Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Leroy42

It is pretty clear at this stage that he is a puppet to anyone that can offer him something he wants. Be it Israel, Saudi, North Korea or Russia.

It is naive in the extreme to think that foreign countries are simply going to give him intel for free. The man states that he is great at making deals, exactly what do people think these things are?

Do people really think they do it just because of how great he is? They are breaking the law, possibly causing diplomatic issues all because they think Trump is a swell guy?

Quin_Dub

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is pretty clear at this stage that he is a puppet to anyone that can offer him something he wants. Be it Israel, Saudi, North Korea or Russia.

It is naive in the extreme to think that foreign countries are simply going to give him intel for free. The man states that he is great at making deals, exactly what do people think these things are?

Do people really think they do it just because of how great he is? They are breaking the law, possibly causing diplomatic issues all because they think Trump is a swell guy?

It's this - He operates solely on WIFM - What's In It For Me?

He will do or say whatever he thinks will be most profitable for him - Not for the US , but for him personally.

He couldn't care less who they are.

spacecoyote

In more random Trump news today, he's accused the ECB of currency manipulation, in an obvious attack on America (only reasonable explanation obviously. Couldn't be an attempt to spur growth in the EU)

And Shanahan has removed himself from consideration to be Pentagon Chief. He had been the temporary replacement for Mattis. Supposedly some potential issues around domestic violence were being looked into by the FBI. If true, it's just more fuel for the "best people" dumpster fire

greenfield21

I actually felt that it was interesting to see him going up against large corporations with the china tariffs, but it looks like that will be another failure for him.

MrFresh

US State Department demanding Iran comply with the restrictions of the nuclear arms agreement Trump backed out of.

https://www.apnews.com/803c5da247bd41d1b8c79af378e63945

26000 Elephants

MrFresh wrote: »

US State Department demanding Iran comply with the restrictions of the nuclear arms agreement Trump backed out of.

On Monday, the U.S. administration found itself in the awkward position of demanding that Iran comply with a nuclear accord that the president derided as the worst deal in history.

We have arrived at full Double-Speak. You just cannot make this up. Right Thinking Americans must be horrified.

TomOnBoard

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is pretty clear at this stage that he is a puppet to anyone that can offer him something he wants. Be it Israel, Saudi, North Korea or Russia.

It is naive in the extreme to think that foreign countries are simply going to give him intel for free. The man states that he is great at making deals, exactly what do people think these things are?

Do people really think they do it just because of how great he is? They are breaking the law, possibly causing diplomatic issues all because they think Trump is a swell guy?

It's this - He operates solely on WIFM - What's In It For Me?

He will do or say whatever he thinks will be most profitable for him - Not for the US , but for him personally.

He couldn't care less who they are.

And Kushner is every bit as bad with his scrabbling around trying to save the 666 building and other debt-ridden assets from bankruptcy . Ivanka less so but still milking her 'role' for personal advantage..

StringerBell

MrFresh wrote: »

US State Department demanding Iran comply with the restrictions of the nuclear arms agreement Trump backed out of.

https://www.apnews.com/803c5da247bd41d1b8c79af378e63945

The administration continues to provide plot lines that would be deemed to ridiculous for the film industry.

amandstu

StringerBell wrote: »

The administration continues to provide plot lines that would be deemed to ridiculous for the film industry.

Might the WH actually do us a favour and go back to that treaty(with a fig leaf for the Arse in Chief)?

TomOnBoard

amandstu wrote: »

StringerBell wrote: »

The administration continues to provide plot lines that would be deemed to ridiculous for the film industry.

Might the WH actually do us a favour and go back to that treaty(with a fig leaf for the Arse in Chief)?

I'd imagine that Iran would demand compensation from USA for the effects of sanctions operating since the treaty was torn up by Trump if he wanted to re-instate it.

Itssoeasy

Former Trump administration member hope hicks is scheduled to testify in a closed door session before congress( I think it's the house judiciary committee) but the White House are saying that's she is "immune from testifying about her time in the White House" Is that a fancy way of saying she'll plead the fifth ? Also it could be executive privilege but can you retroactively exert executive privilege on testimony that is in the public domain in the form of a special counsels report ?

TomOnBoard

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Former Trump administration member hope hicks is scheduled to testify in a closed door session before congress( I think it's the house judiciary committee) but the White House are saying that's she is "immune from testifying about her time in the White House" Is that a fancy way of saying she'll plead the fifth ? Also it could be executive privilege but can you retroactively exert executive privilege on testimony that is in the public domain in the form of a special counsels report ?

As I read it, Hope Hicks will be free to testify about anything prior to Inauguration. Anything that happened after she began in the W.H. is not within her right to discuss as the WH has prevented any former WH official from testifying to any of that stuff.

So, the whole dictation on AF1 would be as off - limits as is McGahns subpoenaed stuff.

Leroy42

That is really quite incredible and really blows hole in the must famed equal layers of power.

Basically WH is claiming that nothing done or talked about once the administration starts can be discussed.

They can basically do anything free from any oversight.

That is pretty worrying.

TomOnBoard

Basically, Trump's White House has gone to war with the House on any Trump-related investigations and have blocked all current and former officials from testifying on anything to do with Presidentia! Activity.

I believe that the House is taking the view that anything already discussed with Mueller is entirely appropriate for investigation, and the WH says "No Do-over" to that, given that Mueller did his investigation and has reported. Hicks will be testifying in closed session with WH lawyers in the room who will be telling her what she cannot answer. If a question is asked that the WH considers to be off-limits, the right of the Committee to get an answer will have to be argued on the day, on each specific question.

Now, where the WH says Hicks cannot answer, and the Committee insists that she must do so, a big question arises as to what the Committee will then do to Hicks. She will be operating on the orders of the WH not to answer, so these questions generally won't lend themselves to 'taking the 5th', as they're not likely to.be about her, but about the President. I'd say she will be well protected by WH Counsel as well as her own lawyers,, as this will be somewhat of a test-case for the ability of the WH to hold the line on subpoenas and witnesses.

There are many unknowns as to how it will play out at this stage. I'd have loved to have seen it all done in public, but a full transcript is due to be issued before the weekend, so we will have to be satisfied with that!

BonnieSituation

Just watching his "speech" now. My God, imagine what he'd be like if he lost.

The incessant obsession with collusion and crooked Hillary is incredible.

marno21

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Just watching his "speech" now. My God, imagine what he'd be like if he lost.

The incessant obsession with collusion and crooked Hillary is incredible.

The rally seems to be an opportunity to tell those who will listen everything he "has done" (which is effectively the opposite of what he's done) and secondly to accuse political opponents of committing all the crimes he has.

The obsession with the Clinton's at this stage is just pathetic. He doesn't seem to understand that the tribality of the Republicans is not repeated on the "left" and that the majority of non Republicans could care less about the Clintons at this stage.

TomOnBoard

As I'm watching this from Orlando, it reminds me so much of feeding time at the Seaworld just down the road. The ringmaster at his best, flinging out rotten fish to the clapping and shrieking captives.

Yuck!

AbusesToilets

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Basically, Trump's White House has gone to war with the House on any Trump-related investigations and have blocked all current and former officials from testifying on anything to do with Presidentia! Activity.

I believe that the House is taking the view that anything already discussed with Mueller is entirely appropriate for investigation, and the WH says "No Do-over" to that, given that Mueller did his investigation and has reported. Hicks will be testifying in closed session with WH lawyers in the room who will be telling her what she cannot answer. If a question is asked that the WH considers to be off-limits, the right of the Committee to get an answer will have to be argued on the day, on each specific question.

Now, where the WH says Hicks cannot answer, and the Committee insists that she must do so, a big question arises as to what the Committee will then do to Hicks. She will be operating on the orders of the WH not to answer, so these questions generally won't lend themselves to 'taking the 5th', as they're not likely to.be about her, but about the President. I'd say she will be well protected by WH Counsel as well as her own lawyers,, as this will be somewhat of a test-case for the ability of the WH to hold the line on subpoenas and witnesses.

There are many unknowns as to how it will play out at this stage. I'd have loved to have seen it all done in public, but a full transcript is due to be issued before the weekend, so we will have to be satisfied with that!

What are the repercussions to someone if they ignore the directions of the WH? Is there a legal standing for them to suffer prosecution from the DoJ if they do testify?

aloyisious

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Basically, Trump's White House has gone to war with the House on any Trump-related investigations and have blocked all current and former officials from testifying on anything to do with Presidentia! Activity.

I believe that the House is taking the view that anything already discussed with Mueller is entirely appropriate for investigation, and the WH says "No Do-over" to that, given that Mueller did his investigation and has reported. Hicks will be testifying in closed session with WH lawyers in the room who will be telling her what she cannot answer. If a question is asked that the WH considers to be off-limits, the right of the Committee to get an answer will have to be argued on the day, on each specific question.

Now, where the WH says Hicks cannot answer, and the Committee insists that she must do so, a big question arises as to what the Committee will then do to Hicks. She will be operating on the orders of the WH not to answer, so these questions generally won't lend themselves to 'taking the 5th', as they're not likely to.be about her, but about the President. I'd say she will be well protected by WH Counsel as well as her own lawyers,, as this will be somewhat of a test-case for the ability of the WH to hold the line on subpoenas and witnesses.

There are many unknowns as to how it will play out at this stage. I'd have loved to have seen it all done in public, but a full transcript is due to be issued before the weekend, so we will have to be satisfied with that!

I've been wondering - convoluted as it may seem - if the house subpoenas are being issued for W/H former staffers in a way that'll keep Don saying "NO WAY" to subpoenas and adding to the quiver-full of complaints that the House can take to the USSC to get it to order the President to comply with the House subpoenas and cause Don to lose his temper with the USSC and it's bench decision - with a defiant "NO" - which would cause a constitutional crisis.

I'm not saying that Nancy's insistence on not going the impeachment route is because she sees there is a better way to unseat Don by provoking him into losing the plot, re getting him into a direct face-off with the USSC if it backed the house issuing of subpoenas with a compliance order, but she knows he has an enormous ego and lust to get his own way.

Nancy [and the House] could then say they did not bring down the president, that [as with Nixon] Don brought about his own demise by stepping outside the bounds of the constitution.

aloyisious

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What are the repercussions to someone if they ignore the directions of the WH? Is there a legal standing for them to suffer prosecution from the DoJ if they do testify?

It would {IMO] in all likelihood go straight to the USSC in a case sated by the House that the W/H was using the DOJ or AG to circumvent the separation of powers bit in the constitution on the 3 branches of government, that the president cant stop the House Committees interviewing subpoenaed witnesses when the said witnesses were not being asked questions about their own acts and deeds that would tend to incriminate themselves, just about what they saw and heard other people do and say in first-hand circumstances.

In those circumstances, the DOJ would probably NOT attempt to bring, or threaten to bring, any charges against any witnesses complying with a House subpoena and answering any non self-incriminating questions. What the AG might do or instruct is different again. However I'm NOT an expert on US constitutional law.

TomOnBoard

AbusesToilets wrote: »

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Basically, Trump's White House has gone to war with the House on any Trump-related investigations and have blocked all current and former officials from testifying on anything to do with Presidentia! Activity.

I believe that the House is taking the view that anything already discussed with Mueller is entirely appropriate for investigation, and the WH says "No Do-over" to that, given that Mueller did his investigation and has reported. Hicks will be testifying in closed session with WH lawyers in the room who will be telling her what she cannot answer. If a question is asked that the WH considers to be off-limits, the right of the Committee to get an answer will have to be argued on the day, on each specific question.

Now, where the WH says Hicks cannot answer, and the Committee insists that she must do so, a big question arises as to what the Committee will then do to Hicks. She will be operating on the orders of the WH not to answer, so these questions generally won't lend themselves to 'taking the 5th', as they're not likely to.be about her, but about the President. I'd say she will be well protected by WH Counsel as well as her own lawyers,, as this will be somewhat of a test-case for the ability of the WH to hold the line on subpoenas and witnesses.

There are many unknowns as to how it will play out at this stage. I'd have loved to have seen it all done in public, but a full transcript is due to be issued before the weekend, so we will have to be satisfied with that!

What are the repercussions to someone if they ignore the directions of the WH? Is there a legal standing for them to suffer prosecution from the DoJ if they do testify?

Well, Cippolini's letter clearly said that Hicks had no legal right to provide post-inauguration documentation to the House. It would follow that she would equally have doubtful legal right to even discuss it, if Cippolini's letter is correct.

I cannot see any possibility of Hicks defying the WH and becoming some kind of martyr who would sacrifice her own protected position to provide Congress with any information considered protected by the WH. Nadler has already thanked her for providing pre-inauguration documents some weeks ago and acknowledged that she was trying to be helpful, while operating 'under orders'. So, I can't see Nadler allowing anyone on the Committee to expose Hicks to any kind of legal peril tomorrow. His committee''s fight is with the WH and not with a relatively minor and inexperienced administrative assistant (who did become some kind of Communications Director in name only, following the debacle with Scaramucci). Nadler won't want to turn her into Joan of Arc.

vladmydad

Reading this alternative reality thread is so amusing. Trump is killing it as president, in fact he’s beginning to reach Reagan Territory, which I didn’t think would happen in my lifetime. The muller nonsense was a dud, the economy is hitting record highs, his tough stance with Mexico paid off etc. If he finalizes the denuclearization deal with N Korea then he’s a top 5 president period. His economy is holding up the world economy right now , especially the weak European economy, so you should be greatful to potus.

TomOnBoard

vladmydad wrote: »

Reading this alternative reality thread is so amusing. Trump is killing it as president, in fact he’s beginning to reach Reagan Territory, which I didn’t think would happen in my lifetime.

I fully agree with this. I do believe that Trump is truly "killing it as president" in terms of "it" being a multi-faceted set of destructive effects, including those on:

a) the long-term economic health of the country,
b) the well- being of minorities,
c) the most visible proof of "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely",
d) the reputation of the US amongst its allies,
e) the sale of US Foreign Policy to the whims of cronies in the Middle East,
f) the appallingly naive manner in which he allowed Kim Jong In to 'play' him,
g) etc. etc. etc.

I disagree that he is beginning to reach Reagan territory: he has waaaay surpassed it in terms of his extremely dangerous mental state. I doubt that Reagan would ever have caused the Intelligence Community such concern at his inability or unwillingness to keep secrets, that they would keep secrets from him.

And yet, there are so many who 're still drinking the cult 'kool-aid' and only seeing the Bull**** and calling it gravy. Sad!

"There are none so blind as those who will not see...." I suppose it could be referred to as TDS indeed: Trump Delusion Syndrome...

AngryHippie

vladmydad wrote: »

Reading this alternative reality thread is so amusing. Trump is killing it as president, in fact he’s beginning to reach Reagan Territory, which I didn’t think would happen in my lifetime. The muller nonsense was a dud, the economy is hitting record highs, his tough stance with Mexico paid off etc. If he finalizes the denuclearization deal with N Korea then he’s a top 5 president period. His economy is holding up the world economy right now , especially the weak European economy, so you should be greatful to potus.

You sir, are off your head.

Kimsang

TomOnBoard wrote: »

a) the long-term economic health of the country,
b) the well- being of minorities,
c) the most visible proof of "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely",
d) the reputation of the US amongst its allies,
e) the sale of US Foreign Policy to the whims of cronies in the Middle East,
f) the appallingly naive manner in which he allowed Kim Jong In to 'play' him,
g) etc. etc. etc.

Being a Jon Stewart fan, I always loathed Trump. I felt that same feeling many felt when he was announced as president-elect.

But has he really been that bad?
a)Yet to be proven. But equally I don't think he can be awarded all the credit for the US economy bouncing back after the biggest crash since the 30s.
b)controversial
c)He hasn't really changed since he inherited office. He was just as 'outspoken' before.
d)Agreed, but with the caveat that nothing will be permanent, Bercow will probably allow the next president to address UK parliament. Also, he reaffirmed the value of NATO which really is the 'military arm' of the US and their allies
e)These sales have been happening for long before Trump
f)Agree it naive to think de-nucleaization will ever happen in N.Korea, but the publicity helped Trump amongt his base just as much as it helped Kim Jong-Un(He is seen to be 'giving it a go')

Interestingly and unexpectedly, I believe he's revealed collusion and cronyism within the US and the media often described as the 'deep state'

Outlaw Pete

vladmydad wrote: »

Reading this alternative reality thread is so amusing.

This thread is quite bizarre, I have to agree.

All week there's been talk of how well Democrats have been doing at the polls.... Déjà vu or what.

Loved it tonight when he said that if he'd deleted one email during the Mueller investigation, even a love note to Melania, they'd have given him the electric chair

Economy booming, four million jobs created, unemployment lower than in decades, lower tax for small businesses, US embassy moved to Jerusalem, border issues looking like they are finally gonna be addressed thanks to the threat of tariffs (even more so if Congress finally agree to DHS Chief McAleenan's requests).... and all while being harassed by democrats, and allegations of colluding with a foreign power to rig the presidential election.

Icing on the cake now would be if investigations into DNC's actions show them to have behaved illegally.

If he was elected before, when people understandably had reservations about his ability to do the job, then I think he's absolute shoo in now that's it's clear he's more than capable of it.

TomOnBoard

So, now that he is the incumbent, Trump's campaign has gone for a slogan makeover. If they follow through on Don's theatrics last night, "Make America Great Again" may be replaced by "Keep America Great". So, MAGA becomes KAG.

Now, I wonder who came up.with that slogan??. My money's on KellyAnneConway... Any slight misprint on signs, merchandise etc will have millions of occasions for her KAC identity to be plastered all over the country, which she'll looove! .. Of course, Don won't like that- if KAC will be appearing more often than TRUMP, she'll be shown the door... :P

Leroy42

If the rally last night is anything to go by, the Trump is going to struggle.

Not with the base, thats locked on. But he needs the swing voters, the non voters. And nothing he said last night is new, or provides any hope for the future.

"It is all about you" seems to be the message they are targeting, which falls flat when he spends 1hour+ complaining how everyone is out to get him!

Its a long way out of course, and he isn't going to give away the plan yet, but his return to HC was, although bread to the masses, going to achieve nothing in terms of his election. Those that hate HC are already on his side and for those not quite on his side it will feel old and pointless.

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

If the rally last night is anything to go by, the Trump is going to struggle.

Not with the base, thats locked on. But he needs the swing voters, the non voters. And nothing he said last night is new, or provides any hope for the future.

"It is all about you" seems to be the message they are targeting, which falls flat when he spends 1hour+ complaining how everyone is out to get him!

Its a long way out of course, and he isn't going to give away the plan yet, but his return to HC was, although bread to the masses, going to achieve nothing in terms of his election. Those that hate HC are already on his side and for those not quite on his side it will feel old and pointless.

Who knows. Look at England. People seem to like random shouting and he is legitimately good at that.

I mean he has the base and doesn't really seem to get much flak for the fact that he has had to bail out a core industry twice despite taking over a booming economy. The foreign policy has turned into a joke as they try and insist countries abide by agreements the US won't agree to. However it doesn't swing the needle.

The man divided opinion so much immediately that he reduced the number of swing voters immediately and locked people into their sides early and they are not changing their minds. He can do what he likes and his support does not move. Maybe he will have an issue getting his support out to vote is the only issue but the republicans are far better than democrats at voter suppression.

BonnieSituation

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This thread is quite bizarre, I have to agree.

All week there's been talk of how well Democrats have been doing at the polls.... Déjà vu or what.

Loved it tonight when he said that if he'd deleted one email during the Mueller investigation, even a love note to Melania, they'd have given him the electric chair

Economy booming, four million jobs created, employment lower than in decades, lower tax for small businesses, US embassy moved to Jerusalem, border issues looking like they are finally gonna be addressed thanks to the threat of tariffs (even more so if Congress finally agree to DHS Chief McAleenan's requests).... and all while being harassed by democrats, and allegations of colluding with a foreign power to rig the presidential election.

Icing on the cake now would be if investigations into DNC's actions show them to have behaved illegally.

If he was elected before, when people understandably had reservations about his ability to do the job, then I think he's absolute shoo in now that's it's clear he's more than capable of it.

I'm confused, how is the embassy moving to Jerusalem a positive and a great move by DJT?