Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

......

everlast75 wrote: »

And while you're here, can you admit this change in WB law is nonsense?

Any chance of an answer to this Pete?

duploelabs

duploelabs wrote: »

Hey Pete,

What's your view on consealing calls to other foreign leaders that weren't state sensitive but were politically sensitive or otherwise?

everlast75 wrote: »

Any chance of an answer to this Pete?

I'm still waiting for the answer to why the White house moved the transcipts to a code-word level server when, with regards to national security, there was no need to.
Not some question I never asked them

TRS30

Does Trump asking for the identity of the whistle-blower to be revealed not fall under obstruction of justice? I would assume confidentiality is a cornerstone of whistle-blower legislation.

TRS30

TRS30 wrote: »

Does Trump asking for the identity of the whistle-blower to be revealed not fall under obstruction of justice? I would assume confidentiality is a cornerstone of whistle-blower legislation.

It's his duty as president to protect the whistle blowers identity. There is a law in place to protect whistle blowers identities and protect them from retaliation.
Enforcing the law is one of the presidents core obligations. Of course Trump gets to flout this without consequence.

TRS30

Deleted User wrote: »

It's his duty as president to protect the whistle blowers identity. There is a law in place to protect whistle blowers identities and protect them from retaliation.
Enforcing the law is one of the presidents core obligations. Of course Trump gets to flout this without consequence.

It really boggles the mind, that that one point alone should be enough to get him in serious trouble however will most likely never even be addressed.

Depressing actually if you think about it too much.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1176882766597767168

Evidence? Bearing in mind that Guliani was already in talks with Ukraine before this WH call

Zelensky: I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine.

Overheal

Worth noting that new polling shows Impeachment favorability is higher than Trump's approval rating, by a gap of 6 points

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-approval-rating-lower-impeachment-poll-quinnipiac-1462267

Republicans for the most part appear to remain intractable, but poll numbers among republicans have still been slipping:






https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/30/how-support-impeachment-is-changing-what-that-tells-us/

What's funny there is among democrats impeachment favorability waned after Mueller report testimony didn't gain traction with the public. Guess you can obstruct justice if you bury it in a big enough report.

peddlelies

Overheal wrote: »

What's funny there is among democrats impeachment favorability waned after Mueller report testimony didn't gain traction with the public. Guess you can obstruct justice if you bury it in a big enough report.

It's fairly obvious why that happened, one would have thought.

Zubeneschamali

Bill Clinton's aides believed Nixon was buried by the Watergate scandal partly because he kept talking about it publicly. As a result, they ran a war room which handled the impeachment, and no-one else (including Clinton) was to speak to anyone about it.

Trump is managing the whole thing via Twitter, which is going to be hilarious when the pressure comes on.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Trump is managing the whole thing via Twitter, which is going to be hilarious when the pressure comes on.

If it gets to the senate and Trump has to actually testify under oath, that will be hilarious. Even with the easy ride the republicans will give him he will fall apart under any serious questioning from some competent democrats. He'll probably perjure himself when asked to state his name.

Overheal

peddlelies wrote: »

It's fairly obvious why that happened, one would have thought.

But with a years worth of gaslighting and public fatigue, it worked out for them. It also benefited them that the whole affair in practice is a tangled mess to explain.

Overheal

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Bill Clinton's aides believed Nixon was buried by the Watergate scandal partly because he kept talking about it publicly. As a result, they ran a war room which handled the impeachment, and no-one else (including Clinton) was to speak to anyone about it.

Trump is managing the whole thing via Twitter, which is going to be hilarious when the pressure comes on.

interesting thing about Nixon too, is that his IRS said he had basically 'perfectly' filed all his taxes, but it turned out he owed $500M or so in unpaid taxes and fees.

This is why Presidential candidates started releasing tax returns. Its why there are laws that empower the Congress to demand any tax documentation they want. But now Trump/Mnuchin are denying those demands, in the meantime another whistleblower complaint also had surfaced last week that the presidential audit is being disrupted, by "inappropriate efforts to influence" the audit.

I think between the last 2 presidents we are learning that there needs to be a better filter between the IRS and the President.

abff

I wonder if the outcome of all this will be Trump making a deal whereby he is granted immunity from prosecution (possibly by means of a presidential pardon?) in exchange for agreeing not to run for re-election?

Overheal

abff wrote: »

I wonder if the outcome of all this will be Trump making a deal whereby he is granted immunity from prosecution (possibly by means of a presidential pardon?) in exchange for agreeing not to run for re-election?

If he resigns the odds of him ever successfully winning re-election at his age are slim to zero.

If he's going to make a deal it has to be before the end of the month, when the House expects to have drafted/passed articles of impeachment. Once the articles are passed, the door is slammed shut on presidential pardon for anything detailed in the articles. Thats why Nixon resigned before he was impeached, so Ford could pardon his predecessor. For Trump that deal is resign, and have Pence pardon him once sworn in. Odds of Pence winning election: low.

Quin_Dub

Overheal wrote: »

But with a years worth of gaslighting and public fatigue, it worked out for them. It also benefited them that the whole affair in practice is a tangled mess to explain.

Which is precisely why this issue is so different.

Trump is directly involved , it can be explained in very few words and is almost impossible to get confused about.

The story is clean and simple , Trump did it and has admitted to doing it.

All that's needed now is for enough people to agree that what he did was a crime/impeachable.

Republican popular opposition to impeachment is still very high , but it has moved against Trump already. If he doesn't stop that slide he is in deep deep trouble.

Overheal

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Which is precisely why this issue is so different.

Trump is directly involved , it can be explained in very few words and is almost impossible to get confused about.

The story is clean and simple , Trump did it and has admitted to doing it.

All that's needed now is for enough people to agree that what he did was a crime/impeachable.

Republican popular opposition to impeachment is still very high , but it has moved against Trump already. If he doesn't stop that slide he is in deep deep trouble.

Nothing's impossible for America's Couch

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-friends-dismiss-too-much-in-the-weeds-impeachment-reporting-almost-no-there-there/

Amid numerous “bombshell” reports surrounding the recent impeachment inquiry, Fox & Friends took a remarkably jaundiced eye towards news items that, collectively, seem to pose a serious and existential threat to the Trump administration.

After ridiculing House Democrats for considering bringing in Attorney General Bill Barr and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani in for testimony, co-host Brian Kilmeade mocked “sensationalistic headlines” saying “there is almost no there there.” He added, “There’s a big headline that gets your attention, then you look at the story and it’s easily explained.”

Co-host Ainsley Earhardt then spoke of just how confusing this story is.

“I think this is Too much in the weeds,” she opened, adding “first they are going after the president with impeachment, then they are going after Rudy Giuliani. Now it’s Bill Barr. And Americans are saying what? How are they all connected? Connect the dots for us? What are you talking about? It’s so much information.”

Shen then cited a recent Quinnipiac poll that showed Americans are evenly split on impeachment, adding “our country is totally divided split down the middle.”

Kilmeade then added, “they are gaining momentum.”

Watch above via Fox News.

"Ahhhh you guys my head hurts, too in the weeds, so much information - HOW do you connect the President of the United States, his private attorney, and the Attorney General of the United States? Connect the dots! You can't explain that! So confusing!! GAH!"

Quin_Dub

Overheal wrote: »

Nothing's impossible for America's Couch

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-friends-dismiss-too-much-in-the-weeds-impeachment-reporting-almost-no-there-there/

Amid numerous “bombshell” reports surrounding the recent impeachment inquiry, Fox & Friends took a remarkably jaundiced eye towards news items that, collectively, seem to pose a serious and existential threat to the Trump administration.

After ridiculing House Democrats for considering bringing in Attorney General Bill Barr and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani in for testimony, co-host Brian Kilmeade mocked “sensationalistic headlines” saying “there is almost no there there.” He added, “There’s a big headline that gets your attention, then you look at the story and it’s easily explained.”

Co-host Ainsley Earhardt then spoke of just how confusing this story is.

“I think this is Too much in the weeds,” she opened, adding “first they are going after the president with impeachment, then they are going after Rudy Giuliani. Now it’s Bill Barr. And Americans are saying what? How are they all connected? Connect the dots for us? What are you talking about? It’s so much information.”

Shen then cited a recent Quinnipiac poll that showed Americans are evenly split on impeachment, adding “our country is totally divided split down the middle.”

Kilmeade then added, “they are gaining momentum.”

Watch above via Fox News.

"Ahhhh you guys my head hurts, too in the weeds, so much information - HOW do you connect the President of the United States, his private attorney, and the Attorney General of the United States? Connect the dots! You can't explain that! So confusing!! GAH!"

Indeed - Certain elements of Fox are working very hard on the story..

It's amusing to watch them try to explain the story about the location of the transcripts without using the word "server" - Obviously they've spent years working the "Hilarys secret Server" angle that saying the words "Trump" and "Secret Server" are very very difficult.

The hosts of “Fox & Friends” seem determined not to use the word “server” to discuss President Donald Trump’s use of a server.

An edit of Monday’s installment of the Fox News show posted by “The Daily Show With Trevor Noah” highlights the hosts’ somewhat awkward bending of the language ― including “super-secret separate computer” and “super-secret gizmo computer.”

The super-secret gizmo they’re referring to is a codeword-secured server used to store highly classified information of an especially sensitive nature ― the existence of which is not unusual ― which was used to store a transcript of Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a conversation that the president insisted was innocuous.

The whistleblower who brought this information to light said in a formal complaint, which was made public Thursday, that White House lawyers directed officials to remove the call summary from the White House system where the president’s call records are usually stored and move it to the top-secret server.

Trump has repeatedly attacked his 2016 Democratic presidential opponent Hillary Clinton over her use of a private server when she was secretary of state. He said it was “bigger than Watergate” and that Clinton deserved to go to jail for it.

From here

Overheal

Former NSC adviser for Obama on Russia/Eurasian affairs writing in WaPo this morning about how diplomatic calls generally go down in these situations - and how Trump's call(s) appear to be very different.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/30/heres-what-presidential-phone-call-with-foreign-leader-looks-like-normal-white-house/

The publication of the rough transcript of the phone call — known as a “Memorandum of Telephone Conversation,” or TelCon for short — between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky inspires nostalgic memories for me. I used to participate in similar calls for President Barack Obama during my days at the National Security Council. Between the 2008 election and my departure for Moscow in 2012 to serve as the U.S. ambassador to Russia, I arranged, prepped and listened to dozens of such calls. Yet in terms of logistics and tenor, the infamous Trump-Zelensky call appears to be unlike the calls I worked on between Obama and other world leaders.

First, before every call Obama made to Russia’s then-President Dmitry Medvedev or then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, our national security staff prepared background materials and talking points. For Russia calls, I was the lead drafter of these materials, known as “call packages.” But all of these talking points and briefing memos were approved — or as, we used to say, “cleared” — by staff at the NSC.

Judging from the content of the Trump-Zelensky call, Trump was not reading talking points. No one on our team would have ever prepared a call package prompting Obama to ask for a personal favor that would help him win reelection. I also doubt that Trump’s NSC staff would have written or cleared such a talking point for their boss.

Talking points for an Obama call with a Ukrainian leader after 2014 also would have denounced Russian annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine and stressed U.S. support for Ukrainian sovereignty and democracy. My guess is that Trump’s NSC professional staff would have written similar talking points. Trump delivered none of these messages.

Second, before every call Obama had with foreign leaders, we conducted a “pre-brief” in the Oval Office. I considered these briefings to be one of the most important parts of my White House job. In these sessions, we discussed in detail the goals of the call — the U.S. national interests we were seeking to advance. Obama wanted concrete outcomes to be pursued in these conversations.

Trump called Zelensky from his residence (at 9:03 a.m.), suggesting there was no pre-brief. I never briefed Obama in his residence.

Third, I listened to every call that Obama made with Putin, Medvedev and other foreign leaders related to my portfolio. I did so from the phone near the fireplace in the Oval Office, while Obama was on another line at his desk. For important calls, we had several senior NSC officials listening from the Oval.

Trump made the call with Zelensky from his residence, presumably without any NSC staffers present, making it easier for him to make his blatantly personal and political request of the Ukrainian president. That favor would have been harder to propose with national security staff in the room.

Fourth, on substance, there is nothing unusual about quid pro quos in presidential calls. Diplomacy often is about asking your counterpart to do something for your country in return for something you can deliver. We often dangled a meeting with the president — especially a “bilat” in the Oval Office — as an inducement to get leaders to act favorably or cooperate with us. We might also offer economic assistance, weapons sales or presidential visits in order to obtain desired actions from other leaders. That’s normal diplomacy.

So, it was not unusual for Trump to use his leverage to request that Zelensky do something for him in their call. What was radically different and wrong was the nature of Trump’s favor — a request to help uncover dirt on his electoral opponent.

Fifth, after a transcription of a call was produced by the White House Situation Room, our bosses then decided who needed to see a copy of the memorandum (usually a select group of Cabinet officials). If you were tasked with doing something in the call — as Attorney General William P. Barr was in the Trump-Zelensky call — you most certainly saw the memorandum or heard personally from the White House chief of staff or national security adviser.

Trump (or his aides) did something extraordinary by imposing such a high level of classification on the Zelensky call, thereby denying access for even Cabinet members and most White House staff. Our calls were classified as “Secret.” I don’t ever remember a call being classified as “Top Secret,” let alone using the even higher, compartmentalized classification deployed by the Trump NSC.

I also would “read out” these calls verbally to members of the Interagency Policy Committee (IPC) on Russia that I chaired. IPC members included senior officials from all the major departments working on Russia policy, including State, Defense, the CIA, Treasury, and the office of the director of national intelligence. The officials needed these “read-outs” to make sure their activities were consistent with the presidential policies and preferences.

This practice appears to have been retired during the Trump era. Instead, Trump deployed someone outside the government — his personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani — to conduct diplomacy with the Ukrainian government while others inside his own administration were kept in the dark. That never happened in the Obama era — and it should never happen again in any administration.

Igotadose

FWIW, HRC was on Colbert last night and confirmed the WaPo article that Overheal graciously shared us. There's a lot of 'pre-briefing' and legwork done before calls like this, supplied by various parts of the government.

At least, there was. Then there was Trump and it's just another business call to him. Laughable if it wasn't so terrifying, who knows what *else* he's gotten up to.

aloyisious

abff wrote: »

I wonder if the outcome of all this will be Trump making a deal whereby he is granted immunity from prosecution (possibly by means of a presidential pardon?) in exchange for agreeing not to run for re-election?

Were he to agree to such a deal, I'd imagine that whomever was doing the legwork would get it down in writing over Don's signature and with an audio/visual recording to boot. Once one had those secured, no amount of double-downing and tweeting by Don would get away from the fact that he needed the assurance of a future presidential pardon for [federal offence] crimes committed to walk away from trying to cause more harm to the US and the GOP. He could be forced to walk away by the holder/s using them as leverage without a guarantee that he would get a pardon from whomever took office, especially f it was a Dem. It'd be like the "deal" he tried to force on President Zelensky, an offer he couldn't refuse.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Now, I wonder how the GOP caucus plans to use Guliani as a scapegoat/fall guy for this whole affair. TBH I don't see how that's not in their playbook ATM.

Welp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/30/not-even-republicans-are-willing-vouch-rudy-giuliani-it-seems/

Overheal

Trump pissed off conservative twitter by congratulating the PRC on the 70th birthday of its communist regime

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-mocked-for-grotesque-tweet-celebrating-the-birth-of-communist-china-supreme-odious/

everlast75

Deleted User wrote: »

If it gets to the senate and Trump has to actually testify under oath, that will be hilarious. Even with the easy ride the republicans will give him he will fall apart under any serious questioning from some competent democrats. He'll probably perjure himself when asked to state his name.

Committee staff - "State your name for the record"

D Trump - John Barron, I mean, John Miller, I mean David Dennison.






BTW - I really think we could get Trump on board with the whole impeachment thing, if we told him the ratings would be phenomenal..

aloyisious

Another tangent. Apart from members of his cabinet and family whom he still really trusts to consult for advice, I wonder does Don see/use Melania as a consigliere? I could see the advantage in this for him as she's his spouse and the spousal testimony rule would hold in federal court. It would stop anything she said implicating Don in a federal crime being used in a senate federal trial, which as the Chief Justice is in the chair in presidential impeachment trials, it would be, despite it being a rare federal court trial without the average citizen jury. With the chance of a trial looming, He's probably shortening his advisor list as well as those knowledgeable of his affairs to keep his inner conversations private.

PS, I've done some editing since I first posted this.

Water John

Well Atkinson said that the whistleblower had direct knowledge of the phone call.
So the whole debunking because it was second hand, goes out the window.

Overheal

Igotadose wrote: »

FWIW, HRC was on Colbert last night and confirmed the WaPo article that Overheal graciously shared us. There's a lot of 'pre-briefing' and legwork done before calls like this, supplied by various parts of the government.

At least, there was. Then there was Trump and it's just another business call to him. Laughable if it wasn't so terrifying, who knows what *else* he's gotten up to.

Steve Bannon (?) out today calling this a sign that HRC will enter the race.

Kinda just seems like a hopeful line; Trumpworld would probably love nothing more than to revive HRC as a punching bag, to make them feel tuff, and big. Nothing Trump voters love more than hating HRC.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/shes-running-former-political-insider-steve-bannon-reveals-exclusive-insights-into-hillary-clintons-2020-plans/

Zubeneschamali

aloyisious wrote: »

I wonder does Don see/use Melania as a consigliere?

Ha ha!

No.

He paid for Melania fair and square, and not to open her yap and talk back to him.

everlast75

2 things

1) i know the call to Ukraine was specific to helping Trump in 2020 by dirtying up Biden and that the call to Australia was different as it sought assistance re the origins of the Mueller probe, but.... if that's successful, isn't that also assistance to trump's reelection campaign, as he can say he was innocent all along?
Less direct than Ukraine but still

2) perhaps Trump mentioned Pence re Ukraine so that the Reps would have to get behind both of them on the issue, minimising the chance that Trump would be dumped by the Reps...

isohon

everlast75 wrote: »

2 things

1) i know the call to Ukraine was specific to helping Trump in 2020 by dirtying up Biden and that the call to Australia was different as it sought assistance re the origins of the Mueller probe, but.... if that's successful, isn't that also assistance to trump's reelection campaign, as he can say he was innocent all along?
Less direct than Ukraine but still

Indeed, but I suppose it is a lot less headline egregious, and would have more historic precedent in that obviously cooperation between states on criminal/intelligence probes is not unusual. Plus as I understand it Trump can say he made this request at the behest of the AG, so at least that could provide some effort at plausible deniability?

everlast75 wrote: »

2) perhaps Trump mentioned Pence re Ukraine so that the Reps would have to get behind both of them on the issue, minimising the chance that Trump would be dumped by the Reps...

100% agree. I don't buy into the political genius vision of Trump, but I do think he is an at least semi-skilled shyster. I don't for one second think he had benign or exculpatory matters on his mind when referencing Pence. I think it was very much an inward threat, especially given his ranting about people wanting to destroy the Republican party. Its part of the reason he is so keen on recruiting everyone's wives, brothers etc. The closer you knot them up, the harder it is for them to cut you adrift when you start sinking.

Sonics2k

Trumps tweet about the potential impeachment uses an electoral map to show how big his support base was.

Of course though, it’s not his electoral map at all. It’s from the late 80s.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1178989254309011456?s=20