Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

mcmoustache

Penn wrote: »

Source:
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/ag-james-secures-court-order-against-donald-j-trump-trump-children-and-trump

So yes, despite what's in Trump's press release, in court they admitted they misused Foundation Funds to pay off lawsuits against Trump and to buy a portrait of himself. They fully admitted wrongdoing. They admitted it, in a court of law, as part of a settlement. That cannot be disputed.

But of course, it's other people's fault for finding out about it.

Didn't similar happen to Trump University?

Igotadose

mcmoustache wrote: »

Didn't similar happen to Trump University?

There weren't any criminal charges wrt Trump Uni. Just 2 class action suits that were settled, after Trump said he'd never settle. $25million to pay back students.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_University

Penn

mcmoustache wrote: »

Didn't similar happen to Trump University?

I don't think he admitted wrongdoing regarding Trump University, but he did pay out about €25m to settle it shortly after the election.

However in this case, he (or those acting on his behalf) did admit wrongdoing in court. Which means there should be no argument over whether or not he did anything wrong. He did, and admitted it in court.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Interview with United War Veteran Council members who speak about how Trump has always been there for them over the years and how he is also the first ever sitting POTUS to accept their invitation to attend the NYC Veterans' parade.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=451Adb9IkZE

When I see this style of posting, the "Look at this person praising Trump" posts of yours, I'm reminded of those born again preachers that you find with a megaphone on O Connell St. These are true believers and in their minds, if the people would only listen to the message about how awesome Jesus is, they too would see the light and praise Jesus as they do.

What they don't realise, however is how they are viewed by the thousands of people passing them every day as they deliver their "message" about the awesomeness of Jesus.

This is how I view these posts of yours except that instead of some deity, you feel compelled to spread the same message about a self-confessed conman. And like the thousands of people passing these preachers every day, I think more about what happened to that person to have brought them to a point where they have to humiliate themselves in front of the world as they do than I do about the snivelling bootlicky message that they're trying to deliver.

You can post all of the praise that you like from FOX or OANN or whichever over the top fawning over Trump that you want but those messages only resonate with those who are already true believers. They aren't convincing to anyone who is aware of the sorts of stuff that Trump has said and done. They don't inform me of the awesomeness of Trump, they make me wonder what makes a man feel the need to hear someone praised so much and despise to hear him criticised. I wonder what it is that makes a man bend reality so much that the actions of one of the most dishonest political figures of all time are always viewed in a positive light.

As I said earlier, I could just about understand such devotion from a member of a religion to their deity but when the object of worship is a well known conman, it's kind of weird.

everlast75

I can't help but think that Fox et al are doing Trump an actual disservice.

They constantly reinforce this narrative that Trump did nothing wrong and that Trump is fantastic etc, which is the media equivalent of a "yes man".

Everyone knows that when you surround yourself with those type of people, you are completely unprepared for reality when it catches up on you.

I'm sure it came like a bolt out of the blue to him when Trump was booed. Likewise with poor polling, or people resigning.

It makes sense that you be aware of the full facts so that you can anticipate what may be coming next.

It is for that reason I believe Trump is probably worse off for having Fox in his ear approaching the impeachment hearings.

weisses

everlast75 wrote: »

Did he not plead guilty?

Yeah .... politically motivated according to some

Overheal

duploelabs wrote: »

And that portrait of himself that he brought with the charity funds was just resting on the walls of his resort

In fact Trump Doral Resort said it was doing the foundation “a favor” by housing the piece for them..........

check_six

Overheal wrote: »

In fact Trump Doral Resort said it was doing the foundation “a favor” by housing the piece for them..........

Think he missed a trick if he didn't charge a storage fee for the portrait. Maybe he was feeling "charitable" and merely added the storage fee to his tax write-offs rather than asking for it.

26000 Elephants

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

lol. Gets it wrong while so called "fact checking" me

This all started long BEFORE the courts got involved, on-profit fiduciary duty laws were breached.

Yeah, Pete, that's how crime and fraud works: you do the crime - steal the money whatever- and when you get caught, the courts get involved.

I get your evangelical support for Trump, but at some point even you must realise that he is probably going to die in prison for all this law breaking.

Overheal

Pete are you trying to contend (for whatever perverse reasons) that the Trump Foundation was what - just an above board charity that just so happened to be accidentally swept up in a systematic abuse of applicable law?

hotmail.com

everlast75 wrote: »

I can't help but think that Fox et al are doing Trump an actual disservice.

They constantly reinforce this narrative that Trump did nothing wrong and that Trump is fantastic etc, which is the media equivalent of a "yes man".

Everyone knows that when you surround yourself with those type of people, you are completely unprepared for reality when it catches up on you.


I'm sure it came like a bolt out of the blue to him when Trump was booed. Likewise with poor polling, or people resigning.

It makes sense that you be aware of the full facts so that you can anticipate what may be coming next.

It is for that reason I believe Trump is probably worse off for having Fox in his ear approaching the impeachment hearings.

Fox News rates a tiny percentage of the population of the United States.

Quin_Dub

hotmail.com wrote: »

Fox News rates a tiny percentage of the population of the United States.

It has the highest viewership of any cable news channel and is the dominant information channel for Conservatives in the US.

It has a significant impact on the views of GOP voters.

hotmail.com

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It has the highest viewership of any cable news channel and is the dominant information channel for Conservatives in the US.

It has a significant impact on the views of GOP voters.

It's prime time programmes get about 2.5 million viewers, less than 1% of the population of America.

marno21

hotmail.com wrote: »

It's prime time programmes get about 2.5 million viewers, less than 1% of the population of America.

Fox News was the primary source of information for voters in the 2016 Presidential election

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/12/fox-news-audience-may-not-be-what-you-think-even-if-programming-usually-is/%3foutputType=amp

And not just among Trump’s base

mcmoustache

Interestingly enough, Rick Gates has just finished testifying in Roger Stone's case. This is where he is accused to lying to Congress about his knowledge of the email dumps from wikileaks which was being used as a conduit by the Russians. Remember that Stone was in communication with Guccifer 2.0 around this time which was a cutout for GRU.

Anyway, among other things, he testified that he was in a car with Trump when Stone called him (Trump). When asked what Trump said to him after the call, Gates said "He indicated that more information would be coming". This shows that Trump knew about the email dump before it dropped.

https://twitter.com/jacq_thomsen/status/1194275979553841155

Manic Moran

aloyisious wrote: »

On a bye the bye, is an FA an obligatory step for promotion within the field grade, a specialisation course done at college as necessary as a senior officers course for promotion to general staff grade? I know a lot of senior officers over here went for barristers training. To avoid derailing the thread any more than I have already with this ask, can you make your reply succinct please.

Not mandatory, but it does allow you a little more influence into your career path so that you are less likely to be assigned a duty you have no interest in (or it might increase the chances of your getting an area with more promotion prospects). So, for example, if you're the sort of person who likes gadgets and are an armor officer, you can go FA 51T, "Test and Evaluation", the chances are you'll end up at TACOM working on the next tank. In my case, there are no Foreign Area positions for reservists, so I'm looking at FA59, Strategic Plans. If I don't pick an FA, I'll be assigned wherever the organisation has a particular need for an LTC, for all I know, the Property and Fiscal Office. Generally speaking people also work better in positions that they have an interest in, so it works out both for the officer and the organisation as a whole.

everlast75

hotmail.com wrote: »

Fox News rates a tiny percentage of the population of the United States.

Its the audience of one I am referring to.

Dohnjoe

Looks like Bolton believes that Trump's Turkish policy may have been driven by personal or financial interest

From NBC:

Bolton told the gathering of Morgan Stanley’s largest hedge fund clients that he was most frustrated with Trump over his handling of Turkey, people who were present said. Noting the broad bipartisan support in Congress to sanction Turkey after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan purchased a Russian missile defense system, Bolton said Trump’s resistance to the move was unreasonable, four people present for his speech said.
Bolton said he believes there is a personal or business relationship dictating Trump’s position on Turkey because none of his advisers are aligned with him on the issue, the people present said.

The Trump Organization has a property in Istanbul, and the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump attended the opening with Erdogan in 2012. Though it’s a leasing agreement for use of the Trump name, Trump himself said in a 2015 interview that the arrangement presented ‘a little conflict of interest’ should he be elected.

Itssoeasy

So is there any fear that tomorrow will be anything other than a mess given that if the GOP had any credible defense of the president on evidence and not their alleged issues with the process ?

I mean from the hearings I've watched from capital hill live or on replay( nevertheless seen an impeachment testimony live) both parties will to some degree do some grandstanding(they are politicians after all) and the usual political speeches with nothing that helps anyone.

I personally think trump is in trouble because the mueller report was a dense report and with all due respect to Robert mueller he wasn't the best commentator of his own report. I'm sure Fox News and others will try but ambassador bill Taylor's CV is like a movie character.

The TV networks and CSpan will be expecting bumper ratings and wolf blitzer might get out of bed for this event.

26000 Elephants

"Immediately after the phone call with Mr. Stone ended, what did Mr. Trump say to you," Zelinsky asks.

Only Roger Stone could find himself being prosecuted by a guy called Zelinsky!

Overheal

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So is there any fear that tomorrow will be anything other than a mess given that if the GOP had any credible defense of the president on evidence and not their alleged issues with the process ?

I mean from the hearings I've watched from capital hill live or on replay( nevertheless seen an impeachment testimony live) both parties will to some degree do some grandstanding(they are politicians after all) and the usual political speeches with nothing that helps anyone.

I personally think trump is in trouble because the mueller report was a dense report and with all due respect to Robert mueller he wasn't the best commentator of his own report. I'm sure Fox News and others will try but ambassador bill Taylor's CV is like a movie character.

The TV networks and CSpan will be expecting bumper ratings and wolf blitzer might get out of bed for this event.

Public hearings seem to go like this:

Majority party: you poor/brave/scared/courageous hero thank you so much for blessing us with the utter grace of your image in our chamber please tell us all the things

Minority party: rabble rabble witch hunt rabble rabble impugn the witness rabble rabble interrogate witness rabble rabble perjury trap

Both ways. They’re a mess regardless of the subject matter seemingly

everlast75

mcmoustache wrote: »

Interestingly enough, Rick Gates has just finished testifying in Roger Stone's case. This is where he is accused to lying to Congress about his knowledge of the email dumps from wikileaks which was being used as a conduit by the Russians. Remember that Stone was in communication with Guccifer 2.0 around this time which was a cutout for GRU.

Anyway, among other things, he testified that he was in a car with Trump when Stone called him (Trump). When asked what Trump said to him after the call, Gates said "He indicated that more information would be coming". This shows that Trump knew about the email dump before it dropped.

https://twitter.com/jacq_thomsen/status/1194275979553841155

Makes you wonder why Mueller didn't subpoena the Special Agents, 2 of whom heard that call to prove Trump lied in his answers.

I wonder if they will be witnesses here to corroborate Gates

everlast75

https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1194285678298836993?s=19

(Posted for discussion)

Dohnjoe

“Anybody who wants to come in -- dictators, it’s OK -- come on in, whatever’s good for the United States,”

-Trump, today

Incredible

Overheal

everlast75 wrote: »

Makes you wonder why Mueller didn't subpoena the Special Agents, 2 of whom heard that call to prove Trump lied in his answers.

I wonder if they will be witnesses here to corroborate Gates

A number of interviews never happened, Mueller noted in his summary, because of obstruction. The WH duplicated and triplicated lawsuits for example to slow things down, which is how they’ve done everything. Subpoena two witnesses get two lawsuits for one issue. They have done this with policy too: fighting the courts on DACA and Borders etc. with differing lawsuits that can sometimes contradict each other and even themselves because the point is to tie up the courts and tie up the matters before the court.

Great example on the citizenship census question: the DOJ first implored to the courts the matter had to be expedited fast fast fast to get a ruling and get the census printed on schedule. When they lost that ruling, the DOJ tried to swap the attorneys they had presiding on the case (a motion to withdraw) and basically said woah hey we need to slow things down here, get a coffee, change up our team of lawyers, etc. but by then in that case the judge dismissed that ploy, given the government had roundly argued the opposite that this was a matter of urgency

Trumps lawyers have been careful at least not to be found largely in contempt of the courts for all this back and forth.

https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1148708618507890689?s=21

Itssoeasy

John Bolton seems to be talking and not helping trump.

drunkmonkey

What's people's thoughts of the Whistleblower on the Whistleblower, seems he's been fundraising using his position. That surley can't can't help the dems case. The GoFundMe https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-anonymous-intelligence-official

Overheal

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What's people's thoughts of the Whistleblower on the Whistleblower, seems he's been fundraising using his position. That surley can't can't help the dems case. The GoFundMe https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-anonymous-intelligence-official

Why doesn’t it help it? The Whistleblower has legal expenses even though they’ve done nothing wrong (USA! USA! USA!)

drunkmonkey

Overheal wrote: »

Why doesn’t it help it? The Whistleblower has legal expenses even though they’ve done nothing wrong (USA! USA! USA!)

Out of pocket expenses, nothing close to 1/4 of a million, the real issue is naming his employer, you just can't do that in any job let alone his.

Itssoeasy

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Out of pocket expenses, nothing close to 1/4 of a million, the real issue is naming his employer, you just can't do that in any job let alone his.

Nothing in your post is even remotely accurate. The real issue is that his boss the president of the United States pressured a newly elected foreign leader to "do me a favour though" not the USA, but him Donald Trump.

The whistleblower legislation actually allows a whistleblower to do exactly what you think they can't do.