad

Water John wrote: »

I presume, not answering before the grand jury, is an option?

It's not an option.
Mueller went this route to thwart the WH trying to muzzle Trump.
He may still offer Trump the 'voluntary' interview route but it would make no sense for Bannon to lie or hold anything back here.

In the House hearing he said he was mizzled by WH counsel on everything including transition and conversations with Trump post Bannon leaving WH.

Another point to note is that Adam Schiff brought up the fact that Bannon's lawyer Burck is also representing Priebus and McGahn. If any of these were cooperating with Mueller with any of them not this would be a no no, and the cooperating witnesses would have to change lawyers.
Note: Priebus has given ALL his extensive notes to Mueller.
If there is no lawyer change then either none of these are cooperating witnesses. Or all of them are or are expected to be.
If there is a lawyer change, whomever changes is cooperating.

Call me Al

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well that is if you believe he wanted to burn it all down. I get the impression he didn't want to burn it down, but to change it to what he wanted. It wasn't the GOP he had a problem with, it was that they weren't hardline enough.

He was more than happy for the system to continue as long as the GOP were in charge of it.

Maybe to achieve his goal he needs to split the GOP. I've always felt that what he and those who are with him have wanted is a new party, but he realises that he needs to manipulate a share of the GOP voters to achieve that goal.
Filter out that 35% who are Trump-martyr devotees and you've got your core vote who will follow.

Quin_Dub

Bannon has always struck me as a fairly principled ideologue , something re-enforced by the Wolff book.

Don't get me wrong , I dislike (more likely despise) pretty much everything he stands for but I don't believe that he himself would have had anything do do with any Russian interference.

That doesn't mean he doesn't know details about someone who might have though...

Mr.Micro

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Bannon has always struck me as a fairly principled ideologue , something re-enforced by the Wolff book.

Don't get me wrong , I dislike (more likely despise) pretty much everything he stands for but I don't believe that he himself would have had anything do do with any Russian interference.

That doesn't mean he doesn't know details about someone who might have though...

One would think though, if he has principled ideologue, then he would not have stood around whilst knowing about this Russian interference. Yet he was part of team Trump. It would contradict that ideologue surely?

mcmoustache

Mr.Micro wrote: »

One would think though, if he has principled ideologue, then he would not have stood around whilst knowing about this Russian interference. Yet he was part of team Trump. It would contradict that ideologue surely?

His ideology also include watching the world burn so maybe he likes front-row seats? I'm only half joking.

On a more serious note, I don't remember him attacking the fbi and it seems that he cautioned against sacking Comey. He doesn't strike me as one of Trump's c*ckholsters who are high on the coolaid. I get the impression that he knew how to keep the illegal stuff at arms length and was smart enough to stay cleaner than the other idiots that surround Trump.

one armed dwarf

Depending on how much stock you put in the Woolf book it appears Bannon tried as much as possible to keep the Breitbart side of the admin as clean of the stink of Russia as possible. Was apparently incensed when Miller got involved in drafting up excuses for one of miriad Russia-gate controversies (think it was the Don Jr meeting).

It's easy enough to believe but also it felt like more than half that book was based off the word of Bannon, so who knows really.

Igotadose

Interesting report - Trump Admin looking for 'low yield' nukes to use in response to 'large' cyberattack. Although a lot of this mentions that the discussions aren't new - there was a Nuclear Posture Review under Obama, under Trump, given his attitude about the military, spending on nukes might skyrocket. And of course the Pentagon wants to at a minimum have plans as to where and when to use them.



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/us/politics/pentagon-nuclear-review-cyberattack-trump.html

Huffington Post got a draft of the document and wrote about it: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-nuclear-posture-review-2018_us_5a4d4773e4b06d1621bce4c5

And, thought it might be that Trump's in favor of this because it means more money spent on behalf of his handlers, can he control himself? What if there's a cyberattack like the one that hit the NHS last year, in the US and the east coast loses power for a couple days. Would he attack someone? Could he be prevented?

Chilling. Remind me again how Trump was less warlike?

Water John

I must be getting sucked in by all the Fake News.
If his physical can't get his height right, not sure I trust much else in it.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/17/a-tall-tale-accuracy-of-trumps-medical-report-and-new-height-questioned

Cookie_Monster

Water John wrote: »

I must be getting sucked in by all the Fake News.
If his physical can't get his height right, not sure I trust much else in it.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/17/a-tall-tale-accuracy-of-trumps-medical-report-and-new-height-questioned

time of day? You can lose up to about 2cm from morning to night

Itssoeasy

So is bannon not going before a grand jury now a bad or good thing for trump ? Also given the doctor said trump showed no signs of cognitive impairment, that means he can't give that excuse if he is interviewed by mueller and makes a dog dinner of it(which he will) and at the very least commits perjury.

Gbear

I'm just shy of 6'3 and weigh about 215lbs or about 96.5kg and not in fantastic shape by any stretch.
For me to put on another 2 stone nearly I'd have to be quite fat but on big enough a frame you'd be surprised what you can hide. Side by side you could tell the difference, but I don't think you'd look clearly obese. I've been as much as 103 so I'd have a fair idea.

He doesn't look that really. Obvious front-arse and what looks like size 44+ trousers aren't what you'd expect.

I could believe that he's 6'1 and 239lbs or about 108.5kg. It's not totally ludicrous, although I could believe he's heavier.

He plays enough golf that he should have a modicum of muscle and must get a fair bit of exercise for a man his age so his diet must be truly appalling.

Physically I don't understand how people look at him and can couple admiration to what he looks like. The straw-looking poof of hair, the makeup, the fatness, the squinting face.

People are shallow creatures. It's a wonder someone in his condition could swing populism.
Cameron could bull**** til the cows came home partly because he had an earnest, if vapid face and big doe eyes. Paul Ryan looks like a wholesome fella.

Not Trump though. He's a wreck of man.

pixelburp

I wouldn't cry conspiracy by any stretch, but being 1lb short of obese seems remarkably convenient. IIRC President Taft was quite the large gentleman, so there has been heavier set presidents before, but we're clearly living in more scientific and appearance driven times. I can't help but shake the suspicion that there was some rounding down or creativity applied to avoid the official 'obese' tag.

Were people really expecting a medical smoking gun though? Again I'm not crying foul but presumably there's a political incentive to give the 'Leader of the Free World' a clean bill of health. I'm going to presume Reagan passed with flying colours, right? A different scenario for sure, but it's not like the signs weren't supposedly there about his diminishing facilities.

StringerBell

The WH essentially placing a gag order on Bannon, not allowed to answer any questions in the time period of the transition, the time in administration and the time since he left. Unbelievable, is this what they call full cooperation and transparency?

robinph

StringerBell wrote: »

The WH essentially placing a gag order on Bannon, not allowed to answer any questions in the time period of the transition, the time in administration and the time since he left. Unbelievable, is this what they call full cooperation and transparency?

But what power does the White House have to do anything to someone not complying with a gag order when it is the legal branch of the government who is trying to get you to talk? All the White House could do is ask the legal branch to charge him with breaking the gag order / treason or something, but it's the legal branch who would decide on if that stands or not.

The president can pardon someone, he can't declare someone guilty though.

Peregrinus

robinph wrote: »

But what power does the White House have to do anything to someone not complying with a gag order when it is the legal branch of the government who is trying to get you to talk? All the White House could do is ask the legal branch to charge him with breaking the gag order / treason or something, but it's the legal branch who would decide on if that stands or not.

The president can pardon someone, he can't declare someone guilty though.

It's not the legal branch that is questioning Bannon; it's the legislative branch. Bannon is being asked by a congressional committee - part of the legislative branch of government - to talk about what he did, saw, etc while serving as an officer in the White House - part of the executive branch of government. And, while I'm no expert in the area, I believe there are open, unresolved questions as to the extent to which the executive branch of government is answerable to the legislative branch. Separation of powers, and all that. So it may be that the head of the executive branch - Trump - can properly direct officers and former officers of the executive branch to decline to answer questions about certain matters on the grounds of executive privilege.

If Bannon chose to answer the questions despite being told not to, what could Trump do? He could argue that Bannon is in breach of his duties arising of of his position in the executive branch, and he could head off to the courts - the judicial branch - looking for orders restraining Bannon from answering the questions, or restraining the committee from asking them. But (a) this would be a bit late, if in fact the questions had already been asked and answered; people couldn't un-know what Bannon had said. And (b) if he took the matter to court the courts would get to rule on the precise extent of, and limitations on, executive privilege in this situation, which isn't necessarily something that the White House wants a clear ruling on. So for these or other reasons there might actually be no action taken against Bannon if he chose to answer the questions despite being directed not to by the President.

But the point is moot since in fact Bannon has accepted Trump's direction and declined to answer the questions. It's now up to the committee to take further action if they reject the claim of executive privilege and want to compel him to testify. And, again, that would inevitably end up in the courts, which isn't necessarily something the committee wants.

robinph

Still seems that Trump doesn't have any real threat to use against Bannon though.

Which branch does the Mueller investigation come under?

Peregrinus

robinph wrote: »

Still seems that Trump doesn't have any real threat to use against Bannon though.

It doesn't appear that he needs to threaten Bannon, does it?.

And, generally, a president in this situation doesn't need to threaten his subordinates or former subordinates. If they admit to seeing or being aware of anything untoward, the question immediately arises as to whether, and to what extent, they were complicit, even if only by taking no action at the time to put a stop to whatever it was they saw. Most of them are probably mightily releived to be able to say "the President has directed me to decline to answer the question on the grounds of executive privilege".

robinph wrote: »

Which branch does the Mueller investigation come under?

Mueller is a Special Counsel in the Dept of Justice, so he's part of the executive branch.

He enjoys professional independence as Special Counsel; he decides what his terms of reference require or authorise him to investigate. He can issue subpoenas and direct that people can be prosecuted. Nobody in the Dept of Justice can overrule him.

He is dependent on the Dept of Justice to provide him resources for his investigation (personnel, office space, budget). The head of the Department is the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, but he has recused himself from involvement in decisions about these matters since he is himself a potential subject of investigation. It was Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who appointed Mueller and who deals with decisions about resourcing his investigation.

Pepefrogok

Forgive me if I seem flippant or in any way sarcastic or dismissive but do many people still believe the "it was the Russians wot done it" narrative? I mean it's almost a meme at this point, isn't it? I get that it helped a lot of people after the disappointing election result, sort of an emotional crutch if you will but everyone knows it was not the Russians that made all those Americans vote for trump. The thing is we know it was the rust belters who felt disenfranchised and believed the MAGA hype, they believed trump would be the man to bring jobs back, and remember this was to a back drop of Obama laughing at that prospect saying it was impossible! Now who is right, trump or obama is a different argument bit enough people did believe what trump was selling to vote for him, unless you believe it was the Russians? And the Russians had no power to manipulate the transitional democrats in California, New York etc, so tie the hope trump brought to the disenfranchised with the democrats being quite corrupt in sinking Burnie and doing everything that could to push Hillary, a much loathed figure to the top of the tree and we can see how trump won.

What is interesting is how quickly people can become what they hate! Using Russia as a boggie man, fat shaming, judging people on looks etc etc used to be associated with the non liberals.

Peregrinus

The issue is not whether the Russian intervention actually tipped the election result. (How could you ever prove that it did? Or, for that matter, that it did not?)

The issue is whether Trump was complicit with improper intervention by the Russians. In which case, the argument goes, he is unfit to be President, and/or he is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanours and can and should be impeached. Plus, various highly-placed people around him are looking at charges, trials and lengthy jail terms. For this purpose its irrelevant whether the Russians tipped the election. It's irrelevant, in fact, whether their interventions had any effect at all.

Nobody suggested, after all, that the incidents which gave rise to the Watergate Scandal actually altered the outcome of the 1972 election, but that didn't diminish the seriousness of the incidents, or of the legal and political consequences for those involved.

Pepefrogok

Peregrinus wrote: »

The issue is not whether the Russian intervention actually tipped the election result. (How could you ever prove that it did? Or, for that matter, that it did not?)

The issue is whether Trump was complicit with improper intervention by the Russians. In which case, the argument goes, he is unfit to be President, and/or he is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanours and can and should be impeached. Plus, various highly-placed people around him are looking at charges, trials and lengthy jail terms. For this purpose its irrelevant whether the Russians tipped the election. It's irrelevant, in fact, whether their interventions had any effect at all.

Nobody suggested, after all, that the incidents which gave rise to the Watergate Scandal actually altered the outcome of the 1972 election, but that didn't diminish the seriousness of the incidents, or of the legal and political consequences for those involved.

But what has trump actually got the Russians to do? Dish some sort on Hillary? Hack voting machines? Did he commission some opposition research like the dems did with former British agent Mr Steele?

It just seems otherwise rational people have became whipped into a state of hysteria, screaming about Russia, screaming about trump even screaming at the sky? every news report, every day time talk show, every late night show, every tweet and every post they consume about how the successful business man who went on to become president is a complete floundering idiot who after some televisions diagnosis is also probaly mental, being derogatory about his appearance and weight, about how he will start a nuclear war while Korea under his watch is moving towards peace at a rate never before seen, about how he is destroying the economy but it's actually doing really well because Obama and how his tax plans will destroy the country despite now records being set in employment, especially for black Americans (he is a racist) Apple paying up and investing, manufacturing coming back etc etc etc

Is there mabey a chance many people in here have got it wrong? Been so consumed by the media and it's obvious agenda?

Trent Houseboat

Pepefrogok wrote:

Forgive me if I seem flippant or in any way sarcastic or dismissive but do many people still believe the "it was the Russians wot done it" narrative? I mean it's almost a meme at this point, isn't it? I get that it helped a lot of people after the disappointing election result, sort of an emotional crutch if you will but everyone knows it was not the Russians that made all those Americans vote for trump.

I don't think people here are putting forward the narritive that Russia made millions of Americans vote for Donaly Trump. Can you quote anybody on this?
There is evidence to suggest that the Trump campaign colluded or sought to collude with Russia during the campaign and or transition. That is being investigated.
Do you not think such matters should be investigated?

You don't seem flippant or sarcastic, but you do seem to be dismissive or at best misinformed as to what is being investigates.

Pepefrogok

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

I don't think people here are putting forward the narritive that Russia made millions of Americans vote for Donaly Trump. Can you quote anybody on this?
There is evidence to suggest that the Trump campaign colluded or sought to collude with Russia during the campaign and or transition. That is being investigated.
Do you not think such matters should be investigated?

You don't seem flippant or sarcastic, but you do seem to be dismissive or at best misinformed as to what is being investigates.

Ok but what did trump want from the Russians? What did the Russians supply him with?

everlast75

Pepefrogok wrote: »

But what has trump actually got the Russians to do? Dish some sort on Hillary? Hack voting machines? Did he commission some opposition research like the dems did with former British agent Mr Steele?

After the meeting with Russia, the day after, Trump announced that Hilary had deleted thousands of emails. And, like every other soundbite he propagated at his rallies, it became not an accusation any more, but a criminal matter to his followers, hence the chant "lock her up". I am fairly sure that controlled the narrative for some time and did influence a lot of people.

Is there anything more that the Russians did? Possibly - we will see. But I agree that it was not probably the reason the Dems lost the electoral vote.

Pepefrogok wrote: »

It just seems otherwise rational people have became whipped into a state of hysteria, screaming about Russia, screaming about trump even screaming at the sky? every news report, every day time talk show, every late night show, every tweet and every post they consume about how the successful business man who went on to become president is a complete floundering idiot who after some televisions diagnosis is also probaly mental, being derogatory about his appearance and weight, about how he will start a nuclear war while Korea under his watch is moving towards peace at a rate never before seen, about how he is destroying the economy but it's actually doing really well because Obama and how his tax plans will destroy the country despite now records being set in employment, especially for black Americans (he is a racist) Apple paying up and investing, manufacturing coming back etc etc etc

Is there mabey a chance many people in here have got it wrong? Been so consumed by the media and it's obvious agenda?

Where, on this forum, do you see people "screaming at the sky"? Where are these otherwise reasonable people?

What you are doing here is taking the most extreme reaction to Trump and making it out like everyone against him is the same. A classic way of rubbishing one side's viewpoint. By that same measure, I could claim that everyone that supports Trump is a gun toting, inbred, religious extremist, ill informed racist. But no - I don't.. nor does anyone on here.

And to your later point, most of the stuff that you say he is accused of... well, he has done things to bring any rational person to the conclusion that he probably is an idiot, has mental issues and has done zero to ease tensions with NK. Being honest, you lost me after that point in your post.

B0jangles

Hmm, will I argue honestly and in good faith with brand-new user 'Pepe frog OK', or will I assume they are just another of the 'I'm just asking questions, both candidates were awful, I would have voted for X' - brigade

?

(I'm sure the frog avatar is just because they really like frogs!)

one armed dwarf

It's believed possible that Trump or people on the campaign acting on his behalf worked with Russians to get compromising material on Hillary.

I don't think it's known what the material was but that's not the issue. The issue is the possibilty that an effort was made to get any kind of dirt in the first place.

The more the investigation goes on however and after the Woolf book I kind of feel like Trump himself had little direct involvement compared with his family and staff. Though even the slightest stink of knowledge of what was going on could put him in trouble it looks like.

Pepefrogok

everlast75 wrote: »

After the meeting with Russia, the day after, Trump announced that Hilary had deleted thousands of emails. And, like every other soundbite he propagated at his rallies, it became not an accusation any more, but a criminal matter to his followers, hence the chant "lock her up". I am fairly sure that controlled the narrative for some time and did influence a lot of people.

Is there anything more that the Russians did? Possibly - we will see. But I agree that it was not probably the reason the Dems lost the electoral vote.




Where, on this forum, do you see people "screaming at the sky"? Where are these otherwise reasonable people?

What you are doing here is taking the most extreme reaction to Trump and making it out like everyone against him is the same. A classic way of rubbishing one side's viewpoint. By that same measure, I could claim that everyone that supports Trump is a gun toting, inbred, religious extremist, ill informed racist. But no - I don't.. nor does anyone on here.

And to your later point, most of the stuff that you say he is accused of... well, he has done things to bring any rational person to the conclusion that he probably is an idiot, has mental issues and has done zero to ease tensions with NK. Being honest, you lost me after that point in your post.

Wait, so the information that trump got from the Russians was that Hillary deleted emails? Was that not already common knowledge and the FBI were already investigating?