Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

pixelburp

2016 was a perfect storm of anti-establishment discontent from the moribund flyover states, the perfect 'establishment' candidate personified by Clinton, the burgeoning potential of social media & fake news, and a shyster who promised all answers were easy, simple, and that only he could do it ("clean coal", "I know more about ISIS than the generals", "Lock her up", so on and so on).

If Trump had an ounce of self-reflection and awareness of his limitations, he would have established a bi-partisan cabinet, and truly got 'the best people'. Instead he's been winging it, and refusing to engage in the necessary evil of Washington politicking (best example there, the stillborn Obamare repeal). 2020 could have been a cake-walk, as he could have been a true example of an outsider perspective, bringing savviness and nous to the titular swamp. But then who could have predicted that businessman who spent his career drawing around the margins was just as sketchy as those he claimed he would dethrone?

As I've said before, the greatest trick Trump pulled was convincing Conservative America that a real estate tycoon from New York, with a string of affairs and bad business deals, was their saviour. But then this is the country that possesses the odious Wealth Bible, so maybe it isn't that surprising after all.

Quin_Dub

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

GOP added another sign to their collection, but they didn't really think it through:

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/1197584568368476163

This has been said here many times before, but seriously, if this was happening in a sitcom, people would say that it's too unrealistic.

Yet another thing I simply cannot comprehend about American Politics - The signs,posters and other "visual aids" that get brought to the floor of Congress.

I know it's mostly Republicans of late , but I've seen Democrats do it in the past.

I mean seriously , it's like they all think they are still in school and it's project day.

Beyond something directly pertinent to a debate , like a flow chart or a diagram etc. I don't think I've ever seen anything brought into any other Parliament anywhere in the world.


It's just weird.

Midlife

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Short answer: No.

Very long answer: the reason most of you (collective you: be it left-leaners, liberals or just plain DT haters) feel the way you do is because you have only focused on one single narrative for three years and missed everything else that has been going on. It's been the disportionate olympics: from Russiagate; through 'Kavanaugh-gate'; through 'Nazis-are-fine-people-gate'; through 'Meryl Streep saying he mocked disabled journalists-gate'; through 'Immigrants-are-animals-gate' (etc etc) right up to where we are now with 'He tried to bribe Ukraine to investigate a 2020 opponent-gate'.

So why would any of you feel any different than you currently do when your opinions are not informed as a direct result of what you have chosen to pay attention to and not to pay attention to. Of course you all feel Trump's only reason for requesting that the Bidens' Burisma dealings get investigated would be personal and motivated by the fact Biden might be on the ballot in 2020.

But, if you at least try and see things from Trump's REAL perspective, taking on board all that he was accused of, from being a Russian agent, to a traitor, to someone who'd pay prostitutes to urinate in a bed just cause Michelle Obama had slept in it, and also take on board what he had been told (even if some of it was false) about the role Ukraine played in it all, with regards to a Ukrainian politician releasing the documents that led to his campaign manager being linked with corruption, and that very same politician being a source for that Steele dossier .. and it really shouldn't be a much of surprise that Trump would be of the belief that Ukraine tried to 'take him down' in 2016 and that he would jump at the chance to have that all investiigated.

So that brings us to the Bidens and Burisma. So why mention them to Zelensky? Well: the video of Biden bragging that he had Ukraine's prosecutor fired went viral, and the stuff about Hunter had also been splashed all of the media too, from the NY Times to The Hill. Also, note that Trump prefaced the request with: 'There's a lot of talk' and 'People want to find out' and so clearly he believes this needs to be 'looked into' because of what he is hearing from others. Who are those others? Could be Rudy or it could be US Intel, but he mentions AG Barr first and so that would lead me to believe that there has been some discussion of maybe an official investigation into Budens-Burisma going on and that is why he sought Ukraine's cooperation there.

One quote from Mulveney during that presser which never gets quoted is:



Now don't confuse any of the above with my saying that I don't think there could have been a transactionary aspect to it all, one way or t'other, but that's just how these things are, and I think that's what Mulveny was trying to say, but made a bags of it. I think for sure Trump would have spoken with Mulveney, Rudy and Sondland with regards to him only wanting to give aid to Ukraine if their days of corruption were behind them and wanting Zelensky to maybe do something to show that he was serious in that regard. That investigations into the alleged meddling of the Ukrainians in 2016 may have been mentioned during these discussions, does not therefore make it a QPQ.

For a start, even if that was a decided upon condition which Trump wanted at one state of feeling Zelensky out with regards to his seriousness about fighting corruption, there's nothing to say he wouldn't soften on it a week later. So evidence of Trump even saying he would not release aid until Ukraine committed to having investigations, wouldn't be the smoking gun that the democrats would no doubt treat it as should such a thing come to light.

Have a feeling my short answer will be more appreciated than my long one.

Interesting. Out of curiosity, if as you say there was a transactional aspect to it, why did they release the funds?

Second question. Do you believe the Ukraine 2016 stuff?

Outlaw Pete

Interesting, now if Bolton was to testify that Trump had an intention to withhold aid unless investigations were carried out and that in his view it was for Trump's personal interests as opposed to the country's, then the dems might have a case.


https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/1197946364669370368

Dohnjoe

On Fox and Friends today, did Trump just basically admit to QPQ referring to this fictional DNC server conspiracy?

Midlife

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Interesting, now if Bolton was to testify that Trump had an intention to withhold aid unless investigations were carried out and that in his view it was for Trump's personal interests as opposed to the country's, then the dems might have a case.


https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/1197946364669370368

So just to confirm. You don't think Trump engaged in a bit of opportunism regarding investigations for aid .....

But you would believe it if Bolton said it?

Everyone's entitled to their opinion but I think you (as much as many people on the other side) need to examine the standards by which you judge things.

isohon

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Interesting, now if Bolton was to testify that Trump had an intention to withhold aid unless investigations were carried out and that in his view it was for Trump's personal interests as opposed to the country's, then the dems might have a case.


https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/1197946364669370368

You are aware that multiple, non-partisan individuals (some Trump appointees) have given testimony under oath that makes clear there was a QPQ, and that it was at the behest of the President?

isohon

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Yet another thing I simply cannot comprehend about American Politics - The signs,posters and other "visual aids" that get brought to the floor of Congress.

I know it's mostly Republicans of late , but I've seen Democrats do it in the past.

I mean seriously , it's like they all think they are still in school and it's project day.

Beyond something directly pertinent to a debate , like a flow chart or a diagram etc. I don't think I've ever seen anything brought into any other Parliament anywhere in the world.


It's just weird.

Their political society is decayed and almost moribund. IF they had strippers carry around talking points on placards I wouldn't be surprised.

PropJoe10

isohon wrote: »

You are aware that multiple, non-partisan individuals (some Trump appointees) have given testimony under oath that makes clear there was a QPQ, and that it was at the behest of the President?

Take my advice and don't waste your time going down that rabbit hole with this poster.

This Bolton thing is intriguing. Wonder will he testify.

Water John

Yes, someone said this was much worse than Nixon and Watergate. That person was John Dean.

isohon

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Take my advice and don't waste your time going down that rabbit hole with this poster.

This Bolton thing is intriguing. Wonder will he testify.

I know you are right. I know it.

...BUT...

I've always been sucker for the internet. I don't think we can let people away with bare faced lies, misdirection or misleading 'on here'. You never know who is lurking or who might stumble across things... and find a room of trolls talking to themselves and be deceived.

I know in the round it may be silly, there are payed deceivers and we are only anonymons speaking at eachother... but I don't have a column or a youtube or a snap chat. I'm here where I am just taping away occasionally.

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

Yes, someone said this was much worse than Nixon and Watergate. That person was John Dean.

And mr dean would know about that. Also breaking news is that former NSA john Bolton has tweeted that his twitter account has been "liberated" after he he claims it was unfairly blocked after he left the administration.

TomOnBoard

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Take my advice and don't waste your time going down that rabbit hole with this poster.

This Bolton thing is intriguing. Wonder will he testify.

Bolton does make a valid point in that any testimony would be extremely hampered, if the WH is refusing him access to his communications records such as emails, Twitter, WhatsApp ETC. Sondland referred to the same issue as well. That said, his recollection of events would be invaluable,as would his commentary on the various actors.

Edit : I'm just seeing that Bolton is saying his twitter machine has been "liberated"!

StringerBell

I can't see Bolton being too keen to testify, he has a huge book deal to keep.his dirt for.

TomOnBoard

AFAIK, the Ukraine related hearings are now finished (barring a huge development that warrants a further deposition followed by a public session). However, it may be getting lost that the Ukraine piece is just one of a number of possible articles of impeachment. I have no doubt that, over the Thanksgiving pause, the next subject (whatever is intended) will be teed up. I'm pretty sure that the failure of Bolton and others to respond to subpoenas will form a separate article of impeachment, charging obstruction of Congress.

StringerBell

They will yeah, that's the decision the democrats have taken for right or wrong.

TomOnBoard

Again, whether right or wrong, I believe that they must revisit the Obstruction of Justice issue emanating from the Mueller investigation. Mueller teed that up quite strongly by saying that, in the light of the DoJ position on non-prosecution by the legal system of a sitting President, the impeachment process is the only means by which the serious Obstruction findings can be dealt with under the Constitution. If the Ukraine shenanigans constitute the Bribery charge as one of the articles of impeachment, an Obstruction of Justice finding would accompany the Obstruction of Congress finding in articles under the umbrella of "Other high crimes and misdemeanours ".

That would make a total of 3 articles of impeachment falling very soundly into the Constitution's definition.

Obviously these would be the charges put to the Judiciary Committee and the House to decide whether to proceed to an Impeachment. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility for the House to decide that the evidence has been gathered, the charges can be laid in due course, BUT decide to not proceed with impeachment at this time, as the jury (the Senate) is compromised and incapable of carrying out a fair trial.

Now THAT would really fcuk up Republican strategy and leave matters hanging up to the 2020 election.

fatherted1969

Feels like it's been too drawn out and has lost the attention of the American public. I believe he's as guilty as sin but I feel once it doesnt have the full support of the public he'll escape justice

amandstu

I fèel the impeachment is necessary but it does the Dems no favours as there is no chance of conviction (and an electorate that voted for Trump in the first place anyway is actually not much of a prize -perhaps the States are really a burden on the Democratic world despite the strength of their military for now)

The sooner it is resolved the sooner they can get on with the election proper.

Hopefully they and the public will be on their guard for dirty tricks.

hetuzozaho

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Take my advice and don't waste your time going down that rabbit hole with this poster.

This Bolton thing is intriguing. Wonder will he testify.

Yep I was shocked how many went down about the Apple factory tweet he brought up today.

Deflection!

Overheal

https://twitter.com/funder/status/1197911609739530240?s=20

Graham is scum yet he has (because of the reserves) 33 years of Air Force service.

Christy42

weisses wrote: »

A lot of people voted trump just because they hated Hillary with a passion.
I personally don't see that with any of the candidates now

A baboon with syphilis would be a credible enough democratic candidate at this stage, if that is the criteria you want to use.

Honestly I think they hated Hilary because they wanted an excuse to vote for Trump. I think they will find it again in 2020 whether it is a corporate type like Biden or a "commie" (as if they know what the word means ) like Warren or Bernie.

At a certain point someone promising all the solutions is attractive. He also promises a strong fist. Finally he has somehow managed to argue that he is still the underdog without taking that to it's logical conclusion that he has been incompetent as president.

That he can't deliver is besides the point. He is able to promise the world and sound confident doing it. Apparently that is all.that is required in the modern world.

aloyisious

Chris Cuomo is stating on his CNN show there are advance hints that the DOJ Inspector General's investigation report on the "Russia Hoax" claims will state that the claims are fake and that Russia was [as reported by the US intelligence services, incl the FBI, to President Trump, the Senate and Congress, and the US public] behind the attacks on the last US presidential election. If correct it'll at least leave egg all over Don's face & suit and certainly trash the "Ukraine, the Dems and the Clintons were behind the attacks" claims from certain GOP members.

Chris is also relating a claim [this one allegedly from Mr Lev Parnas's lawyer] that a former Ukraine official [apparently Mr Victor Shokin, the sacked Ukraine prosecutor] told Mr Parnas that Mr Nunes had met with him to get dirt on the Bidens. Chris and his companion on the show are also saying that according to Mr Parnas Lawyer, Mr Nunes met with Mr Parnas to try recruit him for whatever. Allegedly Mr Parnas's lawyer says his client wants to testify to this and Mr Parnas wants to do a deal with the NY Southern District DA in return for his testimony.

Now I do not know if any of the above are in any way true but if it is, the second part seems to me to be political dynamite as against a slightly weaker one that's I've covered in Para 1 above.

Edit: I'm not sure on what would be contempt of congress behaviour by a member of congress and have to ask, if what Mr Parnas and his lawyer claim is true, what Mr Nunes statements, during and after the committee hearing sessions, would amount to as he made his comments for and on the congress record.

Overheal

https://www.mediaite.com/news/cnn-lev-parnas-willing-to-tell-congress-nunes-spoke-with-fmr-ukrainian-official-to-get-dirt-on-biden/

Pretty outrageous report out from CNN: that Nunes - then chair of the Foreign Intelligence Committee - met with Victor Shokin according to Lev Parnas, in Vienna, to discuss dirt on the Bidens. This occurred in December 2018 during the lame duck session that congressional records only list as a visit to Europe with a handful of others. Parnas has asked to testify before Congress and he has already been subpoenaed.

As Cuomo points out: at no time during this impeachment process did Nunes allude to the fact that he had met with Shokin. Even when it was brought up by Swalwell, Devin Nunes entered no denials of his association with Lev Parnas into the record that I recall (compare to Schiff that took time to correct matters of fact that were distorted in Republican use of time)

Nunes is clearly part of the irregular channel if all of this checks out.

Overheal

In other infuriating daylight corruption news Trump has reportedly been using Camp David to bribe/woo Senators to his own impeachment defense:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-opens-up-camp-david-as-an-adult-playground-to-woo-gop-lawmakers-during-impeachment/2019/11/22/ec6e7810-0c6f-11ea-8397-a955cd542d00_story.html

jooksavage

Christy42 wrote: »

Honestly I think they hated Hilary because they wanted an excuse to vote for Trump. I think they will find it again in 2020 whether it is a corporate type like Biden or a "commie" (as if they know what the word means ) like Warren or Bernie.

At a certain point someone promising all the solutions is attractive. He also promises a strong fist. Finally he has somehow managed to argue that he is still the underdog without taking that to it's logical conclusion that he has been incompetent as president.

That he can't deliver is besides the point. He is able to promise the world and sound confident doing it. Apparently that is all.that is required in the modern world.

Hard to disagree with a lot of this. I think though, Trump has a few big problems that he didn't have 3 years ago. The turnout for 2016 election was down significantly on 2008 and down a little from 2012. Black voter turnout saw a massive drop and reversed a decades-long upward trend. All the polls seem to indicate that the Trump base are resolute and will back him no matter what. But they're a largely static cohort in the face of increasing opposition - the 2018 mid-terms, with a record-setting 12% increase on 2014 turnout is bad news for Trump

Also I'm not sure the underdog thing still applies. 3 years of scandals and very obnoxious personal behaviour and he hasn't faced any kind of reckoning. Even if he gets impeached (which he apparently now wants), the sight of 45+ Republican senators refusing to convict in the face of overwhelming and damning evidence is only going to motivate an already invigorated opposition voter.

Trumps biggest problem though is himself. His routine is old now. He's a known quantity. The novelty is gone. It's impossible to believe a good portion of America, like the rest of us, haven't long succumbed to Trump-fatigue. He often compares his presidency to a TV show, talking about ratings etc. It seems fitting then that his tenure should end prematurely, like most unsuccessful shows, due to lack of public interest.

everlast75

Overheal wrote: »

https://www.mediaite.com/news/cnn-lev-parnas-willing-to-tell-congress-nunes-spoke-with-fmr-ukrainian-official-to-get-dirt-on-biden/

Pretty outrageous report out from CNN: that Nunes - then chair of the Foreign Intelligence Committee - met with Victor Shokin according to Lev Parnas, in Vienna, to discuss dirt on the Bidens. This occurred in December 2018 during the lame duck session that congressional records only list as a visit to Europe with a handful of others. Parnas has asked to testify before Congress and he has already been subpoenaed.

As Cuomo points out: at no time during this impeachment process did Nunes allude to the fact that he had met with Shokin. Even when it was brought up by Swalwell, Devin Nunes entered no denials of his association with Lev Parnas into the record that I recall (compare to Schiff that took time to correct matters of fact that were distorted in Republican use of time)

Nunes is clearly part of the irregular channel if all of this checks out.

Wouldn't trust Parnas as far as i could throw him, so he needs to bring receipts. Nunes has questions to answer here. If this is true, for him to stay mute on this topic during the impeachment is outrageous.


In other news...

https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1197985516047806464?s=19

Again, to be confirmed, but if the article is correct, what other conspiracy theories are there that Trump supporters have left to crow on about?

Cody montana

everlast75 wrote: »

Wouldn't trust Parnas as far as i could throw him, so he needs to bring receipts. Nunes has questions to answer here. If this is true, for him to stay mute on this topic during the impeachment is outrageous.


In other news...

https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1197985516047806464?s=19

Again, to be confirmed, but if the article is correct, what other conspiracy theories are there that Trump supporters have left to crow on about?

Michelle Obama is a man?
I think that’s about it.

They’ll just make up another one.

jooksavage

everlast75 wrote: »

Wouldn't trust Parnas as far as i could throw him, so he needs to bring receipts. Nunes has questions to answer here. If this is true, for him to stay mute on this topic during the impeachment is outrageous.

Based on his previous conduct, and his reaction when Swalwell called him out during the hearing, I'd be more surprised now if the allegations aren't 100% true. The fact that he's sitting on that committee, let alone the ranking member of the minority, is a disgrace.

The whole thing does fit into a larger, consistent pattern of the Trump presidency at once as both a corrputor and a detergent: the very worst people in American politics being drawn in and destroyed by their association with the POTUS.

Itssoeasy

So I saw the clip from fox and friends of trump calling in to rant but I've now seen it went on for 53 minutes. I'm not a big fan of fox and friends but even I wouldn't wish them 53 minutes of trump. Was any of it even remotely lucid ?