Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Brian?

This is getting ridiculous: The US will no longer consider Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal.

Why in God's name would you change this policy? All it'll do is inflame tensions. The merry go round of rocket attacks, rioting and dead Palestinian kids continues.

Stop moaning ffs

Here’s how bonkers this all is. He gets rushed to hospital when there are several medical staff in the White House capable an equipped for any scenario.

Then he tweets he was visiting a random partient. Best surgeons in the world. Tremendous.

Now there’s evidence he was rushed to hospital.

Watch him step down in the coming weeks totally dementia. Greatly compromised memory. Can’t remember colluding with Russia

And his minions will eat it all up.

https://twitter.com/kellyo/status/1196196826086617091?s=21

Overheal

So after the Republicans treated Marie Yovanovitch like a rehearsed actress, Rep Turner stabbed his finger at her and barked “YOURE DONE” because his time was up and despite the Chair giving her time for answering his own question (that he didn’t like the answer to?), and Donald Trump famously performed Witness Intimidation in front of The World, all long since after intimating, “she’s going to go through some things” it’s really Adam Schiff that is the sexist:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/sexism-is-a-serious-issue-not-a-cheap-shot/2019/11/18/b74a78e2-0967-11ea-bd9d-c628fd48b3a0_story.html

Yes because Schiff enforced the house impeachment inquiry rules it was spun as a mysoginistic attack against Stefanik who was inappropriately yielded to during the ranking minority member’s 45 minute block, which the rules stipulate can only be yielded to Counsel (Steve Caster)

PropJoe10

duploelabs wrote: »

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-hearing-pelosi-ukraine-zelensky-face-the-nation-cbs-a9207251.html

Trump strongly considering Pelosi's invitation to testify. Oh god please let that happen

There is zero chance of that happening. His attorneys wouldnt allow it because they know he'd incriminate himself within 5 minutes.

Overheal

PropJoe10 wrote: »

There is zero chance of that happening. His attorneys wouldnt allow it because they know he'd incriminate himself within 5 minutes.

From what I’ve heard his lawyers did dry runs with Trump when Mueller asked for testimony, and they reportedly found that the man is such a habitual liar, that he’d basically perjure himself on reflex; it’s up to the reader whether that’s for something more serious than saying under oath “the biggest inauguration crowd in history”

everlast75

Overheal wrote: »

From what I’ve heard his lawyers did dry runs with Trump when Mueller asked for testimony, and they reportedly found that the man is such a habitual liar, that he’d basically perjure himself on reflex; it’s up to the reader whether that’s for something more serious than saying under oath “the biggest inauguration crowd in history”

Didn't dowd call him a ****ing liar?

Someone also said that he would end up in an orange jumpsuit IIRC?

On the testimony thing, I don't know why the media insist on neglecting to mention he said the same thing about Mueller. Why not contextualize and say that?

PropJoe10

PropJoe10 wrote: »

There is zero chance of that happening. His attorneys wouldnt allow it because they know he'd incriminate himself within 5 minutes.

I plead the 5th would probably be the most often and most truthful answer, if taking their advice.

PropJoe10

Overheal wrote: »

From what I’ve heard his lawyers did dry runs with Trump when Mueller asked for testimony, and they reportedly found that the man is such a habitual liar, that he’d basically perjure himself on reflex; it’s up to the reader whether that’s for something more serious than saying under oath “the biggest inauguration crowd in history”

It's a different debate, but I honestly think that Trump believes that whatever he says is the truth, even when it's obviously not. Seeing him testify would be absolutely hilarious.

Overheal

PropJoe10 wrote: »

It's a different debate, but I honestly think that Trump believes that whatever he says is the truth, even when it's obviously not. Seeing him testify would be absolutely hilarious.

If that’s the true case I’m alarmed and a Republic can’t be run under trust by someone off in their own version of reality.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1196541758819196928?s=19

Nice little pressure sandwich for Sondland. Stone's guilty verdict and his max possible sentence will be in his mind, Volker on Tuesday will show him what he's in for on Wednesday and he will know Holmes will testify the day after contradicting any denial.

He has a hotel empire to worry about.

Pressure, pressure, pressure.

PropJoe10

Overheal wrote: »

If that’s the true case I’m alarmed and a Republic can’t be run under trust by someone off in their own version of reality.

He's 73 and has lived in a bubble his entire life where he's never had anyone to say "No Donald, thats not a good idea". He's king of the world now in his own eyes. Why would be think any different?

Overheal

It’s up to his defenders now to establish that Trump can somehow continue to be trusted with the Presidency under the mounting evidence; the witness intimidation alone would have doomed anyone else by now.

Prediction: McConnel will use “The Biden Rule” to move for summary dismissal in spring 2020

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1196541758819196928?s=19

Nice little pressure sandwich for Sondland. Stone's guilty verdict and his max possible sentence will be in his mind, Volker on Tuesday will show him what he's in for on Wednesday and he will know Holmes will testify the day after contradicting any denial.

He has a hotel empire to worry about.

Pressure, pressure, pressure.

I've been wondering about DH. He, like Ambassador Yovanovitch, is still a serving State Dept employee. Given the ambassador's senior ranking and what Don has done to her, I doubt if she'll be considered for more foreign service positions while DH is probably, by testifying against the Admin's official instructions, ruining his own career with his honesty and forthrightness.

aloyisious

Re the visit to Walter Reed, this is what I'd be worried about if Don was suddenly too sick to do the job. The Twenty-fifth Amendment (Amendment XXV) to the United States Constitution says that if the President becomes unable to do their job, the Vice President becomes the President. This can happen for just a little while, if the President is just sick or disabled for a short time. It could also happen until the end of the President's term (their time in office), if the President died, resigned, or lost his or her job.

Just imagine the GOP switching candidates because of the above being played. No more bad poll ratings for the GOP, relief all round in the party, no "bad guy" for the Dems to get their voters to rally against. Don is the best thing the Dems have when it comes to get the public vote against the GOP and get their candidate into office. Realistically, in the above scenario, the best hope for the Dems is for Mike Pence to be removed first for some offence before Don exited due to illness as both offices are normally filled by election.

Itssoeasy

aloyisious wrote: »

Re the visit to Walter Reed, this is what I'd be worried about if Don was suddenly too sick to do the job. The Twenty-fifth Amendment (Amendment XXV) to the United States Constitution says that if the President becomes unable to do their job, the Vice President becomes the President. This can happen for just a little while, if the President is just sick or disabled for a short time. It could also happen until the end of the President's term (their time in office), if the President died, resigned, or lost his or her job.

Just imagine the GOP switching candidates because of the above being played. No more bad poll ratings for the GOP, relief all round in the party, no "bad guy" for the Dems to get their voters to rally against. Don is the best thing the Dems have when it comes to get the public vote against the GOP and get their candidate into office. Realistically the best hope for the Dems is for Mike Pence to be removed first for some offence before Don exited due to illness as both offices are normally filled by election.

Well from my memory of reading up on the 25th ammendment it was introduced in the wake of JFKs assassination and also to clear up the article 2 of the constitution where is was a bit unclear as to what happened when a president died or was incapacitated. The issue was did the Vice President become president or just assume the powers.

aloyisious

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well from my memory of reading up on the 25th ammendment it was introduced in the wake of JFKs assassination and also to clear up the article 2 of the constitution where is was a bit unclear as to what happened when a president died or was incapacitated. The issue was did the Vice President become president or just assume the powers.

I think, if it's just as a locum, there'd be no swearing-in but if Don was to be on permanent removal from office, Mike would be sworn-into office under the constitution [presumably the same oath of office that Don swore to in Jan 2017] making it an official investiture into the office of president, a different office requiring a new swearing-in.

Outlaw Pete

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/1196465004763123713?s=19

Unfortunately I don't think from what I know that it would be a definite finding against Trump, but [U its definitely worth checking into[/U]

lol. Already they're lining up the next thing to claim he warrants being impeached for.

Gotta love these insurance polices.

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

lol. Already they're lining up the next thing to claim he warrants being impeached for.

Gotta love these insurance polices.

This is the *previous* investigation.

Try to keep up.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

lol. Already they're lining up the next thing to claim he warrants being impeached for.

Gotta love these insurance polices.

[lol here I am complaining they don't stick to ONE thing in the President's long litany of things which warrant inquiry, but I will also complain loudly and often that every stone isn't unturned into Joe and Hunter Bidens lives]

aloyisious

The DOJ Inspector General is to testify before a Congress committee soon, presumably the justice committee, on his investigation into the FBI handling of its investigation into Russian interference with the last US presidential election. It's a bit of a mouthful. One waits for confirmation of the existence of Russian interference within the IG's report, rather than a "there's no proof of any interference but the FBI investigation itself was done badly".

PropJoe10

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

lol. Already they're lining up the next thing to claim he warrants being impeached for.

Gotta love these insurance polices.

If he lied to the special counsel then he probably should be impeached, don't you think?

Overheal

PropJoe10 wrote: »

If he lied to the special counsel then he probably should be impeached, don't you think?

No no, it's off limits now because Mueller already testified, and you know, 5-second rule...

Outlaw Pete

jooksavage wrote: »

Vindman is up tomorrow morning. If Trump starts live-tweeting slander about decorated military man while he delivers his testimony (I believe he wore his uniform to the closed-door session) it won't look great.

You mean, maybe like suggesting that those around Vindman have questioned his judgement, felt he had leaked information and accessed material he shouldn't have? That kind of slander?

'But, he wears a uniform!!' Yeah, so did Oliver North.

The R's witnesses are up in the afternoon: Volker and Morrison. Interesting to see how the D's approach their testimony.

It'll just be the greatest hits from the rehearsals but Morrison said some damning stuff with regards to dem narrative and so risky witness to call back in and could hinder them more than help them.

Highlight of the week will be Sondland's, on Wednesday morning. He's already revised his original testimony significantly.

Well, not just his testimony was revised, as Sondland revises was he says to people in real time too as (apparently) he told one of Zelensky's aides that if their prosecutor could announce an investigation into Burisma-Biden, that would satisfy Trump, but then said he made a mistake and it would have to be Zelensky. Himself and Rudy seem to a touch unhinged.

I wouldn't put it past them to start pushing the line that the 'unofficial' Ukraine channel was operating independently of Trump - which means Giuliani, Sondland & Co. all go under the bus.

Well, it's not about pushing that narrative, as that narrative is there organically, given how much of the evidence already supports it. Neither Morrison, Volker nor Pence at any stage discussed (that we currently know of at least) with Zelensky (or his advisers) that he would need to publicly commit to investigating Burisma/Bidens in order for their to be a lift on the security aid to be removed and nor did they so much as mention the Bidens to them before they became aware of the hold either. Only the three amigos appeared to have told done that.

Remember, even Sondland has said that Trump was angry with him and effectively hung up on him when he asked him what he wanted Zelensky to do. So, perhaps Morrison and Bolton are right about Sondland. Hill didn't like him either. In fact nobody wanted him around, nor Rudy, and on that for sure Trump has to bare the blame.

Stefanik's carry on last week has gone down terribly, with donations pouring into her D rival.

Her carry on?? lol She did excellently (outside of the mainstream media leftist bubble). The left circulating photoshopped images of her didn't help their cause mind.

Democrats have impeachment in the bag, it's a shoo-in, but not hope of a conviction. Unless that is they can find someone with firsthand knowledge of Trump saying to them that he was not releasing the security aid until Zelensky publicly announced an investigation into the Bidens re Burisma and only did so as a result of the congressional investigation / whistleblower.

That might result in a conviction, but even then it could be argued that his decision was not motivated by a desire to gain an upper hand against a political opponent (as is the democrat charge) but indeed to merely look into conflict of interest of a US Vice President tasked with overseeing Ukraine and it's promises to tackle a longstanding problem with corruption, and which there is undoubtedly sufficient evidence to warrant such an investigation.

Overheal

Her carry on?? lol She did excellently (outside of the mainstream media leftist bubble). The left circulating photoshopped images of her didn't help their cause mind

Her opponent had raised about $650k all year to date. Between Stefanik’s melodrama against the House Rules and Monday, he raised over $1M. She’s remained incumbent as a Moderate Republican, and behavior in the hearings, especially Friday, was objectively partisan. Especially her involvement in Nunes’ charade about yielding to someone other than counsel. It shows her as someone willing to distract from Discovery.

I don’t understand what material you mean in reference to Vindman.

Outlaw Pete

PropJoe10 wrote: »

If he lied to the special counsel then he probably should be impeached, don't you think?

Of course, nobody should be above the law, but some seem to be.

Like Mifsud:

The report indicates Mifsud lied repeatedly to investigators on sensitive national security issues, but Mueller did not charge him with a single count. Cooperating witnesses were sentenced for lying, but Mifsud was not. If he perhaps acted on behalf of American officials to create the foundation for the Russia investigation, then that raises a host of other questions.

Nellie Ohr:

Nellie testified at that time that she “would not have any knowledge of what [was] going on in an ongoing investigation” at the DOJ nor would she “have any knowledge of the Department of Justice’s investigations on Russia.” She also testified that she didn’t share her research with anyone besides her employer, her husband, or ex-British Intelligence Officer Christopher Steele, who compiled the infamous dossier on Trump that was shown to be not credible by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Meadows wrote in his criminal referral that “documents reviewed by our committees raise concerns Ms. Ohr not only had knowledge of an ongoing DOJ investigation, but that she shared information and research on Russian organized crime to assist DOJ, in direct contradiction with her testimony.”

Glenn Simpson:

When the Committee staff interviewed Glenn Simpson in August of 2017, Majority staff asked him: “So you didn’t do any work on the Trump matter after the election date, that was the end of your work?” Mr. Simpson answered: “I had no client after the election.”12 As we now know, that was extremely misleading, if not an outright lie. Contrary to Mr. Simpson’s denial in the staff interview, according to the FBI and others, Fusion actually did continue Trump dossier work for a new client after the election.

And the rest, such as John Brennan, Victoria Nuland ... etc.

Oh I know, I know: Pete's that's all just a right wing conspiracy theory!! :mad:

Well, we'll see.

Overheal

Welp America is divided alright,

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/why-would-they-lie-about-this-hannity-goes-off-after-third-impeachment-witness-testifies-he-spoke-with-state-dept/

Hannity is indignant that he was not contacted (doubt it, lad been seen in texts with Manafort wasn't it, and gets regular calls from the President, and used the same lawyer). Whatever the case this segment reminds me that there's 2 schools of thought in this impeachment right now: A) Donald Trump acted against the interests of the US for personal gain the "Deep State" acted against the interests of the President, and is just 'making it all up,' to subvert the will of Trump voters "aka. The Real America," and it's really all the cabal elites and their serfs, if I understand their thrust.

tl;dr Hannity is part of the inquiry.

And how much better is the coverage on MSNBC?

https://twitter.com/snopes/status/1196617606549032960?s=20

Whoof. Salwell will never be President now :pac:

Finally though here's that author trying to defend the President against bribery and accidentally argues for getting money out of politics: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-foxs-gregg-jarrett-defend-trump-against-bribery-charges-by-accidentally-making-argument-for-getting-money-out-of-politics/

When you realize the gravity of what he's just realized live on air it's really quite depressing. But, that was why I backed Bernie, ironically.

Stallingrad

Trump testifying, sure what could go wrong? It went well for Prince Andrew.

Christy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Of course, nobody should be above the law, but some seem to be.

Like Mifsud:



Nellie Ohr:



Glenn Simpson:



And the rest, such as John Brennan, Victoria Nuland ... etc.

Oh I know, I know: Pete's that's all just a right wing conspiracy theory!! :mad:

Well, we'll see.

Does any of this mean Trump should not be charged? If any of the above committed crimes they should be chargerbut it is irrelevant for the sake whether or not Trump committed a crime.


As for Trump testifying. Who knows. It will never change his base's mind but it is difficult to see him not getting caught in a lie. It probably won't even get to a cover up, he will lie about his age for vanity reasons. Of course if his base doesn't care then there is a good chance the Senate won't either.

Republicans know who he is and are happy to stick with him for his base. They know there is a reason most of his associates are in jail but it is irrelevant to them.

Brian?

I’m not one for conspiracy theories; but I just read on Facebook that Trump hasn’t been seen since he was rushed to hospital on Saturday. Is this true?

everlast75

Brian? wrote: »

I’m not one for conspiracy theories; but I just read on Facebook that Trump hasn’t been seen since he was rushed to hospital on Saturday. Is this true?

I'd read that too. Three days and not a sight.

Normally, I wouldn't give two ***** but for a guy who, along with the national enquirer, had Hillary diagnosed with a few months to live just before the 2016... well, let's just say I hope he enjoys all the speculation about his ill health.