Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Cody montana

Penn wrote: »

Unfortunately, I think the timing of that plays into their hands as they can call it politically motivated which a lot of people will buy imo.

Except it’s been know about for years.
This only confirms it.

But you are right.

everlast75

duploelabs wrote: »

I don't think that was the wisest of moves as Jordan has his own scandal to deal with
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/08/referee-told-rep-jim-jordan-about-ohio-state-dr-richard-strauss-sex-abuse-suit-says.html

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jim-jordan-osu-sex-assault-lawsuit_n_5dc5844de4b00927b2320cb4?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALpRN1CHQti7fiACwGen6t-_fBy5_Cs7nMbeW4jgtGa8FYTrQTKu-nTN6LdXJ666dj_EJlFe2iQMmS_b5LzmdtGapbiiN_7Fpw42K72e7Ndn4001bMqlqZe-laG1IY7R-Rhw_oIt5QhZdmxdfYBwUzcbwl0M2F0h6-ha6-nSqYSr

Someone remarked online that all Schiff has to do to stop Jordan joining the intelligence committee is to introduce a dress code.



I listened to the latest Trumpcast pod who had an impeachment defence attorney. Some criticism of Pelosi, some of it was harsh, but he speculated that if the matter moves forward to the Senate, the Republicans run the format and they will call Jim and Hunter Biden to testify, which they will use to smear all Dems for the elections in Feb and obviously hurt Biden come November.

26000 Elephants

Penn wrote: »

Unfortunately, I think the timing of that plays into their hands as they can call it politically motivated which a lot of people will buy imo.

It's perfect. This is the sort of thing Trump supporters cannot ignore. A kid reports a coach masturbating in front of him, and Jim just goes, "yeah, yeah, whatever". Anyone who defends this just proves that they are swimming in the same sewer as these people.

pixelburp

The near election, and craven whataboutery, over Roy Moore is proof how much of a partisan slum US politics has become. And I aim that squarely at the voters here, because for a constituency to look at a creep like Moore and reason "well at least he's not a democrat" says volumes about just how much like Sports Fandom the political world is - and goes a long way to explain why Trump isn't out on his ear (to the jury I submit the photo of those two Trump supporters wearing their "better Russian than Democrat" t-shirts at a rally).

Mind you, there's nothing new about those in power ignoring the pleas of the abused - Jimmy Saville is evidence enough of that. Not an excuse of Jordans behaviour, if true, but not surprising either.

26000 Elephants

The narrative of "Hey, it's not a crime if your criminal enterprise doesnt work out!! I mean, who gets convicted for *attempted* murder? Ha!" is still trundling on.

Life long career diplomat Nikki Hayley:

https://mobile.twitter.com/markknoller/status/1192919782359814144

Gbear

Penn wrote: »

I really find it laughable that some people think that just because someone hates Trump, they must love Hillary.

It's the nature of authoritarian thought. It's not known for its capacity to self-reflect, which is why there's such an hilarious tendency to project from the far right.

They're so wrapped up in the reverence of hierarchy they can't conceive of someone being utterly ambivalent or even hostile to a candidate that's nominally on the same side.

Some are fully cognisant of this and argue in bad faith, because if they argued in good faith they'd lose, and their position isn't based on principles but rather some sort of personal gain, whether it's the power of a politician or oligarch, or the feeling of belonging and self righteousness of a punter.

Others, though, just can't wrap their head around not being lead.

Igotadose

26000 Elephants wrote: »

The narrative of "Hey, it's not a crime if your criminal enterprise doesnt work out!! I mean, who gets convicted for *attempted* murder? Ha!" is still trundling on.

Life long career diplomat Nikki Hayley:

https://mobile.twitter.com/markknoller/status/1192919782359814144

She was gov of South Carolina prior to her UN appointment, so not a career diplomat. She's widely rumored to be a favorite for a GOP presidential nomination down the road. Conservative, anti-woman, photogenic, lots of political experience and hey, she's a Sikh (well, that part they might downplay in the GOP)

everlast75

https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/1193174869980176384?s=19


And they will be denied in the House, but will call them in the Senate..

Overheal

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well his deputy is in court to ask who he should obey. In my mind Bolton is looking for air cover if when he does testify so that he can say to the GOP members that he’s being forced. I’d say Bolton wants to take down the likes of gulianni and others.

And he doesn’t want his reputation bombed.

FreudianSlippers

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/1193174869980176384?s=19


And they will be denied in the House, but will call them in the Senate..

They may as well add Ronald McDonald to that list.

duploelabs

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

They may as well add Ronald McDonald to that list.

Mac is too busy running Paddy's Pub

FreudianSlippers

duploelabs wrote: »

Mac is too busy running Paddy's Pub

Sweet Dee and Charlie are getting the ice, but add them to the list as well for when they get back.

26000 Elephants

Igotadose wrote: »

She was gov of South Carolina prior to her UN appointment, so not a career diplomat.

My snark was too subtle! Her short tenure making her opinion all the more risible.

aloyisious

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I think you are spot on.

He and his deputy have gone to Federal court asking the question " which has primacy, the impeachment hearing supoena or the WH blanket executive privilege claim".

Mulvaney is trying to tag on to that too now.

Bolton was shafted by Trump, Mulvaney is about to be, but both are GOP hardliners, so whilst they want to testify against Trump, they needed the aircover.

From what I've read, the legal concensus seems to be that the WH position doesn't hold water and that the Federal court will say that they have to honour the supoena.

Then the question becomes, will the Supreme court take up the case if requested? - because of Trump loses this , he will absolutely appeal, as any of those guys testifying under oath will bury him for good.

If it were to go to USSC and they agreed to consider it on its standing and merits, I can't see them just singly ruling in favour of Don for two reasons. The first being it would confirm the belief in Don's mind and those of his followers that he's above the law in general, the second being that he might go on to think the USSC itself is not allowed in law to tackle him when it comes to him stepping outside the bounds imposed on him by the constitution. Subpoenas are a means used by the courts to ensure witnesses turn up to testify when required by law.

If they let his staff off with ignoring issued subpoenas on the basis of his deciding that he can overturn subpoenas and the law at his pleasure, they might as well invite him to sit on the bench instead of them in the USSC.

They might decide to give a split decision and try to rein in Don's mindset that he is above all branches of the law. Either way, there would be no one else for Don to appeal a ruling to.

Midlife

aloyisious wrote: »

If it were to go to USSC and they agreed to consider it on its standing and merits, I can't see them just singly ruling in favour of Don for two reasons. The first being it would confirm the belief in Don's mind and those of his followers that he's above the law in general, the second being that he might go on to think the USSC itself is not allowed in law to tackle him when it comes to him stepping outside the bounds imposed on him by the constitution. Subpoenas are a means used by the courts to ensure witnesses turn up to testify when required by law.

If they let his staff off with ignoring issued subpoenas on the basis of his deciding that he can overturn subpoenas and the law at his pleasure, they might as well invite him to sit on the bench instead of them in the USSC.

They might decide to give a split decision and try to rein in Don's mindset that he is above all branches of the law. Either way, there would be no one else for Don to appeal a ruling to.

Regardless of what people may think of Don, would it not be the case that setting this as precedent would mean that no president or their staff could ever be asked questions about anything ever.

aloyisious

Midlife wrote: »

Regardless of what people may think of Don, would it not be the case that setting this as precedent would mean that no president or their staff could ever be asked questions about anything ever.

By reining him in, I mean in a two-part ruling they would rule that a president does not have the authority under the constitution to tell his staff, or to give them that impression, that he can instruct them to ignore subpoenas. They would rule that Don [and all other sitting presidents] is obliged to go to court to try get the subpoenas overturned through the courts.

Edit: I should have written two-part decision, not split decision, my fault for not proofreading the post and prevent it giving the wrong meaning by my words.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ahh, that's more like it, outside the liberal strongholds, the American public absolutely respect the POTUS.


https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1193272929691136000

Wow! Finally he found a crowd to cheer for him. You can rest easy tonight. Where was that anyway? Don't tell me he had to go to Alabama or somewhere like that.

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ahh, that's more like it, outside the liberal strongholds, the American public absolutely respect the POTUS.


https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1193272929691136000

Wouldn't it be great if tbr President respected the American people?

TomOnBoard

mcmoustache wrote: »

Wow! Finally he found a crowd to cheer for him. You can rest easy tonight. Where was that anyway? Don't tell me he had to go to Alabama or somewhere like that.

Yeah, poor hurt snowflake had to go down to one of the most right-wing States in the Union to get his ruffled feathers stroked.. Good old 'Bammy.... She (along with her 70+% Rep voters) gave us those great paragons of virtue Jeff Sessions and good ole Roy Moore.... I'm sure Trump felt right at home in Swamp country... Especially as the University students were warned to keep their mouths shut and boos or protests would be sanctioned...

listermint

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ahh, that's more like it, outside the liberal strongholds, the American public absolutely respect the POTUS.


https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1193272929691136000

UFC matches are liberal strongholds?

Even you can't believe your own curated nonsense

Igotadose

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ahh, that's more like it, outside the liberal strongholds, the American public absolutely respect the POTUS.

Where they knifed the Baby Trump balloon. 'Murica, right or worng.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/09/politics/trump-balloon-alabama-lsu-football-game/index.html

Penn

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ahh, that's more like it, outside the liberal strongholds, the American public absolutely respect the POTUS.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I am not a Trump defender. I am a Truth defender

Truth: The American public can cheer or boo the President regardless of whether they're Liberal or not and are still the American public.

ancapailldorcha

Tweet dump and post with insults deleted.

aloyisious

The following questions came to mind on reading the NFL fans differing reactions to Don being in their midst. I assumed that for large crowd attendance, the NFL games are held in large cities stadia and based my questions from that, that it is critical for fan turn-out that the games location were in metropolis.

I assume it applies to voting as well. I'm looking at Don talking of shifting his home base to Florida from NYC [for whatever reason] and how Florida is supposed to be a Cuban expatriate base and a state of elderly retirees and maybe it'd be a state more favourable to Don vote wise. Looking at how Florida is on the south-east coast of the USA, that rules out my original question if there is an East/West split between support for either party using Florida as an example.

Is there likely to be an anti-Don vote in Washington and DC? I saw on some news-site last week that the Trump chain was thinking of letting go of its former Washington Post Office premises. If that's true, is Don exiting two of the major cities on the East Coast?

Is there an East/West divide in how voting may go? Will there be a Big City with strong metropolis-power V urban/ rural cities with lesser metropolis power when it comes to the turnout and vote count?

It seemed to be an accepted truism that there would be a North/South split between cities and states but I'm not sure that would be a reality in the present play.

Is there any indication on how the vote might go in Texas?

Leroy42

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/1193174869980176384?s=19


And they will be denied in the House, but will call them in the Senate..

Well at least they have accepted that impeachment is required. If there really was nothing there they wouldn't be bothering to try to muddy the waters with this. If this is true that the GOP have accepted that not only is there a serious case to answer, but it is looking very shaky for Trump so they need to try to drag others down with him in order to try to stop it.

Not exactly the same as "read the transcript".

drunkmonkey

How so, I thought they couldn't stop it in the house so it'll just get shot down in the Senate and that's the end of it. Seems doomed to fail from the start as the Senate has final decision on the matter or am I missing something?
I still can't figure out how the guy about to blow the whistle has landed up in the dock in the first place because he was looking for action on democratic corruption.

amandstu

It would have been practically a dereliction of duty to have not impeached this "president"

If they "take one for the team", so be it.

Appeasement has been shown historically to have its downsides.

Leroy42

drunkmonkey wrote: »

How so, I thought they couldn't stop it in the house so it'll just get shot down in the Senate and that's the end of it. Seems doomed to fail from the start as the Senate has final decision on the matter or am I missing something?
I still can't figure out how the guy about to blow the whistle has landed up in the dock in the first place because he was looking for action on democratic corruption.

IMO, they can see the evidence and know that to simply ignore it in the Senate will likely see the DNC dragging it back to the house and repeat. Basically impeachment will be the only game in town.

So they now what to tack on things like Biden, in essence putting the victim on trial, to try to explain the actions and hopefully scare the DNC into dropping it.

Basically a quid pro quo in an attempt to avoid an inquiry into a quid pro quo

Water John

Aloyisious, the divide in the US would be the coasts east and west v's the Centre.

Manic Moran

Water John wrote: »

Aloyisious, the divide in the US would be the coasts east and west v's the Centre.

It's rural vs urban. The difference is that the big cities are normally by coastlines and outnumber the rural folk, the more landlocked states have smaller cities which are outnumbered by rural denizens. When people say that the Democrats and Republicans tend to live in two different worlds, they really do.

Two solid blue states.
New York


Illinois



Vs two solid Red states
Utah



Alabama