Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

hill16bhoy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Some Trump supporters that suggest The Donald came from nothing to being a very rich man. Do they actually believe this? Is it some form of subtle performance art?

It ain't subtle, there isn't a Trump supporter on the face of the earth that does subtle.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Some Trump supporters that suggest The Donald came from nothing to being a very rich man. Do they actually believe this? Is it some form of subtle performance art?

donald trump could have born poor and he would have still become as successful as he is now, probably more so.
he has gone from being born upper middle class to building an economic and political empire.
we all know bar assassination, the democrats only real remaining viable option of winning, he will win 2020.

I get people dislike trump but look at the current democrats who are running, they are a mixture of communists, socialists, buffoons, liars, and virtue signalling/identity politics harpies.
i cant say criminals as Hillary's name is not in the mix.
Beto o rourke for example saying we need more women and minorities in top positions and then when asked the logical question Beto if you really believe that please pull out of the race we get some codology of an answer.
bernie sanders is a champagne socialist, something to be truly hated by all normal people.
Cory Booker is another who has zero chance for the simple reason he is not married which will be a serious issue in the US. that wont go down well especially with the black vote.
kamala harris another with zero chance due to her previous record of being soft on crime and using sex to advance her career.

someone like hickenlooper/brown is needed to beat trump but that is not going to happen and we all know why.
the democrats are just too blinded by identity politics to know whats good for them

jooksavage

So. Any sign of that full report?

Only asking because the NYT are now reporting that Barr isn't even going to provide a redacted version but instead send on his own summary.

Is it just me or is it beginning to look like Barr's summary might not actually be an accurate synopsis of the Mueller report?

Time for the Dems to start preparing subpoenas.

EltonJohn69

How is there not more pressure for the report ? I thought the public would demand it

ancapailldorcha

Low quality posts deleted. No more insults please. Serious discussion only.

jooksavage

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

How is there not more pressure for the report ? I thought the public would demand it

Some of this is the media's fault. For months, we've been told that nothing short of releasing the full report would be a satisfactory conclusion to the investigation. We'd been advised to be skeptical of any summary that Barr puts his name to. And then... pretty much everyone starts uncritically reporting the AG's 4 page summary as the final word! Good going.

Now, they intend to not release the report at all. Well that smells off. If the report did what Trump claims (i.e. completely exonerates him), it would be in the public domain already. So i can only assume it doesn't and Barr is full of sh**.

If I'm wrong, fair enough but as it stands, we're exactly where we would expect to be if the report contained damaging information about Trump: the AG is declining to release it and Mitch McConnell is doing his level best to keep the information from the American people.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

Dytalus wrote: »

I understand that parts need to be redacted. I don't agree that the White House (read: Trump) should be the party doing the redacting. The report is the result of an investigation into Trump and those associated with him.

He shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it in a situation where he can alter it. It's a fundamental conflict of interest.

Well, in theory they're redacting it only in relation to Executive Privilege - given we don't have an impartial AG, I don't see who we can look to that will ensure that the redactions are limited to EP.

The Nal

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

How is there not more pressure for the report ? I thought the public would demand it

Regardless of what it may say, impeachment is off the table now so whats the point in chasing the report?

Genius move by Trump to promise a moon landing during his term. Especially after slashing NASAs budget.

EltonJohn69

The Nal wrote: »

Regardless of what it may say, impeachment is off the table now so whats the point in chasing the report?

Genius move by Trump to promise a moon landing during his term. Especially after slashing NASAs budget.

Well trump doesn’t know what is in it... yet he is controlling the narrative... the democratics need to take a look, especially in regards to the obstruction, which is something Muller did not exonerate Trump on

everlast75

The Nal wrote: »

Regardless of what it may say, impeachment is off the table now so whats the point in chasing the report?

Because we don't know what is in the report.

It is as you say highly unlikely that impeachment will ever happen, but as there is more evidence than is currently within the public domain of obstruction of justice (as confirmed in Barr's letter), surely the voting public are entitled to know what happened here given that there is an election next year.

jooksavage

everlast75 wrote: »

Because we don't know what is in the report.

It is as you say highly unlikely that impeachment will ever happen, but as there is more evidence than is currently within the public domain of obstruction of justice (as confirmed in Barr's letter), surely the voting public are entitled to know what happened here given that there is an election next year.

It always seemed impeachment was out of reach. A two thirds majority against Trump in the Senate is a pipe dream. There's also the possibility of Trump benefiting from a Clinton-style bump in popularity in the wake of an impeachment.

The Dems would be better off pushing for the release of the report, if necessary, subpoenaing Mueller, releasing Trumps tax returns, making sure the SDNY's ongoing investigation isn't impeded.

TomOnBoard

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Well, in theory they're redacting it only in relation to Executive Privilege - given we don't have an impartial AG, I don't see who we can look to that will ensure that the redactions are limited to EP.

WH will be given a chance to remove/redact based on executive privilege.
Mueller's team will remove/redact any grand jury testimony.
Probably National Security folks will remove/redact any sources/methods from the counter-intelligence sections.
Barr and his folks will use the black marker on anything else that shouldn't (in their view) see the light of day.

Expect a whole lot of black marks, I'd say... Although I'd hope that Mueller planned for that in his writing...

Back to 'Wait for the Mueller Report' it seems!

everlast75

jooksavage wrote: »

It always seemed impeachment was out of reach. A two thirds majority against Trump in the Senate is a pipe dream. There's also the possibility of Trump benefiting from a Clinton-style bump in popularity in the wake of an impeachment.

The Dems would be better off pushing for the release of the report, if necessary, subpoenaing Mueller, releasing Trumps tax returns, making sure the SDNY's ongoing investigation isn't impeded.

Impeachment being highly unlikely *does not* mean its impossible.

We don't know the full extent of the evidence of obstruction of justice found. Its worth pursuing the report in a measured way, as it pushes back on the trump narrative that he was exonerated.

I agree on the larger front, the investigations should of course continue.

hill16bhoy

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

How is there not more pressure for the report ? I thought the public would demand it

Fascism is designed to wear people down through sheer exhaustion.

You normalise corruption, stupidity and authoritarianism through an all out destruction of truth.

If truth ceases to be taken seriously and the fascists can't be embarrassed, a feeling of hopelessness pervades.

The only way fascists can destroy truth is through portraying themselves as infallible, all-knowing, all-powerful and as the only font of truth, and by trolling, gaslighting and viciously attacking their opponents as liars and anything else you can come up with, at every opportunity.

They promote the cult of personality as an essential component of patriotism. Everything the fascists are guilty of, they will accuse others of.

Trump is a classic fascist in character. There is no difference to how he and his brainwashed followers operate to that of how the worst schoolyard bullies operate.

Even Trump's followers on this forum are a microcosm of Trumpism.

The reason pretty much every Trump supporter ends up being banned from a moderated debating forum such as this is that being a follower of his requires wholesale buying into the whole ideology and methods of fascism, and any debate by definition cannot be not part of that.

Pretty much all the Trump supporters you see on here are cult-like in their devotion to him - they are pretty much all re-registrations who try and start off as appearing "reasonable" and steadily ramp us the gaslighting to the stage where it becomes obvious they are full blown trolls and they get banned, and the cycle starts again.

They troll because they want to shut down debate.

The aim of fascism is to grind down and destroy opposition through fear, threats and humiliation.

Eventually fighting back against fascism becomes so exhausting and so seemingly hopeless, that people end up adopting its language, framing their thought through fascism's terms, and finally outright defending it. This is what has happened in all fascist and authoritarian regimes.

It's what has happened in Putin's Russia and Erdogan's Turkey.

It's also happening in the US now, as supposedly "liberal" journalists like Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald and Angela Nagle clamour to back up Trump's narrative and vilify opposition to him. It ends up becoming easier to support the fascist than oppose them.

Networks and newspapers are adopting Trump's phrasing. They are not talking about a handpicked and corrupted Attorney General claiming things in his summary. They are talking about Trump's "exoneration" and "vindication".

What was the list of "dishonest" journalists which was circulated for public consumption by the Trump regime designed to do? It was designed to strike fear into them and any outlets which employ them, to strike fear into them, and petrify them into running his narratives. As every attack on the media by the Trump regime has been designed to do.

It's even happening within the Democratic party, as the leadership backs meekly away from impeachment, something that should have been done on day 1 of the new Congress, and Democratic supporters talk about a 4D Chess narrative that they have an oh so clever strategy that in reality doesn't exist at all.

Now even calling for the release of the Mueller report seems exhausting and hopeless - the feeling inside the heads of many Democrats now is "ah, just let it go, it's easier".

Timothy Snyder's "On Tyranny" is essential reading for anybody who wants to know how fascism works, and how it grinds down everything in its path. The podcast "Gaslit Nation" is well worth listening to as its regards its contemporary implications.

Nobody should be in any doubt about what is happening in the US now - fascism is happening.

hill16bhoy

everlast75 wrote: »

Impeachment being highly unlikely *does not* mean its impossible.

We don't know the full extent of the evidence of obstruction of justice found. Its worth pursuing the report in a measured way, as it pushes back on the trump narrative that he was exonerated.

I agree on the larger front, the investigations should of course continue.

Impeachment, as in two thirds of the senate voting to remove Trump, absolutely is impossible in my view.

A Republican senate will never vote to remove Trump because they are outright apologists for corruption and criminality. They are political terrorists. How much evidence of decades standing do people need before this hits home?

That doesn't mean Democrats should not push to impeach. They absolutely should.

Here are just a few of the reasons.

https://twitter.com/sarahkendzior/status/1082456343632592897


Everything needs to be blown out in the open and Trump needs to be confronted and pursued to the absolute maximum.

The Democrats are the last chance for the rule of law to stand up and currently they're failing the American people badly.

Quin_Dub

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Impeachment, as in two thirds of the senate voting to remove Trump, absolutely is impossible in my view.

A Republican senate will never vote to remove Trump because they are outright apologists for corruption and criminality. They are political terrorists. How much evidence of decades standing do people need before this hits home?

That doesn't mean Democrats should not push to impeach. They absolutely should.

Here are just a few of the reasons.

https://twitter.com/sarahkendzior/status/1082456343632592897


Everything needs to be blown out in the open and Trump needs to be confronted and pursued to the absolute maximum.

The Democrats are the last chance for the rule of law to stand up and currently they're failing the American people badly.

Disagree fairly strenuously.

Use the power of oversight they now have and highlight the issues.

Trump has just given them a gift by going after Healthcare again , they need to use that and drive home the facts about the reality of the impact of the actions of the current administration.

The real impact of the Tax cuts to real people , the impact of the shady stuff going on with Big Oil in the Dept of the Interior etc. etc. etc.

Stuff like Betsy DeVos cutting 100% of the funding for the Special Olympics from the Education budget alongside other massive cuts to funding for Special needs students.

A failed attempt at impeachment gives Trump the "victim" card to ensure that he maximises his Base.

Even a successful impeachment drives an even bigger wedge into US society.

The best way to achieve change is at the ballot box.

Penn

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Impeachment, as in two thirds of the senate voting to remove Trump, absolutely is impossible in my view.

A Republican senate will never vote to remove Trump because they are outright apologists for corruption and criminality. They are political terrorists. How much evidence of decades standing do people need before this hits home?

That doesn't mean Democrats should not push to impeach. They absolutely should.

Here are just a few of the reasons.

https://twitter.com/sarahkendzior/status/1082456343632592897


Everything needs to be blown out in the open and Trump needs to be confronted and pursued to the absolute maximum.

The Democrats are the last chance for the rule of law to stand up and currently they're failing the American people badly.

"You come at the King, you best not miss"

If the Dems push for impeachment and fail, it a) gives Trump the chance to say that proves he didn't do anything wrong (like he has done with Barr's summary of the Mueller report, saying it exonerates him even though it specifically says it doesn't), and b) gives Trump and the GOP the chance to claim presidential harassment and abuse of power on the Dems behalf.

It expends political capital in a way that, given how the Senate, the AG and Supreme Court are leaning, very likely won't amount to anything positive. And the time it would take given the likely challenges they'll face in doing so could take as long as waiting until the next election anyway.

Their best chance is to keep chipping away and bringing things out into the open and using those things not to impeach, but to use against him in the 2020 election. Obviously if they find something so egregious and with so much proof that even some of the GOP Senators would back them up, then impeachment would be a necessary step. But even with all listed above in that tweet, it's not going to be enough for the Dems to start impeachment proceedings in any way that might actually yield any positive results, particularly at this stage.

Gbear

There is a cost to the Republians for failing to convict Trump if there is sufficient evidence brought before both the House and the Senate.

Even if the Republicans seek to obstruct the investigation within the Senate and make a mockery of the hearing, because the Dems have the house, they can ensure that due process is followed in the first house.

From there you are playing a bit of a dangerous game but you're certainly bringing a challenge to the Republicans - ignore blatant and obvious corruption right in front of the American people on live television, or be part of yet another successful removal of a Republican criminal president.

The calculus that the Dems would have to work out is whether the energising of their base and erosion of floating voter support for Republicans would be worth whatever effect the ultimate decision not to convict would have (which is difficult to predict).

hill16bhoy

Gbear wrote: »

From there you are playing a bit of a dangerous game but you're certainly bringing a challenge to the Republicans - ignore blatant and obvious corruption right in front of the American people on live television, or be part of yet another successful removal of a Republican criminal president.

If the Democrats do this, they shouldn't be surprised when the fascist wins again, because the fascist will make damn sure he wins again - he's rigging the whole system to ensure he does.

Putin, Erdogan and Orban have all done it. Why do people think Trump will be any different?

"Strategy" doesn't work with a fascist. You have to fight them bare knuckle with everything you have.

I've no doubt the long term goal of all this is to install Ivanka Trump in 2024 and carry on the grinding down of democracy in the US and the legitimisation of corruption and criminality, all under the guise of "feminism". Ivanka Trump is to feminism what Harold Shipman was to medicine.

serfboard

Here's something that I missed from the Summary of the Report:

As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."]

Short of a hand-written letter signed by Vlad saying something like, "Hey Don Jr., Thanks for conspiring with us, Signed V. Putin (on behalf of the Russian government)", it would have been hard to find that they conspired with the government.

However, what's not said is whether the investigation found that the Campaign conspired or coordinated with Russians (or others), who may have been acting on behalf of (or with the knowledge/agreement of) the Russian government.

Here's how the New York Times described one such incidence:

The New York Times wrote:

Paul Manafort shared political polling data with a business associate tied to Russian intelligence, according to a court filing unsealed on Tuesday. The document provided the clearest evidence to date that the Trump campaign may have tried to coordinate with Russians during the 2016 presidential race.

Since "coordinating with Russians" in an election campaign is not a crime, I can see why no indictments were recommended.

Manic Moran

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has announced a boycott on any firm or vendor who works with any challenger to an incumbent Democrat in the primaries in 2020.
https://theintercept.com/2019/03/22/house-democratic-leadership-warns-it-will-cut-off-any-firms-who-challenge-incumbents/

Yes, it's the intercept. I don't see any reason to believe it's wrong, though. Not least, it links directly to the terms. https://action.dccc.org/sign-up/political-vendors

jooksavage

I think I've recommended the Lawfare podcast before. I'll endorse it again. Its presented by and intended for people in the US legal, intelligence and foreign policy community so it can be a bit dense and most of the episodes will be of little interest to the casual listener. It can be a great resource though and the latest episode is a helpful guide to interpret Barr's summary.

Ben Wittes and his panel are skeptical. While at least one of the four speakers believes Barr's headline summary may not be factually incorrect, they're all anticipating that, based on the plain-to-see conduct of Trump, Barr is mis-characterizing the tenor of the report, especially on the count of obstruction. As evidence that the summary as little more than a dishonest device for exonerating Trump, they point to the fact that in his 4 pages, Barr completely neglects to mention the high-level counter-intelligence aspects of Mueller's brief.

Quin_Dub

Manic Moran wrote: »

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has announced a boycott on any firm or vendor who works with any challenger to an incumbent Democrat in the primaries in 2020.
https://theintercept.com/2019/03/22/house-democratic-leadership-warns-it-will-cut-off-any-firms-who-challenge-incumbents/

Yes, it's the intercept. I don't see any reason to believe it's wrong, though. Not least, it links directly to the terms. https://action.dccc.org/sign-up/political-vendors

So basically that significantly reduces the chances of a sitting rep being primaried as it starves potential challengers of access to things like Lobbyists, polling data support and the like?

Other than being seen as "circling the wagons" a bit , I guess this means they get to save money to defend the seats from the GOP instead of wasting money in a primary..

But the story will be spun hard by the GOP as being anti-democratic ,with some legitimacy although I've no doubt that certain elements will over-play that legitimacy by screaming "Communism" etc. etc.

Penn

In the future when there's a Dem President, Senate & AG... can they re-open the Mueller report and issue proceedings against Trump? Obviously Barr is choosing not to now, and for as long as Trump's President and has the GOP Senate behind him they'll fight to conceal or heavily redact the report. But in the future, can't the Dems eventually get the report anyway, and Trump wouldn't have the protection he has now.

MadYaker

Penn wrote: »

In the future when there's a Dem President, Senate & AG... can they re-open the Mueller report and issue proceedings against Trump? Obviously Barr is choosing not to now, and for as long as Trump's President and has the GOP Senate behind him they'll fight to conceal or heavily redact the report. But in the future, can't the Dems eventually get the report anyway, and Trump wouldn't have the protection he has now.

The SDNY are persuing numerous investigations into him for campaign finance violations and obstruction of justice (and probably some other stuff) The Stormy Daniels payment etc hasn't gone away but that stuff wasn't really part of Muellers scope. Once Trump is out of office I think any dems in the house / senate / WH will probably be content to leave sleeping dogs lie and focus on running the country. Legislate over investigate, wasn't that a quote from some dem after they took the house?

Gbear

MadYaker wrote: »

The SDNY are persuing numerous investigations into him for campaign finance violations and obstruction of justice (and probably some other stuff) The Stormy Daniels payment etc hasn't gone away but that stuff wasn't really part of Muellers scope. Once Trump is out of office I think any dems in the house / senate / WH will probably be content to leave sleeping dogs lie and focus on running the country. Legislate over investigate, wasn't that a quote from some dem after they took the house?

That would be a colossal dereliction of duty.

Much better than catching someone after they've done the crime is instituting measures to mean they can't do them in the first place.

Knowing the details of Trump's crimes and making them known to the public will help in passing and keeping in place legislation that will prevent another from doing the same thing in future.

Danzy

Did the Democrats actually believe there was anything to the Russian angle, I doubt it.

Was a 2 year rabbit hole, maybe they needed the distraction.

It certainly helped Trump.

His opponents are more likely to get him re-elected than his own side.

Look at the position Hill16Bhoy is taking, trump would love to see him deciding Democrat policy on this.

mcmoustache

Danzy wrote: »

Did the Democrats actually believe there was anything to the Russian angle, I doubt it.

Was a 2 year rabbit hole, maybe they needed the distraction.

All of those suspicious interactions that the Trump campaign had with the Russians actually happened. And they denied that they happened until it was shown that they happened.

The Trump tower meeting happened. Junior even tweeted out the correspondence. The change to the republican platform happened. Trump resisting Russian sanctions happened. Trump saying that he fired Comey because of the investigation happened.

I could go on but I suspect that I'd be wasting my time. I'd suggest not getting too far ahead of yourself here - you only have Barr's carefully parsed words and those words don't say that there was no collusion or no obstruction.

If Mueller's report exonerated Trump, do you really think that the best that Trump's AG could offer would be a carefully worded 4-page summary?

vladmydad

Ok I’m gonna tell you what’s going to happen next. 1st : declassification by the President of all material relating to the muller investigation, it will be terrible for the democrats and former Obama officials showing shocking abuses of the system to pursue the incoming president. Then the results of 2 investigations will be released. One is investigating FISA abuse and it will be devastating. It will find that information was purposefully withheld from the FISA court , such as the fact the dossier which the investigation was based on was compiled as opposition research and that Steele was not considered reliable by the FBI. The second investigation is being run from Utah and is investigating the FBI. It’s conclusion will be that the FBI had set in motion a plan to disseminate the Russian collusion story in order to hamstring the Trump administration, also widespread corruption was within the top brass and that a predetermined outcome had been reached not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. The Trump administration will then initiate the most wide sweeping overhaul of the FBI and intelligence agencies since 9/11. A lot of people are going to jail, clapper, brennen, Comey etc. Then it’s the media’s turn. A lot of people who are the main faces of American tv news, will not be in the job by the end of the year. The media backlash has already begun, msnbc and cnn’s viewership collapsed Monday. The next year is going to be staggering in politics and media.

mcmoustache

vladmydad wrote: »

Ok I’m gonna tell you what’s going to happen next. 1st : declassification by the President of all material relating to the muller investigation, it will be terrible for the democrats and former Obama officials showing shocking abuses of the system to pursue the incoming president. Then the results of 2 investigations will be released. One is investigating FISA abuse and it will be devastating. It will find that information was purposefully withheld from the FISA court , such as the fact the dossier which the investigation was based on was compiled as opposition research and that Steele was not considered reliable by the FBI. The second investigation is being run from Utah and is investigating the FBI. It’s conclusion will be that the FBI had set in motion a plan to disseminate the Russian collusion story in order to hamstring the Trump administration, also widespread corruption was within the top brass and that a predetermined outcome had been reached not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. The Trump administration will then initiate the most wide sweeping overhaul of the FBI and intelligence agencies since 9/11. A lot of people are going to jail, clapper, brennen, Comey etc. Then it’s the media’s turn. A lot of people who are the main faces of American tv news, will not be in the job by the end of the year. The media backlash has already begun, msnbc and cnn’s viewership collapsed Monday. The next year is going to be staggering in politics and media.

Oh balls. QAnon twitter is leaking again.