Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

James Brown

Selling Nuclear technology to the Saudis and supporting Israels occupation of the Golan heights, should be exciting times ahead.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/u-s-approves-secret-nuclear-power-work-for-saudi-arabia_n_5c9cc673e4b08c450cd27078

1eg0a3xv7b82of

everlast75 wrote: »

A nice rebuttal to the allegations of lying made by Trump et al. Nunes looks fit to burst.

I can't see one thing Schiff said that was untrue.

I also agree with him on a moral level. It's a pity more people don't.

https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1111289977143545856?s=19

empty rhetoric.

the russians offered trumps team dirt and they refused it.
schiff is a hoaxer, he is a disgrace and should step down.
schiff is also a leaker and a fraud.

nunes has never been so right

1eg0a3xv7b82of

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Thankfully, at least for now, the US isn't a dictatorship where Trump can implement laws at a whim. Presidential terms limits are set under the 22nd Amendment.

under obama america had the feel of the beginning of the fascist state.
upset the elites and they will use every arm of the state to get you.
the irs controversy, the attack on first amendment rights and the treatment of Dinesh D'Souza are scary for the average American.


In 2024 Trump will have to decide does he stay so he protect the american people.

mcmoustache

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

empty rhetoric.

the russians offered trumps team dirt and they refused it.
schiff is a hoaxer, he is a disgrace and should step down.
schiff is also a leaker and a fraud.

nunes has never been so right

Where the hell are you getting your "information" from?

I must have missed the report's of Team Trump refusing dirt and what hoax has Schiff participated in? And the guy trying to sue the fake cow really doesn't have a lot of credibility.

You are either just making stuff up now or you're spreading nonsense that you read somewhere on the QAnon side of the internet. You're not going to be taken seriously with that kind of horseshyt.

everlast75

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

empty rhetoric.

What is incorrect?

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

the russians offered trumps team dirt and they refused it.

They offered did they? I thought it was about adoption?

And why didn't Trump Jnr tell the FBI that a foreign adversary was looking to illegally interfere in the US elections? That's what he should have done.

He shouldn't have even taken the meeting.

He shouldn't have conspired with his dad to lie about the meeting.

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

Schiff is a hoaxer, he is a disgrace and should step down.
schiff is also a leaker and a fraud.

nunes has never been so right

You need to bring things up past the level of name calling.

mcmoustache

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

under obama america had the feel of the beginning of the fascist state.
upset the elites and they will use every arm of the state to get you.
the irs controversy, the attack on first amendment rights and the treatment of Dinesh D'Souza are scary for the average American.


In 2024 Trump will have to decide does he stay so he protect the american people.

This is just more nonsense from places like the_Donald. You're really doing your best here to look very misinformed. You're on the internet, for feck's sake -we can look up your claims and see them for the nonsense that they are.

Thepoet85

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote:

the russians offered trumps team dirt and they refused it.

Can you link me somewhere that shows this conclusively. Thanks

Gbear

Even insofar as we can trust anything Barr says (and I'm sceptical about that), his claim of the Mueller report with respect to the question of colluding with russia is that "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”.

It does not say there is "no evidence of collusion". It only says that it did not establish that it occurred, presumably to the legal standard, which is to say, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The legal standard is not the only standard that is applied here. Impeachment is first and foremost a political process, so it could be that there's sufficient evidence that a president could be convicted and removed from office in an impeachment process based on what was found, even if the legal standard was not met. That won't happen anyway, given the makeup of the Senate, but it's an important distinction.

Further to that, it could have political ramifications, in that people might read the report and reasonably make their own minds up that while Trump et al. might not have committed a crime beyond all reasonable doubt, on the preponderance of evidence they believe that they did, and as such would believe him to be a dangerous unindicted criminal, unfit for office.

Further to that, is that it refers only to conspiring or coordinating with Russia in the election process. It says nothing of, for example, quid pro quo arrangements between Putin or those of his inner circle and Trump and his, with respect to undermining sanctions against Russia.
It says nothing of any other potential conflicts of interest, pertinent politically damaging revelations, or crimes that Trump et al. might have committed with Russia or close to the Russian regime, for which we have evidence in the public domain.

Regardless, we need the actual Mueller report to determine what, if anything was unearthed.

Talk of witch hunts, reopening investigations into Clinton, or treason committed in the process of the investigation by the FBI, journalists or politicians, is the same neo-fascist, post-truth prattle we've seen all along from Trump and those with a cult-like adherence to him.

rossie1977

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

under obama america had the feel of the beginning of the fascist state.
upset the elites and they will use every arm of the state to get you.
the irs controversy, the attack on first amendment rights and the treatment of Dinesh D'Souza are scary for the average American.

D'Souza admitted he undertook campaign finance fraud. D'Souza has little to nothing in common with average American given he has been in politics for decades serving in Reagan administration.

It's clear the us government is moving closer to fascism under Trump than Obama

peddlelies

everlast75 wrote: »

I can't see one thing Schiff said that was untrue.

I also agree with him on a moral level. It's a pity more people don't.

Adam Schiff is the head of the senate intelligence committee. He's not meant to go on TV daily and make rash statements without evidence. He's continuously went on TV for two years and claimed he has direct evidence of a conspiracy.

1 month ago on meet the press he said this ""I can't go into the particulars, there is more than circumstantial evidence now"

Russian trolling of Democratic National Committee emails is “like Watergate in the sense that you had a break in at the Democratic headquarters, in this case a virtual one, not a physical break in, and you had a president as part of a cover up,” he said.

“I think there’s plenty of evidence of collusion and conspiracy in plain sight.”

"The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help, the Russians gave help, and the president made full use of that help, and that is pretty damning.."

Post Mueller findings “Our predominant concern to my committee is, Was this president—is this president—compromised by a foreign power?”

“Undoubtedly there is collusion”

"There would be a conspiracy on the size and scope of watergate."

"Significant evidence of collusion"

We know about the Trump tower meeting. My only question is why did the house, the senate and now Mueller's investigation come back empty handed. Why hasn't Schiff shown his evidence of the conspiracy he knows exists?

peddlelies

rossie1977 wrote: »

It's clear the us government is moving closer to fascism under Trump than Obama

Because Dinesh D'Souza? That's a very lazy argument.

IRS Targeting of tax exempt political groups
Both 2014 and 2015 Obama administration set the record for denying the most Freedom of Information Act requests of any administration in history
20 AP phone lines both work and home tapped for over 2 months
James Rosen of Fox labelled a co-conspirator and flight risk

You can argue Trump's administration has been bad too, I believe they sought records from a New York Times reporter, but at least make that argument, in no way can you simply brush it off with some one liner about D'Souza. I get the feeling they'll be more to add to the above list before Trump leaves office.

FrostyJack

peddlelies wrote: »

We know about the Trump tower meeting. My only question is why did the house, the senate and now Mueller's investigation come back empty handed. Why hasn't Schiff shown his evidence of the conspiracy he knows exists?

We don't know if the Mueller report came back emptied handed as we haven't seen it. There are also other investigations on going which he may not be able to released details of. The Mueller investigation results are as Barr defined it, it only covers dealing directing with the IRA and GRU which most people agree he likely didn't collude with directly. It is what Trump claimed he was being investigated for but most people don't believe it is that type of collusion. So Schiff could still be correct.

Quin_Dub

peddlelies wrote: »

Adam Schiff is the head of the senate intelligence committee. He's not meant to go on TV daily and make rash statements without evidence. He's continuously went on TV for two years and claimed he has direct evidence of a conspiracy.

1 month ago on meet the press he said this ""I can't go into the particulars, there is more than circumstantial evidence now"

Russian trolling of Democratic National Committee emails is “like Watergate in the sense that you had a break in at the Democratic headquarters, in this case a virtual one, not a physical break in, and you had a president as part of a cover up,” he said.

“I think there’s plenty of evidence of collusion and conspiracy in plain sight.”

"The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help, the Russians gave help, and the president made full use of that help, and that is pretty damning.."

Post Mueller findings “Our predominant concern to my committee is, Was this president—is this president—compromised by a foreign power?”

“Undoubtedly there is collusion”

"There would be a conspiracy on the size and scope of watergate."

"Significant evidence of collusion"

We know about the Trump tower meeting. My only question is why did the house, the senate and now Mueller's investigation come back empty handed. Why hasn't Schiff shown his evidence of the conspiracy he knows exists?

House & Senate - They came back empty handed because they didn't investigate properly (as they were GOP controlled) ,. There have been multiple reports detailing how utterly incomplete and ineffective the "investigations" led by those committees were.

Mueller - We don't actually know what Mueller did or did not find , all we know so far is that in the opinion of William Barr , an AG appointed by Trump specifically to "deal with" the Mueller Report , there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.

And now, despite everyone in Trumps orbit proclaiming that the report "totally exonerates" Trump (even though not even his personally appointed AG could give him that clean a bill of health). We have McConnell and Barr doing everything in their power to throw up roadblocks to the publication of the report.

And now we have Trump wanting to jail everyone involved in the investigation , even coming out with the utterly baffling statement saying "You're only allowed to do this legally if there is a crime"

So now according to Trump you can't investigate a crime until you are absolutely certain it's a crime !!

peddlelies

FrostyJack wrote: »

We don't know if the Mueller report came back emptied handed as we haven't seen it. There are also other investigations on going which he may not be able to released details of. The Mueller investigation results are as Barr defined it, it only covers dealing directing with the IRA and GRU which most people agree he likely didn't collude with directly. It is what Trump claimed he was being investigated for but most people don't believe it is that type of collusion. So Schiff could still be correct.

Sure, but I'm not talking about that. I know Trump is a grafter and very likely has many shady business dealings.

I'm talking about the narrative Adam Schiff has been pushing, that there's more than direct evidence of a grand conspiracy. Repeating JR's Tower meeting 100 times won't cut it, one week ago he said on meet the press that there's "now" evidence that goes beyond circumstantial. Why is he saying things like that if he can't back it up? He was involved in at least one of the Senate or House investigations.

Mueller's report won't be out for a couple of weeks we'll see then I suppose.

peddlelies

peddlelies wrote: »

Sure, but I'm not talking about that. I know Trump is a grafter and very likely has many shady business dealings.

Then why support such an individual? How could anyone be happy to have a guy like this running the country?

peddlelies

Deleted User wrote: »

Then why support such an individual? How could anyone be happy to have a guy like this running the country?

I'm talking solely about the Russian investigation. Do you think it would be a good thing for society if people innocent of crimes were convicted anyway just because you didn't like them?

If you want him gone find some high crime that will garner Republican support for impeachment or have him voted out at the ballot box. Partisanship shouldn't come into it.

rossie1977

peddlelies wrote: »

Because Dinesh D'Souza? That's a very lazy argument.

Not because of D'Souza. He is nothing more than a high profile troll.

Since Trump took office he has:

* Ramped up nationalism
* There has been rise in human rights offenses
* We have seen the president using certain segments of society as enemies to try and unify his supporters
* There has been an increase in military supremacy
* we have seen office of president attempt to control the media in a way to suit himself
* There is now an obsession with national security
* Religion is playing stronger role in government now than under Obama
* Tax cuts have seen corporations become even stronger and of course many large corporations have had members or ex members part of Trump's cabinet.
* Clearly distain for intellectuals and those working in the arts whose views don't match that of president
* Trump wants to be tougher on crime snd punishment than Obama even telling police they need to be much tougher
* cronyism is rife
* There are allegations of fraudulent elections.

peddlelies

Quin_Dub wrote: »

And now, despite everyone in Trumps orbit proclaiming that the report "totally exonerates" Trump (even though not even his personally appointed AG could give him that clean a bill of health). We have McConnell and Barr doing everything in their power to throw up roadblocks to the publication of the report.

Barr's initial job was to release the conclusions on whether or not there were Americans who conspired with Russian election interference, and whether or not there was enough evidence to prosecute for obstruction of justice. He did that.

He subsequently said a "full" version will be released within weeks. What else would you have him do?

peddlelies

rossie1977 wrote: »

Not because of D'Souza. He is nothing more than a high profile troll.

Since Trump took office he has:

* Ramped up nationalism
* There has been rise in human rights offenses
* We have seen the president using certain segments of society as enemies to try and unify his supporters
* There has been an increase in military supremacy
* we have seen office of president attempt to control the media in a way to suit himself
* There is now an obsession with national security
* Religion is playing stronger role in government now than under Obama
* Tax cuts have seen corporations become even stronger and of course many large corporations have had members or ex members part of Trump's cabinet.
* Clearly distain for intellectuals and those working in the arts whose views don't match that of president
* Trump wants to be tougher on crime snd punishment than Obama even telling police they need to be much tougher
* cronyism is rife
* There are allegations of fraudulent elections.

These are all liberal talking points and hold very little weight. A conservative could write up a similar list of policy disagreements under the 8 years of Pres Obama. American in 2019 isn't much different to America in 2016 beyond partisan Political circles for 90% of people. Economy is doing well though.

Danzy

The type of people who always saw "world Jewry" as a hidden and sinister force have tweaked it and now see Russia as the prime movers.

The old tropes are never too hidden though.

Quin_Dub

peddlelies wrote: »

Barr's initial job was to release the conclusions on whether or not there were Americans who conspired with Russian election interference, and whether or not there was enough evidence to prosecute for obstruction of justice. He did that.

He subsequently said a "full" version will be released within weeks. What else would you have him do?

His "conclusions" in the vacuum between now and whenever the report does actually get released are the problem.

I'd have preferred that he waited to release the report with his "conclusions" as the cover letter.

His conclusions could potentially be a bit like one of those trailers on youtube that makes a movie look fantastic by only showing you the two or three decent bits of the movie, but the whole thing together turns out to be utter muck..

But his conclusion released now , regardless of its accuracy and "completeness" in the context of the full report allows Trump to define the agenda.

You rail against "partizanship" , but Barr releasing a 4 page summary of what one must assume is thousands of pages of evidence so far in advance of the as yet unconfirmed release date of the full report is as rank an act of partizanship as one could imagine.

peddlelies

Quin_Dub wrote: »

His "conclusions" in the vacuum between now and whenever the report does actually get released are the problem.

I'd have preferred that he waited to release the report with his "conclusions" as the cover letter.

You know what would have happened if he did that right? If he was sent the report and then sat on it.

In your eyes he can't win either way.

Edit: Just to add. If Barr is twisting things in a monstrous way, why hasn't the special council spoken up about it?

Quin_Dub

peddlelies wrote: »

You know what would have happened if he did that right? If he was sent the report and then sat on it.

In your eyes he can't win either way.

Look - There would always be those that would find something to complain about.

But if he had said "I've just gotten the report , it's 300 pages.. I'm going to read it , analyse it and working with the relevant people redact the bare minimum amount require for National security and/or ongoing cases etc. and then release it along with a DOJ summary and response" I don't think any complainant would really have a leg to stand on.

peddlelies

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Look - There would always be those that would find something to complain about.

But if he had said "I've just gotten the report , it's 300 pages.. I'm going to read it , analyse it and working with the relevant people redact the bare minimum amount require for National security and/or ongoing cases etc. and then release it along with a DOJ summary and response" I don't think any complainant would really have a leg to stand on.

Any statement Barr would have made wouldn't have mattered. There would have instantly been cries of a cover-up. The partisans would have been shouting "COLLUSION, IF HE WAS INNOCENT THEY WOULD HAVE RELEASED IT!!" and the media would have been in a total frenzy. It would have taken him at least a week ( he's cited two ) to release the full thing. From what I've read in situations with special councils it's precedent that the core findings are initially released to prevent such reactions from happening.

We won't agree anyway, let's see in a couple of weeks what we get.

Quin_Dub

peddlelies wrote: »

You know what would have happened if he did that right? If he was sent the report and then sat on it.

In your eyes he can't win either way.

Edit: Just to add. If Barr is twisting things in a monstrous way, why hasn't the special council spoken up about it?

Mueller works for the DOJ - From everything that has been said about him over the last 2 years , running the press or anywhere else to talk out of school is absolutely the last thing he would do..

I don't think Barr is saying anything technically incorrect but it is without question a selective interpretation.


Barr interprets the statement

"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or co-ordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

to mean

"The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or co-ordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election."

Legally that might be accurate - But if the actual report details say that they found evidence , but just not enough to meet the threshold for conviction , then that's a very very different thing.

So Barr hasn't lied - He's far too experienced a legal mind to do something as crass as that but as I say, in the information vacuum that now exists ,Trump gets to paint a picture that could end up to be very very far away from the reality.

I mean even though Barr himself says that in relation to obstruction of Justice "The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that . . . the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”. , Trump and his mouthpieces are repeatedly using the phrase "Totally Exonerated".

If the conclusions and the report both hit the street at the same time , that wouldn't be happening.

peddlelies

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Legally that might be accurate - But if the actual report details say that they found evidence , but just not enough to meet the threshold for conviction , then that's a very very different thing.

I've reasoned why he released the memo in my previous post.

I don't disagree with the above point, everyone knows there was at least some heavy flirting going on. I thought the Tower / email thing was scandalous and it changed my perception a lot but over time it changed back again. I agree we need to see the full report, I just don't expect any bombshells, that's my prediction based on the fact nobody was prosecuted with someone like Weissmann sniffing around.

rossie1977

peddlelies wrote: »

These are all liberal talking points and hold very little weight. A conservative could write up a similar list of policy disagreements under the 8 years of Pres Obama. American in 2019 isn't much different to America in 2016 beyond partisan Political circles for 90% of people.

They could try but there is no chance you could claim Obama had more fascistic tendencies than Trump based on highly detailed research on the subject.

Its not policy disagreements to say Trump has employed family members in top positions..obama did not do that.

Trump has tried to make certain segments of society like Muslims, immigrants, Mexicans etc enemies of the US..obama did not do that

Trump has shown complete distain for media that doesn't praise him continually..obama did not do that

Trump has gone out of his way to appeal to the christian right wing..Obama did not do that

Economy is doing well though.

Not relevant to discussion but economy was doing similar in November 2016 in terms of unemployment and Dow jones rise. Of course national debt and budget deficit has seen big increases since then..

peddlelies

rossie1977 wrote: »

They could try but there is no chance you could claim Obama had more fascistic tendencies than Trump based on highly detailed research on the subject.

Its not policy disagreements to say Trump has employed family members in top positions..obama did not do that.

You're right, he filled his administration with journalists instead.

Trump has tried to make certain segments of society like Muslims, immigrants, Mexicans etc enemies of the US..obama did not do that

Trump has shown complete distain for media that doesn't praise him continually..obama did not do that

Obama's administration regularly hammered Fox news, he snubbed people like Chris Wallace from open media sessions on healthcare etc.

Anita Dunn, who was then the White House director of communications, told the New York Times in an interview on Oct. 11, 2009, that Fox News was not a legitimate news organization.

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” Dunn told the Times.

30% of Mexicans voted for Trump in the 2016 election, more black american's voted for Trump than Mitt Romney. Many European polls show only 20% of people have a positive opinion about the impact Islamic immigration has had on their countries( France, Belgium etc. ). There is problems with immigration. I'm not going to argue that Trump hasn't caused divisiveness because that would be idiotic but the Fascism talk isn't founded in any sort of reality.

Edit: 76,000 illegals crossed the Southern border in February - Illegal Immigration in the US is a huge deal although it doesn't excuse the rhetoric.

FrostyJack

peddlelies wrote: »

Anita Dunn, who was then the White House director of communications, told the New York Times in an interview on Oct. 11, 2009, that Fox News was not a legitimate news organization.

Fox News isn't a legitimate news source. The local affiliates have legitimate local stories but Fox News as whole are just propaganda wing of the GOP. And before you say MSNBC and CNN are the equivalent on the Left, you could not be more wrong.

76,000 illegals crossed the Southern border in February - Illegal Immigration in the US is a huge deal although it doesn't excuse the rhetoric.

Trump needs these to work in his businesses and the likes of Nunes farm or else they would have to stop being hypocrites and we cannot have that.

FrostyJack

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

D'Souza is guilty, thats not the point. The point is no one does time for this.
many Americans have done it.
but d'souza was prosecuted for the simple reason he made an excellent movie about obama. a movie that showed the real obama, you know the one who lets his kenyan family live in poverty.

D'Souza compares Trump to Lincoln and the Democrats to Nazi's, that is all you need to know about him. One group is far right, like the Nazi's and holds Nuremberg style rallies every week, like the Nazi's, I could go on. He gets pardoned for a crime he did commit because he says nice things about Trump and his family. He is the ultimate bad faith actor, conspiracy theorist and hero of the gullible. He is no better than his Ex Ann Coulter or Alex Jones, he says and makes up things for money.