Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

weisses

Quin_Dub wrote: »

And the Trump family bizarro show continues..



So far during the Trump Presidency a total of ~6M jobs have been created.

So DJT is claiming that Ivanka is personally responsible for about 240% of the total jobs created in the US Economy.

How is anyone supposed to take anything he says at face value when he can stand up in front of a crowd and blithely come out with outright lies like this??

From here

Response from people in the room was Luke warm at best.. he said only the smart people were clapping ...... he didn't clap

Leroy42

hotmail.com wrote: »

You can see why the public in America and here have little interest in this circus if this is the scandal.

Dirty politics is hardly something new.

No.impeachmet proceedings for illegal wars, drone bombings etc. No wonder the vast majority are ignoring this impeachment rubbish.

And yet one of Trumps main attack points against HC was how corrupted she was. Drain the swamp etc.

But now apparently the voters simply don't care?

drunkmonkey

Voters do care hence she didn't win and Pat Kenny is on the radio now saying she's diluded, people don't like her.

looksee

When Trump is lying or spinning rubbish he talks in that little breathless voice with odd pronunciation - jerbs, that's what Ivanka is creating, jerbs.

Christy42

hotmail.com wrote: »

You can see why the public in America and here have little interest in this circus if this is the scandal.

Dirty politics is hardly something new.

No.impeachmet proceedings for illegal wars, drone bombings etc. No wonder the vast majority are ignoring this impeachment rubbish.

Do you think they should impeach Trump for increasing the number of drone bombings instead of this? I mean same end result I guess but it is harsh for something not illegal under US law afaik. I mean they probably need more legislation around it (or to enforce it if I have missed something).

Still always good to hear about the reasons people want Trump impeached.

drunkmonkey

looksee wrote: »

When Trump is lying or spinning rubbish he talks in that little breathless voice with odd pronunciation - jerbs, that's what Ivanka is creating, jerbs.

Well it's going to be her or Don Jnr taking the helm in 2024, hope it doesn't irk you too much. Neither are far right or far left. Infact you could say Ivanka appeals to a nice bit of both.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Well it's going to be her or Don Jnr taking the helm in 2024, hope it doesn't irk you too much. Neither are far right or far left. Infact you could say Ivanka appeals to a nice bit of both.

How in all seriousness could anyone be expected to vote for either of them? They are even less qualified for the office than their father.

Penn

Trump seems to be trying to discredit the lawyer the Democrats have engaged to question people in the hearings. He's accusing them of the egregious act of possibly once being Donald Trump's lawyer.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1194586470050349056

Given Trump's other lawyers, that's about the biggest insult Trump could throw at them.

Man these hearings are going to be a sh*tshow...

weisses

First hearing at 3pm I believe .... Phone switched off, popcorn ready ....

listermint

looksee wrote: »

When Trump is lying or spinning rubbish he talks in that little breathless voice with odd pronunciation - jerbs, that's what Ivanka is creating, jerbs.

He actually does that subconsciously because it's a different voice and tone to his normal conversational one. It makes his brain think it's someone else saying the words. That way he can deny it came from him.


The mind is a powerful thing .. he probably watches footage back and says that doesn't even sound like me.

FrostyJack

listermint wrote:

The mind is a powerful thing .. he probably watches footage back and says that doesn't even sound like me.

When he was ringing up journalists saying that Donald Trump was super rich and that Madonna wanted to bang him, he probably thought it was someone else too as he probably wore a different tie. Completely mentally ill. He should be getting the help he needs not running/ruining a country.

everlast75

An interesting comparison for contemplation.

If Trump made that infamous call, but instead of holding back the military aid of circa $400,000,000, and asked, in exchange for that, the Ukraine Prime Minister was to pay him personally $1,000,000, there is no question he would be convicted of bribery.

Now, he didn't ask for a million. What he asked for was worth far more than a million to him. He was looking to be re-elected as U.S. President.

I found that comparison to be quite stark.

Outlaw Pete

weisses wrote: »

Since when do you want to hide the truth on a heavily encrypted server ?

When there are foxes in the henhouse.

Embarrassing Leaks Led to Clampdown on Trump’s Phone Records

WASHINGTON—The White House moved to clamp down on access to records of presidential phone calls after problematic leaks of sensitive discussions early in the Trump administration, according to people with knowledge of the actions, culminating in the use of a secret national security server which is now central to the impeachment probe.

Back-to-back leaks of controversial remarks by President Trump during calls with leaders of Mexico and Australia resulted from an unusually loose record-distribution policy in the first days of the Trump White House, one of these people said, leading to the secret server’s eventual use for records of calls involving leaders of Saudi Arabia, Russia and Ukraine.

Also, from Vindman's testimony:

Tis a nothing burger folks, but democrats in congress (bar two) have a severe integrity deficiency and so will no doubt impeach Trump regardless of what happens during the hearings, but that's as far as this nothing burger goes, just as the Trump-Russian collusion fell apart, this nothing burger will too, despite the extra relish this time.

Looking forward to the public hearings nevertheless as it will be nice to see these partisan leakers, and their coup attempting cohorts, get shown up for just what they are: disgruntled political activists. As the great Adam Schiff once said: impeachment without bipartisan support is "an exercise doomed for failure, and I see little to be gained by putting the country through that kind of wrenching experience" whataguy!


https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/1194269692820635648

Penn

everlast75 wrote: »

An interesting comparison for contemplation.

If Trump made that infamous call, but instead of holding back the military aid of circa $400,000,000, and asked, in exchange for that, the Ukraine Prime Minister was to pay him personally $1,000,000, there is no question he would be convicted of bribery.

Now, he didn't ask for a million. What he asked for was worth far more than a million to him. He was looking to be re-elected as U.S. President.

I found that comparison to be quite stark.

Yeah but you'd have people claiming that because Trump didn't specify an amount on the phone, and instead sent Rudy Giuliani over with a note that said "I.O.U $1million (for military aid); Signed _________" and shoved it under Zelensky's nose, then it doesn't count as bribery.

Overheal

Pete, Pete, how is it “Schiff’s impeachment?”

Schiff investigates
Judicial takes over (Schiff out of the process at this stage)
Public judicial hearings
Judiciary panel pens articles of impeachment
House floor debates on articles
Floor vote on articles
Passage of articles
Acceptance by Senate
Setting of Trial
Commencement off trial
Trial
Verdict

Shift has one part to play in this, that’s it.

everlast75

Overheal wrote: »

Pete, Pete, how is it “Schiff’s impeachment?”

Schiff investigates
Judicial takes over (Schiff out of the process at this stage)
Public judicial hearings
Judiciary panel pens articles of impeachment
House floor debates on articles
Floor vote on articles
Passage of articles
Acceptance by Senate
Setting of Trial
Commencement off trial
Trial
Verdict

Shift has one part to play in this, that’s it.

And isn't it always about the people involved. There's always a target.

There is never a push back on the facts.

Trump et al need an enemy. Someone they can give juvenile nicknames to and try bully and denigrate.

Fingers crossed Trump and his incompetent bully boys get what's coming to them.

Igotadose

I miss the days when politicians were orators. Adam Schiff fumbles a lot when delivering his lines.

everlast75

I don't get it.

Trump claims that he is innocent of all charges, but is blocking people from testifying to that fact?

Trump is saying the decks are stacked in his favour, yet he effectively controls the majority of the jury.

If he thinks this process is unfair, wait until the SDNY bring charges in a criminal court when he's out of office. It'll blow his mind...

26000 Elephants

Prize for first Republican to mention Hillary?

Igotadose

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Prize for first Republican to mention Hillary?

Nunes wins!

26000 Elephants

Igotadose wrote: »

Nunes wins!

I get the feeling this is going to be the worst remake of Groundhog Day ever.

Manic Moran

everlast75 wrote: »

I don't get it.

Trump claims that he is innocent of all charges, but is blocking people from testifying to that fact?

There's a common policy in the US that 'nothing good ever comes of talking to police or investigators if it can be avoided', and it doesn't matter how innocent or well intended you may be.

See this video at a law school, both a lawyer and a detective explain why. (45 minutes, but it's interesting and it's light listening, good speakers)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

StringerBell

I'd advise anybody expecting fireworks to just watch the highlights that will air later. These can be very dull affairs for the most part.

Igotadose

StringerBell wrote: »

I'd advise anybody expecting fireworks to just watch the highlights that will air later. These can be very dull affairs for the most part.

Agreed - it'll be dull till the GOPers start slinging. Nunes did this already. Schiff shut down the likes of Jordan and Stefanik who were agitating to get after the whistleblower.

StringerBell

A key quote: “In mid-August, it became clear to me that Giuliani’s efforts to gin up politically motivated investigations were now infecting U.S. engagement with Ukraine, leveraging President Zelenskyy’s desire for a White House meeting. ”

From George Kent

StringerBell

Kent says he raised the issue of Hunter Biden’s board membership as creating the “perception” of a conflict of interest, but stresses he did not witness any effort by any U.S. officials to shield Burisma from scrutiny, and in fact instead tried to go after the corrupt prosecutor who closed the case into Burisma.

He is closing out his statement defending other witnesses who have been smeared.

StringerBell

Taylor just has such a presence, even in his vocal delivery. He is going to make for a good TV witness I would wager.

StringerBell

Maggie HabermanWhite House Correspondent

Taylor is cutting through a lot of the clutter of the Kent opening statement, by saying it’s in American interests to stop Russia’s incursions into Ukraine.

Taylor is also directly going to facts about the withholding of the aid. He says he called the freeze “crazy” at the time and that he believed it then and does now.

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

There's a common policy in the US that 'nothing good ever comes of talking to police or investigators if it can be avoided', and it doesn't matter how innocent or well intended you may be.

See this video at a law school, both a lawyer and a detective explain why. (45 minutes, but it's interesting and it's light listening, good speakers)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

I get that, if you are the accused.

But if the call was perfect, and you have witnesses to that fact (both of these statements Trump claims are 100% true) then why not reinforce that with your witnesses.

If you have an issue that they may be caught in a "perjury trap" then say so.

The optics are that those witnesses will not say what he wants them to say.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

and their coup attempting cohorts

Isn't a coup one of those things where someone takes power for themselves? Has there ever been a coup where one party removes a leader and replaces him not with one of their own but with someone from the opposing party? Even ignoring the fact that this constitutional process being called a coup is stupid on it's own, it makes no sense that attempting to install President Pence could even be remotely compared to a coup. How does that even make sense? Did you even give this the slightest bit of thought before you decided to adopt that word after your dear leader did so?