Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

kilns

SO Trump has decided to tank one of the only things he can proudly claim is a success - the Stock Market!

I honestly believe he does not care about the future and it would be interesting to see if him, his family or close associates recently shorted stocks, in particular Chinese stocks, as with one tweet he has collapsed the prices of many stocks. The guy is so unstable he is not fit to be president

PropJoe10

peddlelies wrote: »

This is what your originally said

"I'll 100% accept the conclusions of the Mueller report".

Barr releases the conclusions, then you freak out saying you want to see the full report.

Then Barr releases the entire report to anyone who wants to see it in congress, and to the public the full report albeit with 10% redaction's on grand jury information.

Now you're giving out that the report is too long so people won't read it. Do you have any idea about how avoid of morals you portray yourself?

It's the same as the Democrats in those hearings.

"Barr didn't release the Mueller 16 pages on conclusions, he's hiding something!"

*10 days later Barr releases the entire report*

Vile vile politics.

Barr totally misconstrued the findings of the report, which is why people now want to see the entire unredacted report. I'm not sure what's so difficult to comprehend about that. Even the most die-hard Trump follower must realise on some level that Barr's summary of the report doesn't even scratch the surface of what Mueller has in it.

duploelabs

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Barr totally misconstrued the findings of the report, which is why people now want to see the entire unredacted report. I'm not sure what's so difficult to comprehend about that. Even the most die-hard Trump follower must realise on some level that Barr's summary of the report doesn't even scratch the surface of what Mueller has in it.

Not to mention Mueller himself wrote a letter stating that Barr misrepresented the report in his summary

PropJoe10

duploelabs wrote: »

Not to mention Mueller himself wrote a letter stating that Barr misrepresented the report in his summary

That would also be a solid indication that something might not be quite right, but unfortunately some people have convinced themselves that everyone is in the wrong, bar Trump.

It's like when a mother sees her son marching out of step in an army of hundreds and says to herself "look, everyone's out of step except for my lovely son".

manual_man

Mueller's letter to Barr is absolute nonsense. To detail anything else other than the bottom line conclusions before the report was released to the public would have been completely irresponsible. Barr communicated the bottom line conclusions(ie. the purpose of the special counsel), the principal of which were no charge of collusion and no charge of obstruction. That was the special counsel's purview. Bring a charge in relation to collusion and/or obstruction, or DON'T. Mueller didn't. And Democrats and media commentators are furious because their Russian Collusion fake narrative has been exposed for what it is. And frankly Mueller is a disgrace in how he handled the issue of obstruction. Fudging the issue means he completely failed on his mandate in regards to the issue of obstruction. His mandate was either to bring a charge of obstruction, or not to. If you decline to bring a charge then you are by extension exonerating. Except of course Mueller, in his entire idiocy, somehow thought it would be wise to completely contradict that and hence the shìtshow rolls on, there has been no real closure and people are still at each other's throats. Mueller is an absolute disgrace. I really hope he does come before Congress. There are so many questions to be answered, not just in relation to his fudging of the issue of obstruction, but in relation to how the investigation was conducted, the use of spies, and importantly whether the justifications given for the establishment of a special counsel were valid in the first place.

everlast75

manual_man wrote: »

Mueller's letter to Barr is absolute nonsense. To detail anything else other than the bottom line conclusions before the report was released to the public would have been completely irresponsible. Barr communicated the bottom line conclusions(ie. the purpose of the special counsel), the principal of which were no charge of collusion and no charge of obstruction. That was the special counsel's purview. Bring a charge in relation to collusion and/or obstruction, or DON'T. Mueller didn't. And Democrats and media commentators are furious because their Russian Collusion fake narrative has been exposed for what it is. And frankly Mueller is a disgrace in how he handled the issue of obstruction. Fudging the issue means he completely failed on his mandate in regards to the issue of obstruction. His mandate was either to bring a charge of obstruction, or not to. If you decline to bring a charge then you are by extension exonerating. Except of course Mueller, in his entire idiocy, somehow thought it would be wise to completely contradict that and hence the shìtshow rolls on, there has been no real closure and people are still at each other's throats. Mueller is an absolute disgrace. I really hope he does come before Congress. There are so many questions to be answered, not just in relation to his fudging of the issue of obstruction, but in relation to how the investigation was conducted, the use of spies, and importantly whether the justifications given for the establishment of a special counsel were valid in the first place.

Its almost as if you didn't know that there was an OLC opinion which states that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

It's a pity. You could have avoided wasting your time posting that comment.

However, you did manage to post the buzzwords and phrases which matter most - "Mueller is a disgrace" (twice), "spies" etc. That's something I suppose.

batgoat

everlast75 wrote: »

Its almost as if you didn't know that there was an OLC opinion which states that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

It's a pity. You could have avoided wasting your time posting that comment.

However, you did manage to post the buzzwords and phrases which matter most - "Mueller is a disgrace" (twice), "spies" etc. That's something I suppose.

It's basically a flip of their praise of Mueller a few weeks back.

manual_man

everlast75 wrote: »

Its almost as if you didn't know that there was an OLC opinion which states that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Just as well as a society we don't rely on opinions, but rather on facts.

FACT: No charge of collusion

FACT: No charge of obstruction

Have a lovely day

duploelabs

manual_man wrote: »

Mueller's letter to Barr is absolute nonsense. To detail anything else other than the bottom line conclusions before the report was released to the public would have been completely irresponsible. Barr communicated the bottom line conclusions(ie. the purpose of the special counsel), the principal of which were no charge of collusion and no charge of obstruction. That was the special counsel's purview. Bring a charge in relation to collusion and/or obstruction, or DON'T. Mueller didn't. And Democrats and media commentators are furious because their Russian Collusion fake narrative has been exposed for what it is. And frankly Mueller is a disgrace in how he handled the issue of obstruction. Fudging the issue means he completely failed on his mandate in regards to the issue of obstruction. His mandate was either to bring a charge of obstruction, or not to. If you decline to bring a charge then you are by extension exonerating. Except of course Mueller, in his entire idiocy, somehow thought it would be wise to completely contradict that and hence the shìtshow rolls on, there has been no real closure and people are still at each other's throats. Mueller is an absolute disgrace. I really hope he does come before Congress. There are so many questions to be answered, not just in relation to his fudging of the issue of obstruction, but in relation to how the investigation was conducted, the use of spies, and importantly whether the justifications given for the establishment of a special counsel were valid in the first place.

It was never Mueller's mandate to make the charge of obstruction, it was Barr's. Mueller gathered the evidence and then presented to his boss, Barr, who's decision it was whether obstruction occoured. But as Barr had already said that a sitting president can't be charged nor can obstruction occur if no actual crime is proven, then it was all going to be a false dawn

everlast75

manual_man wrote: »

Just as well as a society we don't rely on opinions, but rather on facts.

FACT: No charge of collusion

FACT: No charge of obstruction

Have a lovely day

Great! I'd love to debate a Trump supporter using facts. Here are two for you.

FACT- collusion is not a crime. Therefore there cannot be a charge

FACT - a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. Its the OLC opinion.

manual_man

duploelabs wrote: »

It was never Mueller's mandate to make the charge of obstruction, it was Barr's. Mueller gathered the evidence and then presented to his boss, Barr, who's decision it was whether obstruction occoured. But as Barr had already said that a sitting president can't be charged nor can obstruction occur if no actual crime is proven, then it was all going to be a false dawn

Excuse me. *Recommend that charges be brought* is what I meant to say. Which of course Mueller declined to do.

You say Barr has said a sitting president (categorically) can NOT be charged? Care to back that up with evidence? Because I don't believe he has ever said that. Casting doubt over something is not the same as saying something can't be done. It is an argument simply because there is no precedent for it.

These are Barr's own words:

"The federal prosecutor and the purpose of a criminal investigation are well-defined. Federal prosecutors work with grand juries to collect evidence to determine whether a crime has been committed. Once a prosecutor has exhausted his investigation into the facts of a case, he or she faces a binary choice: either to commence or to decline prosecution. To commence prosecution, the prosecutor must apply the principles of federal prosecution and conclude both that the conduct at issue constitutes a federal offense and that the admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact. These principles govern the conduct of all prosecutions by the Department and are codified in the Justice Manual.

The appointment of a Special Counsel and the investigation of the conduct of the President of the United States do not change these rules.”

“At the end of the day, the federal prosecutor must decide yes or no.”

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

And re. obstruction he has stated that it is more difficult to prove obstruction when no underlying crime exists. Again, perfectly reasonable. But, he is up against many people who have zero interest in being reasonable, their only interest is power and they believe their only way to get it is by destroying duly elected Donald Trump.

rossie1977

manual_man wrote: »

Think the yellow vest protests in France. But way worse.

The Green New Deal is fantasy stuff. Prohibitively expensive, when the national debt is already way out of control. And nothing is guaranteed in life, unless you adopt full on communism, in which case all that is guaranteed is misery and being in constant fear of the State. Capitalism of course isn't perfect, but it's track record offers the best standard of life. Communism 'sounds' lovely, and regularly suckers people in, but time and again it has proven ineffectual. It simply doesn't deliver on it's promises. Or anywhere close for that matter. Dependance is being taught on the left, that government is the answer to all your problems. This would suit those who want dominance in government and submission of the general populace. It's antithetical to freedom however. Antithetical to independence, individual liberty. Are you really keen to throw that away? Because that's more than likely the road ahead if someone like AOC is elected president.

Why do you think the yellow vest protests are happening?

Gas tax was what eventually tipped them over the edge but it's 30 years of neoliberal policies that has devasted rural France and it's those people on the streets protesting. 30 years of cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy, privatization of essential services which increased prices so many could no longer afford said services, austerity measures like cutting social spending, closing down public schools, closing down hospitals in rural areas.

Nobody is taking about implementation of Communism. A massive improvement in public transportation/infrastructure, an affordable health care system, an affordable third level education and jobs that actually allow a proper standard of living. Wages only saw a 9% increase between 1980 and 2014 while productivity grew by 139% in same period. Those kind of things should be expected in the richest country on Earth. Instead the US has spent the last 40 years outspending the rest of the world combined in military and continually cutting taxes for corporations and the top 1%.

Midlife

manual_man wrote: »

Just as well as a society we don't rely on opinions, but rather on facts.

FACT: No charge of collusion

FACT: No charge of obstruction

Have a lovely day

Excellent work. A pro-trump post embracing facts of all things. Not a hint of irony.

Tell me, are they actual facts or alternative facts? Hard to tell these days.

aloyisious

manual_man wrote: »

Mueller's letter to Barr is absolute nonsense. To detail anything else other than the bottom line conclusions before the report was released to the public would have been completely irresponsible. Barr communicated the bottom line conclusions(ie. the purpose of the special counsel), the principal of which were no charge of collusion and no charge of obstruction. That was the special counsel's purview. Bring a charge in relation to collusion and/or obstruction, or DON'T. Mueller didn't. And Democrats and media commentators are furious because their Russian Collusion fake narrative has been exposed for what it is. And frankly Mueller is a disgrace in how he handled the issue of obstruction. Fudging the issue means he completely failed on his mandate in regards to the issue of obstruction. His mandate was either to bring a charge of obstruction, or not to. If you decline to bring a charge then you are by extension exonerating. Except of course Mueller, in his entire idiocy, somehow thought it would be wise to completely contradict that and hence the shìtshow rolls on, there has been no real closure and people are still at each other's throats. Mueller is an absolute disgrace. I really hope he does come before Congress. There are so many questions to be answered, not just in relation to his fudging of the issue of obstruction, but in relation to how the investigation was conducted, the use of spies, and importantly whether the justifications given for the establishment of a special counsel were valid in the first place.

Now I was thinking that Barr and Mueller were in agreement on one fact, that collusion is not an offence in law. Given that they agree on that I don't know why people keep on parroting about there being no evidence of collusion against Trump. What could Barr do with such evidence if it existed?

PropJoe10

manual_man wrote: »

Just as well as a society we don't rely on opinions, but rather on facts.

FACT: No charge of collusion

FACT: No charge of obstruction

Have a lovely day

The day that a Trump supporter really does rely on facts is the day that the world will be an entirely better place than it is right now.

TomOnBoard

aloyisious wrote: »

Now I was thinking that Barr and Mueller were in agreement on one fact, that collusion is not an offence in law. Given that they agree on that I don't know why people keep on parroting about there being no evidence of collusion against Trump. What could Barr do with such evidence if it existed?

In addition to this point, can we put this ridiculous "No Collusion" narrative to bed.

Muller found that there was lots of collusion between various Trump campaign actors and Russians. However, there was insufficient evidence that this collusion gave rise to a clear conspiracy, with criminal intent, between the Campaign or any of its principals, and the Russian Government. Note that the Special Council was charged with investigating ties between the Campaign and the Russian Government only, so any dealings with cut-outs and front-men was never going to be provable in terms of Mueller's marching orders.

On the Obstruction question, Mueller could never bring charges against Trump no matter how strong the evidence was, because of the DoJ position/opinion that a sitting President could not be indicted of a crime while in office. In this case, Mueller memorialised the evidence for posterity and put the ball back in Congress's court who could act on the evidence if they wished. Barr chose to ignore this nuance of the report and decided that no obstruction had occurred, and not that no charges could be brought.

So, the 'no collusion, no obstruction' mantra is simply only valid as a chant that his most ardent fans can trot out at his Nuremberg- type rallies, instead of the "Lock her Up" chants of 2016 vintage (although that old trope is still trotted out regularly).

TomOnBoard

kilns wrote: »

SO Trump has decided to tank one of the only things he can proudly claim is a success - the Stock Market!

I honestly believe he does not care about the future and it would be interesting to see if him, his family or close associates recently shorted stocks, in particular Chinese stocks, as with one tweet he has collapsed the prices of many stocks. The guy is so unstable he is not fit to be president

I reckon this is going on wholesale within the cliques with whom he has regular telephone contact.

everlast75

Barr says no to Dem deadline on unredacted report.

Mnuchin saya no to Dems request for tax returns.

"I'm the most transparent president ever" D J Trump 24.04.19

TomOnBoard

everlast75 wrote: »

Barr says no to Dem deadline on unredacted report.

Mnuchin saya no to Dems request for tax returns.

"I'm the most transparent president ever" D J Trump 24.04.19

In relation to the tax returns, and the legality or otherwise of Congress's request for them, there is likely to be quite a fight now in the Courts.

In the meantime, while that fight moves through the Courts, the New York State legislature appears to be on the cusp of passing a law that would allow Trump's State tax returns to be given to Congress. So, while they are not the same thing, much of the information as to income and wealth that would appear in the Federal returns may possibly be gleaned from the NY State returns, given Trump's residency there.

everlast75

McGhan has until 9am this morning to hand over documents in relation to 30 plus areas of interest to Congress, with a later date scheduled for his appearance to give testimony.

Whatever about Trump moving to block the latter, it appears he's behind the curve in terms of stopping the handover of documents.

everlast75

This is significant.

https://twitter.com/ChrisLu44/status/1125522942312484864?s=20

Prosecutors from both sides of the political divide, have stated that charges would have been brought against a party who carried out the acts that DJT did.

(The only reason none of the sitting prosecutors signed the letter is because they are prohibited from doing so)

This story goes some of the way required to cut through the "no collusion delusion" nonsense/mantra pumped out by Trump et al and get the message out to the american public that this report did not exonerate the actions of DJT.

The "rest of the way" can be only achieved by public testimony.

aloyisious

Ref the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memo that sitting presidents cant be prosecuted, can the USSC overturn the memo's legal standing by declaring its makers as having a misunderstanding of the presidents position in public office vis a vis the role outlined in the constitution for him/her?

Is this present situation somewhat like that of King Charles 1 of England where it was thought the head of state could do anything he/she wanted while in office? I have in mind that there is a US constitution which lays down what the role is of the president and that there is also a two-part parliament which has the power to call the president before it to account for his/her stewardship of the office.

Does the OLC have a legal position within the constitution which allows it to issue rulings via memo and limit the power of congress and the US legal constitutional system to hold the president to account for his/her actions which affect the general good of the US nation and citizenry? I'd have thought the OLC could only issue memos of understanding and not fait accompli rulings binding on the separate parts of the constitution which outline the roles, obligations and duties of the president, the Congress and the USSC. Is this a case of people assuming the OLC memos have an absolute legal standing which they do not actually have?

If the OLC memos do not have the authority people seem to think or accept they have. then is this not down to a failure of congress and the groups within it not to challenge [for whatever reason] the standing of the OLC memos, particularly the one being "relied" on to state that the president is untouchable while in office? Is this failure, when done for party purposes, not akin to illegal unconstitutional action by the persons within congress concerned?

Igotadose

Editorial in Salon on how GW Bush can save America from Trump. Not buying it, but I do enjoy the sentiment and the point, that if Trump isn't impeached, even if he loses he'll continue salvos against the Constitution and America after he's out of office, is one worth some thoughts. Plus his odious offspring might have political ambitions as well.

https://www.salon.com/2019/05/05/george-w-bush-may-be-the-only-person-in-the-world-who-can-force-trump-out-of-office_partner/

AbusesToilets

aloyisious wrote: »

Ref the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memo that sitting presidents cant be prosecuted, can the USSC overturn the memo's legal standing by declaring its makers as having a misunderstanding of the presidents position in public office vis a vis the role outlined in the constitution for him/her?

Is this present situation somewhat like that of King Charles 1 of England where it was thought the head of state could do anything he/she wanted while in office? I have in mind that there is a US constitution which lays down what the role is of the president and that there is also a two-part parliament which has the power to call the president before it to account for his/her stewardship of the office.

Does the OLC have a legal position within the constitution which allows it to issue rulings via memo and limit the power of congress and the US legal constitutional system to hold the president to account for his/her actions which affect the general good of the US nation and citizenry? I'd have thought the OLC could only issue memos of understanding and not fait accompli rulings binding on the separate parts of the constitution which outline the roles, obligations and duties of the president, the Congress and the USSC. Is this a case of people assuming the OLC memos have an absolute legal standing which they do not actually have?

If the OLC memos do not have the authority people seem to think or accept they have. then is this not down to a failure of congress and the groups within it not to challenge [for whatever reason] the standing of the OLC memos, particularly the one being "relied" on to state that the president is untouchable while in office? Is this failure, when done for party purposes, not akin to illegal unconstitutional action by the persons within congress concerned?

Is it not simply their opinion, as in there is no actual precedent to support that view? Could an AG simply declare or issue guidance that states the President could in fact be subject to prosecution?

Quin_Dub

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Is it not simply their opinion, as in there is no actual precedent to support that view? Could an AG simply declare or issue guidance that states the President could in fact be subject to prosecution?

It's never been tested in the courts so far , so for now it's just an opinion.

It would require someone to bring charges and for the Supreme court to rule on it.

Igotadose

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It's never been tested in the courts so far , so for now it's just an opinion.

It would require someone to bring charges and for the Supreme court to rule on it.

There's a recent editorial @ time.com by one of Spiro Agnews defense team. Basically the AG made it up to protect Nixon. Later, it was modified to allow Clinton to be questioned about pre-presidential activity. Said lawyer says Trump could and should be charged with crimes

Danzy

U.S. unemployment at its lowest since 1969, wage growth above inflation, hispanic unemployment at lowest since 1970, black unemployment at record low.

The Russian angle is like the Benghazi one.

Ad nauseam on the net but No relevance to most Americans.

Trump remains likely to win in 2020.

Quin_Dub

Danzy wrote: »

U.S. unemployment at its lowest since 1969, wage growth above inflation, hispanic unemployment at lowest since 1970, black unemployment at record low.

The Russian angle is like the Benghazi one.

Ad nauseam on the net but No relevance to most Americans.

Trump remains likely to win in 2020.

Sadly , you're not wrong , as long as the economy holds it's Trumps to lose for now.

He recently hit his highest ever approval rating - A staggering 46% approval. with almost no undecideds his disapproval rating is just over 50%.

91% approval among Republicans which has been fairly steady over the last multiple polls, however the big change was an increase from 4% support among Democrat voters to 10% in the latest polls, which is significant. Independents went from 33% to 39%

With the economy the way it is any other President would be comfortably north of 60% support , but he is so utterly divisive he is where he is..

I really don't think that there is anything that could come out from the house investigations that will shift the GOP voter number , but the other groups could shift significantly depending on the news..

However , if the economy stalls , he is utterly goosed.

Link to poll info

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

Barr says no to Dem deadline on unredacted report.

Mnuchin says no to Dems request for tax returns.

"I'm the most transparent president ever" D J Trump 24.04.19

And the hits just keep on rollin'


https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1125788532189159425?s=20

Quin_Dub

everlast75 wrote: »

And the hits just keep on rollin'


https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1125788532189159425?s=20

So off to the courts we go - They are claiming Executive privilege on stuff that they waived privilege on already for Mueller , hard to see how that stands up in court.