Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

everlast75

Overheal wrote: »

Treasury IG won’t confirm or deny WB complaint (as is tradition, they’re not really supposed to outside of normal channels) but the complaint is seen mentioned in existing paperwork

However the IRS whistleblower separately already confirmed to WaPo that he (it is a he according to WaPo) filed the complaint to both the House and senate tax chairs (Grassley being one of the two) over “inappropriate efforts to influence” the presidential audit - which is mandated by law for any US President (and several other federal officers) to be audited annually without exception.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/treasury-inspector-generals-office-refuses-to-confirm-or-deny-existence-of-irs-whistleblower-complaint/

Recall Trump prioritised the appointment of the head of the IRS ahead of his Attorney General... and we know how much he likes his Attorney General

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

Recall Trump prioritised the appointment of the head of the IRS ahead of his Attorney General... and we know how much he likes his Attorney General

It'd be amusing if another precedence from the Nixon era also got Don - tax evasion ala Spiro T Agnew. I can't see anything but crocodile tears from any of his basic vote supporters if Don was proven to be a tax evader, seeing as they have to pay their taxes which are now providing him with free bed and board along with customers for his own-brand of hotels and clubs.

everlast75

aloyisious wrote: »

It'd be amusing if another precedence from the Nixon era also got Don - tax evasion ala Spiro T Agnew. I can't see anything but crocodile tears from any of his basic vote supporters if Don was proven to be a tax evader, seeing as they have to pay their taxes which are now providing him with free bed and board along with customers for his own-brand of hotels and clubs.

His whole family were at it, according to an extensive investigation published in the NYT.

Cohen testified to insurance fraud and tax fraud. Whatever happens, Trump is in deep sh1t when he loses the protection of the Office

aloyisious

The important thing now is for the GOP membership to understand the damage Don is doing to their party, not what he is doing to the opposition. They are the only ones who can take him out without taking the Senate route and push for a retention of the presidency by the GOP. It's over to them and those here who argue that Don is doing a great job for them to have the guts to admit he's playing a wrecking game with their future and the future of their children and if they really are into a MAGA future it doesn't rest with him.

Water John

Correct, irrespective of how guilty or not Trump is, for the GOP it's the public polls which will dictate how they behave. Those polls on Impeachment are running a lot higher than for Nixon, at this point.

Trouble with the damage to the GOP argument is that if they maintain 25% support and those people vote then the GOP keep power. The last mid-terms had a better turnout for Democrats but will that continue?

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

Trouble with the damage to the GOP argument is that if they maintain 25% support and those people vote then the GOP keep power. The last mid-terms had a better turnout for Democrats but will that continue?

that's now how gerrymandering works: you can still keep power with a third of the vote if you've spent enough time in governorship to carve that out. REDMAP worked for Republicans.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

that's now how gerrymandering works: you can still keep power with a third of the vote if you've spent enough time in governorship to carve that out. REDMAP worked for Republicans.

No gerrymandering necessary. In 2014 turnout was 36.4%. Republicans only need to keep a fifth of registered voters riled up enough to vote and they'll at least rival the Dems.
*EDIT* Popped over 50% last year.
Gerrymandering and purging voter lists will help as well obviously but while so huge a proportion of the population remain disengaged in a two-party system one party can win with not a whole lot of support.

Outlaw Pete

pixelburp wrote: »

So, have any of the GOP high priests come out yet? The defence so far seems to be the wingnuts like Jim Jordan or Giuliani, or else hawks on Fox - has McConnell, for instance, given his two cents on the issue? I might just be missing the articles but it feels like the senior members of the Rep party are keeping their heads down, and their powder dry. If so, then that in of itself could be telling as to the severity of the issue.

Well, Mitch responded to Pelosi's launch of the "formal" impeachment inquiry by saying that the democrats have an "impeachment addiction":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc-im2lIBRg

And would seem the GOP support that contention as of yesterday:

https://twitter.com/GOP/status/1179766288526258177

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, Mitch responded to Pelosi's launch of the "formal" impeachment inquiry by saying that the democrats have an "impeachment addiction":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc-im2lIBRg

And would seem the GOP support that contention as of yesterday:

https://twitter.com/GOP/status/1179766288526258177

No chance of answering a straight question then, eh Pete? No wonder you like Trump - you've something in common.

Before i went to sleep lat night, trump was 100% certain to be impeached and a vote would go to the senate.

I've just woken up and oh boy, does it look possible the Senate might convict!

It isn't just one incident - it's a campaign. Rudy, Pompeo, Pence (maybe Barr) are all in on it. Multiple countries too.

House vote is a certainty. Let's see if Trump really has the balls to run it in the Senate.

Outlaw Pete

Trump vindicated by the release of Ambassador texts:

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Trump vindicated by the release of Ambassador texts:

Hey Pete, would you like to engage in a proper debate with the questions both Everlast and myself have asked you before?

uncleoswald

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Trump vindicated by the release of Ambassador texts:

They show us that the top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, believed that a quid pro quo was implied. And that he previously voiced these concerns and wasn't convinced otherwise.

That "vindicating" text is like a mafia henchman saying "Vinny didn't tell us to kill his brother, just to, you know, take care of him, capiche?"

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Trump vindicated by the release of Ambassador texts:

Maybe I'm reading the texts wrongly but it looks like there is a clear difference between what both ambassadors understood the presidents with-holding of funds act was resulting in at the Ukraine end. I notice Ambassador Sondland wrote: I never said I was "right" - I said we are where we are, and believe we have found the best pathway forward, lets hope it works; in his reply to Ambassador Taylor, which seems to me to show Sondland did not have 100% faith in the soundness of Don's fund with-holding policy. Ambassador Taylor clearly did not.

Clearly the quid pro quo that DID NOT EXIST referred to Zelensky complying with Don's view of corruption-solving in Ukraine in order to get the funds, around the time Don and his agents were expressing disquiet about the way Ukraine had handled an internal matter in respect to corruption allegations against the Biden family, said corruption allegations Don is still making in Washington to other Govts around the world.

Would you care to consider that Don's fund with-holding actions would coincidentally suit President Putin in the neighbouring country right down to the boots on the ground, and that that might be the cause of Ambassadors Sondland's "lets hope it works" fear that it could backfire on the US?

smurgen

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Trump vindicated by the release of Ambassador texts:

Makes him look worse.

spacecoyote

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Trump vindicated by the release of Ambassador texts:

Ah OK, because 1 txt was written by 1 ambassador saying theres no quid pro quo that somehow proves Trump is vindicated?

Article in the FT about it https://on.ft.com/30Fr2QA isn't quite as positive on the full range of txts as your take on things.

everlast75

smurgen wrote: »

Makes him look worse.

Another thing pete has in common with Trump. When Trump says something exonerated him, it made him look worse. For Trump's examples, see the Mueller report, partial transcripts of the call to the Ukraine.






So, after all this, he *wasn't* joking when Trump said "Russia, if you're listening...".

Huh

pixelburp

I'm loving this narrative that suddenly Trump is concerned about corruption in the Ukraine, as if the 3 years prior haven't shown him to have no geopolitical nous or interest. In fact frequently going out of his way to talk of former allies as rivals (relationships with the EU probably at its lowest in a century?), while shaking them down for NATO money they supposedly owe.

The guy barely knows the details of Brexit when pushed for comment, and recently claimed he was a middleman in fictional peace talks over Kasmir (requiring clarification from Delhi FFS), yet we're to believe Trump has had some deep concern about fixing corruption in Eastern Europe?

Pull the other one. It's patently disingenuous.

duploelabs

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm loving this narrative that suddenly Trump is concerned about corruption in the Ukraine, as if the 3 years prior haven't shown him to have no geopolitical nous or interest. In fact frequently going out of his way to talk of former allies as rivals (relationships with the EU probably at its lowest in a century?), while shaking them down for NATO money they supposedly owe.

The guy barely knows the details of Brexit when pushed for comment, and recently claimed he was a middleman in fictional peace talks over Kasmir (requiring clarification from Delhi FFS), yet we're to believe Trump has had some deep concern about fixing corruption in Eastern Europe?

Pull the other one. It's patently disingenuous.

It's like they're interested in Russian Adoptions in _that_ meeting in Trump Tower a few years back

valoren

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm loving this narrative that suddenly Trump is concerned about corruption in the Ukraine, as if the 3 years prior haven't shown him to have no geopolitical nous or interest. In fact frequently going out of his way to talk of former allies as rivals (relationships with the EU probably at its lowest in a century?), while shaking them down for NATO money they supposedly owe.

The guy barely knows the details of Brexit when pushed for comment, and recently claimed he was a middleman in fictional peace talks over Kasmir (requiring clarification from Delhi FFS), yet we're to believe Trump has had some deep concern about fixing corruption in Eastern Europe?

Pull the other one. It's patently disingenuous.

The playbook is if you can deny it then you deflect it and if you can't deflect it then you distort it.

Zubeneschamali

valoren wrote: »

The playbook is if you can deny it then you deflect it and if you can't deflect it then you distort it.

But this isn't Trump at all.

If you are accused of colluding with Russia, collude with Ukraine to cover it up.

If you are accused of threatening Ukraine to make them smear a domestic political opponent, hold a press conference and do it to China on camera.

Call on the whole world to do it, and announce that it is your duty as President.

He's far too narcissistic to commit crimes in the dark, in secret. He wants to do it on the White House lawn, on camera, because he is the most powerful man in the world and can do anything.

Igotadose

The endlessly revolving door at the WH keeps turning: Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy and generally clueless Trumpbot, resigning.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rick-perry-resigns-energy-secretary_n_5cb8d20ce4b06605e3ec9761

one armed dwarf

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Trump vindicated by the release of Ambassador texts:

Also in that conversation, Trump implicated by release of Ambassador's texts

mcmoustache

Here are the texts in case anyone wants to take a look.

While I'm here, why doesn't Sondland just say No here?

Quin_Dub

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Trump vindicated by the release of Ambassador texts:

It is also worth bearing in mind that Sondland is the guy who effectively bought his ambassadorship by donating a million dollars to the Trump campaign.

Prior to his donation, he ran a chain of Hotels - Absolutely ZERO international diplomatic experience so obviously perfectly suited to being made the US ambassador to the EU.

So - Forgive me if I'm not convinced when a guy who got his job via a clear quid pro quo with Donald Trump tells a proper, professional career diplomat that he's wrong to think that there's quid pro quo involved this time.

Stallingrad

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It is also worth bearing in mind that Sondland is the guy who effectively bought his ambassadorship by donating a million dollars to the Trump campaign.

This is pretty much how every Ambassadorship works and has always worked. It's the reward for support, political or financial, and qualifications are often sorely lacking.

Quin_Dub

Stallingrad wrote: »

This is pretty much how every Ambassadorship works and has always worked. It's the reward for support, political or financial, and qualifications are often sorely lacking.

That may well be true , but it doesn't make it right though.

It also does not qualify them to tell career diplomats that their perception of how something is being interpreted is incorrect.

If I guy like Taylor with years of diplomatic experience felt that it was Quid Pro Quo , then the reality is that that's how is was being seen on the ground in Ukraine.

Hence my view that Sondlands viewpoint was/is largely irrelevant here.

Perception is reality in these scenarios.

26000 Elephants

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Trump vindicated by the release of Ambassador texts:

Do you remember the scene in Pulp Fiction where Vincent rings his dealer after Uma Thurman OD's? He talks to Vince normally but then realises the implications of what he is saying and reigns surprise, "Who is this?, Crank Call!"

Sondlands last text is basically the same. Taylor states earlier that the quid pro quo was discussed in a call, and Sondland puts an end to the easily documented discussion with his more diplomatic version of shouting "Crank Call"

mcmoustache

I have a feeling today is going to be a bit mental. Already, Ukraine has announced in a press conference that they would do the thing that Trump was asking them to do - namely open an investigation into Biden.



https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1180041232770318336

Water John

Basically Sondland had an 'Oh sh1t moment'. He knew the complaint was in train.

Some of the defence of Trump here and other fora, is Comical Ali grade stuff.
The evidence is clear, slam dunk case. Just the clarity of it and its implications need to be conveyed simply to the American people.