Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

duploelabs

everlast75 wrote: »

Anyone that shows up the hypocrisy of Graham should be thanked in my book.

At the end of Lawrence O'Donnell's show last night, they composed a little video, which illustrates Graham's complete 180 on DJT.

Incidentally, Graham admitted he did not read the whole Mueller report, but was happy saying that "it was over" and let's move on.

Anyway, here's the link to the video

https://twitter.com/TheLastWord/status/1123785826574446594?s=20

Given this (and how he was eviscerated by former proscecuters Harris and Klobuchar) , is it any wonder that Barr refuses to attend the house judiciary committee where he won't have Graham running linebacker for him?

kilns

For all those pro Trump posters on here and those defending Barr, can you please defend how a AG of the USA is given the final report of the most important case to land on his desk for the last 40 years and he fails to even look at the evidence, do you think this is fitting of that office to not even look at the evidence and decide that there is no case to answer? If you were a lawyer in any practice anywhere in the world and you didnt look at the evidence of the case and made your mind up about it and put that in writing, you would be fired on the spot.

kilns

Igotadose wrote: »

duploelabs wrote: »

Well? How is this relevant to her questioning of Barr?


She's brilliant. Hopefully Biden and Bernie get out of the way and let her be the candidate in 2020. Imagine the debates with Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if declines debating her completely.

I think she would actually make a great VP or AG in 2020 with a view to her being the front runner in 2024 as she becomes more known to the rest of the country who dont follow the day in day out workings of the Senate

FrostyJack

duploelabs wrote: »

Given this (and how he was envicorated by former proscecuters Harris and Klobuchar) , is it any wonder that Barr refuses to attend the house judiciary committee where he won't have Graham running linebacker for him?

Rarely do I get to watch hearings live and just watch the highlights. Yesterday I got to see most of it. Shocking scenes from the GOP, how anyone remotely open minded could watch their performance and think they have an shred of credibility is insane. The constant deflection and bum kissing was so coordinated, as pointed out by some senators. A few made lip service to securing future elections from interference but the rest attacked Comey, the FBI, Obama's justice department, McCabe and spouted Trump talking points that he was totally exonerated and there should be an investigation into the investigators. The format of rotating the GOP and DEM was shown as a complete waste of time. They should just let the GOP say how great Barr is and thank him for his service and ask about Hillary's emails, then let the legitimate questions get asked. It was horrible to sit through the likes of Cruz's performance. How a right minded person could vote them in for office is beyond my comprehension. Complete shilling of the highest order. Imagine if it was something of greater consequence like attacking Russia or China, how could you think they were sincere about anything they say. The likes of Harris's and Hirono were seen as great but in this format my dog would look great. Barr should be frog marched out of office if it is to have any shred of credibility in the future.

rossie1977

Igotadose wrote: »

She's brilliant. Hopefully Biden and Bernie get out of the way and let her be the candidate in 2020. Imagine the debates with Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if declines debating her completely.

She is excellent at her job as a senator, I don't think she has the charisma to win the presidency though.

I would expect Harris to be gunning for Senate majority/minority leader come 2020-22

aloyisious

On the basis that what I've just read on F/B is fake or at least just part of one of Dons tweets or replieas to a leading questions, I googled for info and found that he indeed did call for the death penalty for suicide bombers as part of a comment on how the penalty should apply to people who terrorize and kill good people by suicide bombing deserves nothing less than the highest penalty, which is to pay with their life. I suspect its just another example of words coming out of his mouth before his brain has computed the order they should be in first. He does have a history of calling for the death penalty for various people. Edit: its actually possible that it was pure sarcasm on his part.

https://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/Trump-Wants-Death-Penalty-4-Suicide-Bombers/td-p/2139646

Dytalus

aloyisious wrote: »

On the basis that what I've just read on F/B is fake or at least just part of one of Dons tweets or replieas to a leading questions, I googled for info and found that he indeed did call for the death penalty for suicide bombers as part of a comment on how the penalty should apply to people who terrorize and kill good people by suicide bombing deserves nothing less than the highest penalty, which is to pay with their life. I suspect its just another example of words coming out of his mouth before his brain has computed the order they should be in first. He does have a history of calling for the death penalty for various people.

https://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/Trump-Wants-Death-Penalty-4-Suicide-Bombers/td-p/2139646

Uh, the source for that is a satirical website. I can't find any evidence that Trump actually called for suicide bombers to be punished with the death penalty.

It has happened before with a UK politician before, but as far as I know it's not a statement Trump's made.

aloyisious

Dytalus wrote: »

Uh, the source for that is a satirical website. I can't find any evidence that Trump actually called for suicide bombers to be punished with the death penalty.

It has happened before with a UK politician before, but as far as I know it's not a statement Trump's made.

Ta. The other two sites are probably satirical as well, like WaterfordWhispers here.

http://www.breakingburgh.com/trump-fires-base-call-death-penalty-suicide-bombers/

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017441337

Cheerful Spring

kilns wrote: »

For all those pro Trump posters on here and those defending Barr, can you please defend how a AG of the USA is given the final report of the most important case to land on his desk for the last 40 years and he fails to even look at the evidence, do you think this is fitting of that office to not even look at the evidence and decide that there is no case to answer? If you were a lawyer in any practice anywhere in the world and you didnt look at the evidence of the case and made your mind up about it and put that in writing, you would be fired on the spot.

Actually, it was the Mueller team who revealed in their report, they found no evidence the Trump campaign and Trump colluded with the Russians to undermine the US election. Muller team summary analysis cleared Trump and his campaign of wrongdoing.

However when i read some of the pages of the report it was full of contradictions, stories and allegations there was collusion. Trump friends and campaign team were not exonerated, the summary gave a false impression. I have not got time yet to read the full report, but in no way was Trump found not to have obstructed the investigation. Muller team gave plenty of examples of obstruction by Trump.

Mueller case against the Russia state was centred around Social media and the DNC hacks.

duploelabs

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Actually, it was the Mueller team who revealed in their report, they found no evidence the Trump campaign and Trump colluded with the Russians to undermine the US election. Muller team summary analysis cleared Trump and his campaign of wrongdoing.

However when i read some of the pages of the report it was full of contradictions, stories and allegations there was collusion. Trump friends and campaign team were not exonerated, the summary gave a false impression. I have not got time yet to read the full report, but in no way was Trump found not to have obstructed the investigation. Muller team gave plenty of examples of obstruction by Trump.

Mueller case against the Russia state was centred around Social media and the DNC hacks.

Not completely true. The evidence was presented however it was Barr's decision whether or not this reached the threshold to make an indictment, and given (in his admission under questioning yesterday) that he hadn't examined any of the evidence, coupled with a assertion that if there's no actual crime then you can't be charged with obstruction, then it has all the hallmarks of a whitewash. Which is pretty much true to Barr's record

everlast75

This is a link to around 3 and a half minutes of Senator Hirono time with Barr.

Now I know Ben Wittes had an issue with her not asking any questions. He maintained her job was to question him.

She decided not to. Instead, she decided to set out Barr's actions and call him on them. Worth watching.

https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1123653380172341253?s=20

everlast75

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Actually, it was the Mueller team who revealed in their report, they found no evidence the Trump campaign and Trump colluded with the Russians to undermine the US election. Muller team summary analysis cleared Trump and his campaign of wrongdoing.

I understood that the report expressly stated that Mueller was not investigating "collusion" as it is not a crime. What he was to investigate centred around conspiracy, as opposed to collusion. I understood that the report set out multiple incidents of contact between his campaign staff and russian interests. However, he could not find to a criminal standard that they were guilty. One of the reasons why Trump Jnr could not be charged because he was ignorant of the fact that what he was doing was illegal. Whilst that normally cannot be a defence to breaking the law ("ignorance of the law is no excuse") one must have the mens rea, or mental intent, of breaking the law, and he could not determine that Donny Jnr was bright enough to break the law in that respect.

The second part, about obstruction, is a whole other issue.

peddlelies

SNIP. No more petty name calling please.

Cheerful Spring

duploelabs wrote: »

Not completely true. The evidence was presented however it was Barr's decision whether or not this reached the threshold to make an indictment, and given (in his admission under questioning yesterday) that he hadn't examined any of the evidence, coupled with a assertion that if there's no actual crime then you can't be charged with obstruction, then it has all the hallmarks of a whitewash. Which is pretty much true to Barr's record

The underneath evidence is full of contradictions, stories and allegations like i said. Mueller team, not Barr wrote the final summary, and Barr used this to rule out an indictment of Trump, his family members, and the campaign team. Mueller did not recommmend a further investigation about collusion either in his report, so Barr was was left with only one option. Obstruction of Justice yes you can make a case there Trump actively hindered an ongoing investigation, and Barr decision about this can be questiioned.

Are you asking Barr to investigate the underneath evidence with a new investigation, was this not Mueller job? The Mueller report gave a way out for Trump and his campign to deny collusion ever happened. The underneath evidence though is speculative, and officials in the Trump campaign denied the allegations made. There was no files, records, documentation to prove outright Trump and his campaign colluded, but there is evidence Trump friends and Trump campaign officials talked to the Russians and they talked about the election and how they will beat Hilary.

There even allegation Don Jr was interested in the Hilary emails, and was going to recieve them from Russia, but Mueller found no evidence they recieved the emails from Russia. It just shows a willingness to co-operate with a foreign power and it down to Mueller to detail if this is evidence of collusion and recommend charges. Mueller opinion this was not enough to claim collusion, it matter of viewpoint.

There also the possibility collusion evidence was destroyed and Muller was unable to find it?

everlast75

peddlelies wrote: »

Deleted post.

What did Hirono say that was untrue?

What did Schiff say, when he set out what happened with the campaign as found in the Mueller report to the House, was untrue?

Can you answer those questions?

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It just shows a willingness to co-operate with a foreign power

This is the whole problem really, aside from the deluge of malicious incompetence and dishonesty.

kilns

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Actually, it was the Mueller team who revealed in their report, they found no evidence the Trump campaign and Trump colluded with the Russians to undermine the US election. Muller team summary analysis cleared Trump and his campaign of wrongdoing.

However when i read some of the pages of the report it was full of contradictions, stories and allegations there was collusion. Trump friends and campaign team were not exonerated, the summary gave a false impression. I have not got time yet to read the full report, but in no way was Trump found not to have obstructed the investigation. Muller team gave plenty of examples of obstruction by Trump.

Mueller case against the Russia state was centred around Social media and the DNC hacks.

The problem is Barr more or less admitted he didnt even look at the evidence provided in the report with regard to obstruction and yet he was able to clear Trump, crazy stuff but yet par for the course now in America. I read an articles in The Guardian today and it was right in saying if Nixon was around now, there is no way in the world he would have been impeached, says alot about the GOP these days

duploelabs

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The underneath evidence is full of contradictions, stories and allegations like i said. Mueller team, not Barr wrote the final summary, and Barr used this to rule out an indictment of Trump, his family members, and the campaign team. Mueller did not recommmend a further investigation about collusion either in his report, so Barr was was left with only one option. Obstruction of Justice yes you can make a case there Trump actively hindered an ongoing investigation, and Barr decision about this can be questiioned.

Are you asking Barr to investigate the underneath evidence with a new investigation, was this not Mueller job? The Mueller report gave a way out for Trump and his campign to deny collusion ever happened. The underneath evidence though is speculative, and officials in the Trump campaign denied the allegations made. There was no files, records, documentation to prove outright Trump and his campaign colluded, but there is evidence Trump friends and Trump campaign officials talked to the Russians and they talked about the election and how they will beat Hilary.

There even allegation Don Jr was interested in the Hilary emails, and was going to recieve them from Russia, but Mueller found no evidence they recieved the emails from Russia. It just shows a willingness to co-operate with a foreign power and it down to Mueller to detail if this is evidence of collusion and recommend charges. Mueller opinion this was not enough to claim collusion, it matter of viewpoint.

There also the possibility collusion evidence was destroyed and Muller was unable to find it?

That bit in bold is blatantly untrue. Mueller wrote summaries to each section, Barr ignored them (as detailed in Mueller's letter) and wrote the summary that was released to the press

everlast75

Trump nominated 2 people for the Fed.

Herman Kain and Stephen Moore.

Kain dropped out some time ago for many reasons.

Moore hung in there. Then footage came out of him cracking a joke about Trump coming in and kicking a black family out of social housing.

Trump just announced on Twitter that Moore was out. No one seems to have told him beforehand.

https://twitter.com/JoshuaGreen/status/1123993413022560258?s=19

Itssoeasy

That tweet said that Moore believed what the White House aka Donald trump said about it been full speed ahead. That was his first mistake believing what the president said in respect of his nomination or anything else for that matter.

Igotadose

Whatever the reason, Moore and Cain not on the Fed is all good. Hopefully the next two nominees won't be as reprehensible (gold standard **** don't belong on the Fed ffs.)

peddlelies

This is nutty, but it's something a lot of people already suspected.

Papadopoulos has been extremely vocal on media about what went on with him and how he became entrapped. It will all come to light eventually, including what went on with Carter Page.

This Joseph Mifsud character deserves a lot of scrutiny, Papadopoulos believes he was working for Western intelligence.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/441839-fbi-sent-undercover-investigator-to-meet-with-papadopoulos-in-2016

"The FBI in 2016 sent an investigator posing as a research assistant to meet with George Papadopoulos as part of its probe into ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, according to The New York Times.

The woman, who went by the name Azra Turk, reportedly met with Papadopoulos, then a Trump campaign adviser, at a London bar where she asked him about whether the campaign was working with Moscow.

The previously unreported episode comes amid growing scrutiny over the FBI's actions toward President Trump's 2016 campaign. Trump has repeatedly accused the FBI of spying on his campaign, an allegation Attorney General William Barr has said he plans to look into."

hotmail.com

Itssoeasy wrote:

And turn on which Channel ?

Netflix? Read a book? Go for a walk?

Don't get mad about Trump basically, avoid all media about him. And then you realise how little he actually matters.

aloyisious

peddlelies wrote: »

This is nutty, but it's something a lot of people already suspected.

Papadopoulos has been extremely vocal on media about what went on with him and how he became entrapped. It will all come to light eventually, including what went on with Carter Page.

This Joseph Mifsud character deserves a lot of scrutiny, Papadopoulos believes he was working for Western intelligence.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/441839-fbi-sent-undercover-investigator-to-meet-with-papadopoulos-in-2016

"The FBI in 2016 sent an investigator posing as a research assistant to meet with George Papadopoulos as part of its probe into ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, according to The New York Times.

The woman, who went by the name Azra Turk, reportedly met with Papadopoulos, then a Trump campaign adviser, at a London bar where she asked him about whether the campaign was working with Moscow.

The previously unreported episode comes amid growing scrutiny over the FBI's actions toward President Trump's 2016 campaign. Trump has repeatedly accused the FBI of spying on his campaign, an allegation Attorney General William Barr has said he plans to look into."

Point out the illegality of the FBI checking to see if the election campaign of a person seeking election to the US Presidency was co-operating with a foreign power (Russia) to damage his domestic opponent and subvert the US election system for the purpose of winning the election.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/BeschlossDC/status/1124007347867795462?s=19

Ominous indeed.

There are sources now suggesting that Barr ended the investigation. I think a lot if people suspected as much. Makes sense now even more so if true considering the tension between Barr and Mueller. In addition Barr maintained that it would be legal for trump to end the investigation in event he believed it to be unfair.
I was sure the Dems had already sought copies of all correspondence between then...

FreudianSlippers

rossie1977 wrote: »

She is excellent at her job as a senator, I don't think she has the charisma to win the presidency though.

I would expect Harris to be gunning for Senate majority/minority leader come 2020-22

Slightly off-topic for this thread, but I agree with you - I don't think Harris, O'Rourke or Booker are of the belief that they are serious contenders for the top job in 2020; this is a platform boosting opportunity in the first instance with a strong chance if they can stay at their current polling numbers (5%, 6%, 2% respectively) they could get big jobs. If Harris can stay at 5% or thereabouts she'd be a very high contender for AG under Biden.

EltonJohn69

I think Harris would make Trump look ridiculous in a debate, she definitely made Barr look very bad yesterday. Though Biden and Trump in a debate would be the most entertaining, two old men angrily shouting at each other.

kilns

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

I think Harris would make Trump look ridiculous in a debate, she definitely made Barr look very bad yesterday. Though Biden and Trump in a debate would be the most entertaining, two old men angrily shouting at each other.

The unfortunate thing is that Trump could get destroyed in a debate and his base would not even bat an eyelid. However, its not his base either side needs to win, it the middle third of voters that they have to win in those key states, the only thing that could make Trump hold on to them is the economy, so he needs that to remain on a crest of a wave, hence the pressue he is putting on the Fed. If the economy starts to go down in the next 18 months, whoever is the Democrat nominee will win with ease but if the economy is still pumping away it will be interesting. However, the US ecomony cannot continue like this as it is fundamentally flawed in many ways and is hanging on a cliff edge for which Trump is doing nothing to protect against. So when the economy falls its going to fall hard, not quite 2008 levels but close.

Gbear

kilns wrote: »

The unfortunate thing is that Trump could get destroyed in a debate and his base would not even bat an eyelid. However, its not his base either side needs to win, it the middle third of voters that they have to win in those key states, the only thing that could make Trump hold on to them is the economy, so he needs that to remain on a crest of a wave, hence the pressue he is putting on the Fed. If the economy starts to go down in the next 18 months, whoever is the Democrat nominee will win with ease but if the economy is still pumping away it will be interesting. However, the US ecomony cannot continue like this as it is fundamentally flawed in many ways and is hanging on a cliff edge for which Trump is doing nothing to protect against. So when the economy falls its going to fall hard, not quite 2008 levels but close.

Even then, as it is Trump should be on 50-60% approval given the economy. It's the only thing stopping him from being stripped right back to the bare bones 30 odd % of followers of his cult and fanatical christian extremists.

spacecoyote

In completely un-swamp like behaviour :rolleyes: Trump staffers ran up a $1,000 bar bill in Mar-a-lago. Submitted it to the State Department, who refused to cover it.

So instead, the White-House paid the bill (ie with tax-payer funds). In other words, Trumps staff ran up a bill for $1,000, in a Trump owned enterprise, and the government paid the bill.

So Trump businesses are profiting directly from Trumps activities in the White-House:

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-taxpayers-covered-liquor-bill-for-trump-staffers-and-more-mar-a-lago

That's not shady at all!