Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

marno21

Gbear wrote: »

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.

He's in real trouble if the economy doesn't hold between now and 2020, and given that when July comes the US will be on its longest recovery on record, that will be quite a feat.

It's little wonder he's barking at the Fed to drop interest rates with this in mind.

20Cent

Seeing on the Twitter machine that Barr's lawfirm represents Alfa Bank which is Russian and lent money to Trump. Huge conflict of interest and could go towards explaining his actions.

kilns

marno21 wrote: »

He's in real trouble if the economy doesn't hold between now and 2020, and given that when July comes the US will be on its longest recovery on record, that will be quite a feat.

It's little wonder he's barking at the Fed to drop interest rates with this in mind.

Its why he will do anything to keep it going, it will intervene with the Fed it they dont drop rates next time plus he is holding the trade deal with China as trump card (pardon the pun), because when it is resolved it will give the markets a further reason to kick on but t he rate of personal debt in the US cannot be hidden and thats what is going bring the economy down and he is not tackling that issue

Gbear

20Cent wrote: »

Seeing on the Twitter machine that Barr's lawfirm represents Alfa Bank which is Russian and lent money to Trump. Huge conflict of interest and could go towards explaining his actions.

We really could do with an interactive site that covers all the major players, their links, charges and potential charges, crosslinks to the Mueller report and so on.

Modern problems require modern solutions. There's an awful lot of information to parse on this. It's no wonder nobody knows what's going on and Trump and co can hide in plain sight.

everlast75

Gbear wrote: »

We really could do with an interactive site that covers all the major players, their links, charges and potential charges, crosslinks to the Mueller report and so on.

Modern problems require modern solutions. There's an awful lot of information to parse on this. It's no wonder nobody knows what's going on and Trump and co can hide in plain sight.

I agree.

Perhaps even answers to questions that appear regularly, such as who engaged Fusion, from when to where, what were the origins of the investigation etc etc.

There are so many details though. Whenever I try explain some of the information to people I know, I picture me as looking like this...

Walter Bishop

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.

I'd say there's easily a greater than 50-50 chance that Trump will just not participate in the debates running up to 2020. Why would he?


He has little to gain and plenty to lose by doing it, and they are just a tradition, rather than a requirement, like numerous other 'accepted' ways of doing things when running for/being President, I'd say that's out the window next go-round.

hill16bhoy

Walter Bishop wrote: »

I'd say there's easily a greater than 50-50 chance that Trump will just not participate in the debates running up to 2020. Why would he?


He has little to gain and plenty to lose by doing it, and they are just a tradition, rather than a requirement, like numerous other 'accepted' ways of doing things when running for/being President, I'd say that's out the window next go-round.

A dangerous game, that.

Theresa May played it before the 2017 UK eletion and it didn't work out well for her. She was seen as hiding from the public.

Still though Trump may not need to do debates when this sort of anti-democratic voter suppression is going on.

https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1124091821775310851

RocketRaccoon

So when he arrives in Clare next month, how many protestors are people guessing will be there?

everlast75

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

So when he arrives in Clare next month, how many protestors are people guessing will be there?

I don't know, but if there is a "gofundme" for the DJT Blimp baby, I would personally contribute to it.

ECO_Mental

hill16bhoy wrote: »

A dangerous game, that.

Theresa May played it before the 2017 UK eletion and it didn't work out well for her. She was seen as hiding from the public.

Still though Trump may not need to do debates when this sort of anti-democratic voter suppression is going on.

https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1124091821775310851

America really is a f*8Ked up country you are either rich and have everything or poor and get sh*ted on everyday. One rule for the rich where you can commit treason, evade tax, fraud, lie etc and get to fly and treated like a king and another where some poor woman was sent to prison for 5 years because she made a mistake by voting...


Florida is especially vial...where they had this commission where the Governor had the the power to re instate voting rights for felons etc. He held a kangaroo court session every few months where people used to come in and plead to get their voting rights back and his decision was based on his feeling on the day!(no reason given or due process required) more than likely if you were black you didn't.. Now after they passed a Law abolished this the GOP have decided to introduce this. Disgusted

manual_man

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.

I think she made herself look worse. She's all about projection, it's a similar tactic used by other senators like Hirono and Leahy, it's completely disingenuous and is totally designed just to seek to slander and be rude and horrible basically. Most people rail against those type of tactics. I don't think it would serve her well

FrostyJack

manual_man wrote: »

it's completely disingenuous and is totally designed just to seek to slander and be rude and horrible basically.l

The exact tactics Donald Trump used to get elected and the exact tactics his base wet themselves over every day?

I think she made herself look worse. She's all about projection, it's a similar tactic used by other senators like Hirono and Leahy

They were showboating, no doubt, but what they said was true. You can hardly criticise them for making a stand, while the other half of the Senate are fawning sycophants lying through their teeth and deflecting from the truth. I know which one I would vote for.

Itssoeasy

manual_man wrote: »

I think she made herself look worse. She's all about projection, it's a similar tactic used by other senators like Hirono and Leahy, it's completely disingenuous and is totally designed just to seek to slander and be rude and horrible basically. Most people rail against those type of tactics. I don't think it would serve her well

She asked questions to the AG unlike the other two. It's not her fault the AG couldn't answer questions properly.

manual_man

FrostyJack wrote: »

The exact tactics Donald Trump used to get elected and the exact tactics his base wet themselves over every day?



They were showboating, no doubt, but what they said was true. You can hardly criticise them for making a stand, while the other half of the Senate are fawning sycophants lying through their teeth and deflecting from the truth. I know which one I would vote for.

The way Trump conducts himself is very different. Not a good comparison. The type of projection used by Harris/Hirono/Leahy et al is just nasty as hell gutter stuff, they pulled the same kind of crap in the Kavanaugh hearings. The only criticism I have of Barr is that he probably should have studied it better in advance. But really the atmosphere projected by senate democrats(and some house members) in recent times has been truly disgusting. Not particularly liking Trump is one thing, but the way they’ve gone after people like Barr and Kavanaugh(and plenty more besides) is pure disgusting and shameful. A lot of people have now woken up to what’s going on - the never ending attacks and slander - ever since Trump won the election, the now debunked Russia *collusion* hoax, and the soon to be revealed details behind the setting up of the special counsel in the first place (which until now had been brushed off or laughed at by large portions of the media). The truth is coming, and the Democrats are right to be scared.

EltonJohn69

Trump just tweeted that he just had talked with Putin about the "Russian Hoax" How are his followers not seeing this as the actions of coward. Fox News made a big deal because Obama got dijon mustard on his burger. Trump is letting Putin get away with hacking the elections and denying it even happened.... extraordinary weak

amandstu

manual_man wrote: »

The way Trump conducts himself is very different. .

"conducts " is too civilized a description for the way Trump carries on . It doesn't usually apply to lowlives.

FrostyJack

manual_man wrote: »

The way Trump conducts himself is very different. Not a good comparison.

It is different from what the senators in question conduct themselves but not different from the way you mistakenly described them. He only bullys, lies and slanders people, he knows no other way, unless you are a ruthless dictator, then you are a great guy in his eyes.

The only criticism I have of Barr is that he probably should have studied it better in advance.

That is the only criticism? Not that he misrepresented the report Mueller prepared in his summary so the Whitehouse could get their spin on it and let 3 weeks pass with people believing there was no obstruction, when 10 cases are pointed out in the report, and that Trump associated had hundreds of secret meetings with Russians and lied about it. That he then held a press conference before the reports was released against all ethics of the office to say how great Trump was. Witness's who should have recused themselves helped govern the report instead of stepping aside. Writing unsolicited memo's saying he would get Trump off in order to get the job, his involvement in the Iran- Contra scandal. The list is endless but yeah you are right only 1 reason to critic him.

the never ending attacks and slander - ever since Trump won the election

Yeah, like the attacks the Republican senators had on Comey, McCabe, Obama, Clinton, the FBI, the former AG and Justice department had just during that one hearing, nevermind Trump's constant attacks on everyone who looks sideways at him.

the now debunked Russia hoax

Which hoax is that? The one that the Russian's tried to interfere in the election, which was confirmed in the Mueller report or that 100's of secret meetings around the World Trump associates had with Russian's of various degrees, like the one in the Trump tower where dirt was offered on Clinton and Don Jr said he loved it and went to but not report to FBI and lied numerous times about. Yeah massive hoax, nothing to see here.

the soon to be revealed details behind the setting up of the special counsel in the first place (which until now had been brushed off or laughed at by large portions of the media). The truth is coming, and the Democrats are right to be scared.

This is the hoax you must be talking of.

EltonJohn69

Now it turns Trump talked about weather Don McGahn would testify ! This is beyond ridiculous.... Trump isn't for real.... is this the matrix ?

manual_man

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Now it turns Trump talked about weather Don McGahn would testify ! This is beyond ridiculous.... Trump isn't for real.... is this the matrix ?

Which he’s entirely entitled to do. Also, Barr/McGahn are under no legal requirement to testify, since they have been charged with NO CRIME. If they decide to do so, it is COMPLETELY VOLUNTARILY. Likewise Barr was not legally required to release the Mueller report to the public. He CHOSE to do so. There has been an extraordinary amount of cooperation with the now debunked Russia collusion hoax. No collusion yet now the rabid lunatics want to try nail him with obstruction when there was never any underlying crime to start with. The Democrats are just desperate. They know the tide is turning. They know Barr is investigating the other side of things so they’re trying endlessly to slander and smear and intimidate Barr. And it will not work. Justice is coming. The Democrats are afraid. The hoax and coup attempt of a duly elected president is being exposed.

All the same, I don’t wish to deny them their right of congressional oversight. If they wish to chase the obstruction thing and try unlimited investigation and harassment of Trump all the way to 2020, then they’re free to do it. I just don’t see it ending very well for them

Igotadose

manual_man wrote: »

WAlso, Barr/McGahn are under no legal requirement to testify, since they have been charged with NO CRIME. If they decide to do so, it is COMPLETELY VOLUNTARILY. Likewise Barr was not legally required to release the Mueller report to the public. He CHOSE to do so.

You don't have to be charged in a crime to be required to testify. And, Congress has the power to issue subpoena's in order to investigate.

manual_man

Igotadose wrote: »

You don't have to be charged in a crime to be required to testify. And, Congress has the power to issue subpoena's in order to investigate.

No subpoenas have been issued. So to act outraged that someone might not voluntarily come before a group of elected officials(many of whom will undoubtedly attempt to slander and intimidate) is beyond ridiculous.

aloyisious

I notice the way Senator Graham used the word slander in reference to the questioning routine being used by another senator on Mr Barr. I would have thought it an unusual practice of one senator to accuse another of slandering a public service employee called to testify before congress as to his actions in dealing with the report supplied by the Special Counsel which the congress and US public were waiting publication of. However, seeing which senator it was who accused his peer (inside a location which has privilege) of slandering a public servant, its not actually surprising to see the house-privilege being abused to cover his bias toward Mr Trump. I sense that the outrage expressed by senator Graham was overmuch.

DreamsBurnDown

Here's my best guess as to how things will play out:

The White House from this point on will not cooperate at all with Congress on any investigative efforts involving Trump or his cabinet. This is in effect a constitutional crisis that can only be resolved by the Supreme court. Barr has stated that from the DOJ perspective the Muller probe is over, so I would expect zero cooperation from him as well to further requests from congress.

Barr has also said a primary focus of the DOJ is investigating whether the FBI/DOJ improperly "spied" on the Trump campaign, or in his own words to the Senate "what we have to be concerned about is whether a few people at the top got into their heads that they knew better than the American people". This is a clear reference to Peter Strzok's text message "That's not going to happen, we'll stop him" in answer to the question of Trump potentially becoming president.

Between now and November 2020 we are likely to see things get much worse in terms of the partisan battle between the White House and the House of Representatives. i wouldn't be all surprised if the House tries to impeach Barr, nor would I be surprised if the DOJ appoint a special counsel to investigate any potential improper actions within the FBI/DOJ in 2016.

TomOnBoard

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Barr has also said a primary focus of the DOJ is investigating whether the FBI/DOJ improperly "spied" on the Trump campaign, or in his own words to the Senate "what we have to be concerned about is whether a few people at the top got into their heads that they knew better than the American people". This is a clear reference to Peter Strzok's text message "That's not going to happen, we'll stop him" in answer to the question of Trump potentially becoming president.

......nor would I be surprised if the DOJ appoint a special counsel to investigate any potential improper actions within the FBI/DOJ in 2016.

I'd have no difficulty in seeing a Special Counsel investigation into any impropriety in FBI/DOJ actions in 2016, including the genesis of the FBI counter-intelligence investigation into what became the Mueller probe. However, If it were arranged by Barr and/or supervised by him, it would be tainted immediately, as Barr's actions since becoming AG have shown him to simply be a prophylactic for Trump, and not a fitting senior law enforcement official for/of the US and its people.

If an investigation was properly scoped and fairly run, let the chips fall where they may. Indeed, that also goes for any lingering wish on the part of folks still wanting to investigate (again) the Hillary e-mail saga, including the FBI investigation. If they believe that Comey and the FBI and some so-called "Deep State" acted on behalf of Clinton against Trump in that investigation, by all means look again into how that was done.

TomOnBoard

manual_man wrote: »

No subpoenas have been issued. So to act outraged that someone might not voluntarily come before a group of elected officials(many of whom will undoubtedly attempt to slander and intimidate) is beyond ridiculous.

Congressional Committees have significant oversight powers implied by the Constitution and subsequent legislation. The House Judiciary Committee has full powers to question the AG in its oversight role, and should not have to use subpoena powers, as the Executive Branch should not refuse to appear before it. To force Congress into having to go down the subpoena route is a blatant attempt to deny Congress's role.

Barr refused to appear, not because he feared a group of elected officials questioning him as you have mis-stated; rather he feared that it would not be the elected officials, but a professional lawyer who would ask questions on behalf of the Committee.

So, what is beyond ridiculous is the Trump Administration's refusal to conform to any/all attempts by the Democratic House to do its job in respect of the Mueller report. Barr's attendance at the Republican- managed Senate Committee showed him to be such a partisan hack, even while being 'protected' by Graham, that he simply couldn't face the grilling he would rightfully have received in front of Nadler's Committee. He bottled it, pure and simp!e, and in doing so, he set himself up for a fight that he simply cannot win.

FatherTed

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Congressional Committees have significant oversight powers implied by the Constitution and subsequent legislation. The House Judiciary Committee has full powers to question the AG in its oversight role, and should not have to use subpoena powers, as the Executive Branch should not refuse to appear before it. To force Congress into having to go down the subpoena route is a blatant attempt to deny Congress's role.

Barr refused to appear, not because he feared a group of elected officials questioning him as you have mis-stated; rather he feared that it would not be the elected officials, but a professional lawyer who would ask questions on behalf of the Committee.

So, what is beyond ridiculous is the Trump Administration's refusal to conform to any/all attempts by the Democratic house to do its job in respect of the Mueller report. Barr's attendance at the Republican- managed Senate Committee showed him to be such a partisan hack, even while being 'protected' by Graham, that he simply couldn't face the grilling he would rightfully have received in front of Nadler's Committee. He bottled it, pure and simp!e, and in doing so, he set himself up for a fight that he simply cannot win.

What's good for the goose apparently isn't good for the gander. The Repubs hired an attorney to question Blasey-Ford but are afraid of the highest ranking attorney in the country to be questioned by a fellow attorney because they know he's tainted, that he lied to the Senate and that he's a patsy for Trump as they all are.

DreamsBurnDown

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I'd have no difficulty in seeing a Special Counsel investigation into any impropriety in FBI/DOJ actions in 2016, including the genesis of the FBI counter-intelligence investigation into what became the Mueller probe. However, If it were arranged by Barr and/or supervised by him, it would be tainted immediately, as Barr's actions since becoming AG have shown him to simply be a prophylactic for Trump, and not a fitting senior law enforcement official for/of the US and its people.

That's certainly how Democrats would see it, but as long as Barr is the AG he gets to direct the DOJ and there is little Congress can do to stop him, bar impeachment which would more than likely fail to secure a conviction. Republicans of course believe the FBI probe was based on political bias, and regardless of how crazy people may think of what Republicans think they are no more likely to change their minds than Democrats. Again it comes back to Independents and from post Mueller report polling Independents are now split 50:50 on whether Trump committed serious wrongdoing.

If any evidence were uncovered of wrongdoing within the FBI/DOJ during the 2016 campaign it would be absolutely devastating and basically hand Trump the election. I doubt there is serious evidence there though as we would have likely heard about it already.

peddlelies

If any evidence were uncovered of wrongdoing within the FBI/DOJ during the 2016 campaign it would be absolutely devastating and basically hand Trump the election. I doubt there is serious evidence there though as we would have likely heard about it already.

Are we going to ignore all the people who have been fired or demoted from the FBI & DoJ? That number is in the dozens the last time I checked. The lead investigators, Strzok, McCabe and so on were all fired.

AG Horrowitz report on the origins of the Trump campaign spying/investigation whatever you want to call it will be released soon.

everlast75

peddlelies wrote: »

Are we going to ignore all the people who have been fired or demoted from the FBI & DoJ? That number is in the dozens the last time I checked. The lead investigators, Strzok, McCabe and so on were all fired.

AG Horrowitz report on the origins of the Trump campaign spying/investigation whatever you want to call it will be released soon.

Yep. And a lot of those people are those who Comey confided in after he spoke top Trump when Trump requested his loyalty.

And Trump happens to fire the head of counter intelligence who would know best how to counter Russian interference...

peddlelies

everlast75 wrote: »

Yep. And a lot of those people are those who Comey confided in after he spoke top Trump when Trump requested his loyalty.

And Trump happens to fire the head of counter intelligence who would know best how to counter Russian interference...

McCabe was fired for lying, it had nothing to do with Trump. To the best of my knowledge that was done by independent investigators.

There's dozens of Strzok texts showing how he went limp on Clinton but was gung-ho for Trump. We can pretend one side is totally innocent and were doing their job and the others are all liars but it's not the reality of the situation at all.

These were the people at the head of the FBI.