Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

hetuzozaho

Kayleigh McEnany is damn good at delivering a briefing. Just caught up with todays one.

I need to know her notes organising secret, everything they ask she moves to a place in her notes and has some nice dig, in relation to what they asked, aimed at a democrat or Washington post or something.

Admirable. Hope I'm not falling for her!

Tell me how

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Kayleigh McEnany is damn good at delivering a briefing. Just caught up with todays one.

I need to know her notes organising secret, everything they ask she moves to a place in her notes and has some nice dig, in relation to what they asked, aimed at a democrat or Washington post or something.

Admirable. Hope I'm not falling for her!

It's not that difficult. There are 6 to 10 topics in which she can expect to be challenged in such a way that she wants to respond.

Her method of responding is the same for each, 'Yes but look at what A, B, C said about that previously.' She looks good because she is so far ahead of Trump and is smiling as she does it which Sanders never was guilty of. Post-its would suffice to locate the specific retort for each topic.

It's still not helping the American people understand what is being done or why it's being done, her MO is purely to challenge the hated press corps.

Pretty stark to think that that is how the most powerful office in the world aims to operate.

Itssoeasy

NBC news is reporting that the Supreme Court appears headed to a spilt decision on trumps taxes and financial records. I take it a split decision is a 5-4 one way ? I wonder who's the swing vote.

Headshot

Itssoeasy wrote: »

NBC news is reporting that the Supreme Court appears headed to a spilt decision on trumps taxes and financial records. I take it a split decision is a 5-4 one way ? I wonder who's the swing vote.

When will we know the results?

aloyisious

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It's Cyrus Vance..

Ta. I've just seen in the Washington Post that he's the NY County DA and that the S.C judges seem to have found less to criticize with the case presented by his General Counsel [Carey Dunne] presented to it to access Don's tax returns than they have with Congress's subpoena cases. The records sought by N.Y county are held by Don's accounting firm and financial institutions, Dunne said they are needed for an ongoing criminal investigation that touches more people than Trump and that federal courts already have decided that the request would put no additional burdens on the president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/12/trump-taxes-scotus-hearing-live/

aloyisious

Washington Post is running a report of problems with Don's plans to build a dock at his Mar-a-Lago resort. It's behind a firewall but Forbes.com are covering it as well as it also covers Don's NY resident tax obligations of several million. His residence-move to Florida may be in legal doubt as Mar-a-Lago was changed from a residence to a private club by him with the change setting out legal definitions of what it had become and could be used as. The media interest was roused after the dock plan allegedly upset some of Don's Mar-a-Lago neighbours.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2020/05/08/could-donald-trumps-dock-battle-with-mar-a-lago-neighbors-cost-him-millions-in-new-york-taxes/

Leroy42

Itssoeasy wrote: »

NBC news is reporting that the Supreme Court appears headed to a spilt decision on trumps taxes and financial records. I take it a split decision is a 5-4 one way ? I wonder who's the swing vote.

If only we had some way to know which way the judges political affiliations lie!

aloyisious

Scratched the Putin ill with Covid report, Jay Sekulow, Don Trump personal lawyer at the U.S.S.C hearing on the subpoenas cases has asked the judges to give his client temporary immunity from the NY County subpoenas. CNN reported the request as being one seeking temporary immunity for the president from criminal prosecution.

TomOnBoard

Itssoeasy wrote: »

NBC news is reporting that the Supreme Court appears headed to a spilt decision on trumps taxes and financial records. I take it a split decision is a 5-4 one way ? I wonder who's the swing vote.

You could hear the Conservative justices argument being taken for a walk when Thomas questioned if the attempt to get access to Trump's taxes as being an attempt by the Dems to remove a President, rather than a legitimate need to make legislation. Ginsburg followed up by her questions which challenged that position.

I'd say it's going to come down on Donnie's side if Thomas has his way and his way persuades Alito. While I'm assuming that payback for favours keeps Gorsuch and Kavanagh in line, Gorsuch might just surprise and decide to upset the Rep apple cart. I haven't heard his questioning but he he has been known to vote with the liberal position on occasion.

That will leave Roberts with the swing in his hands. Based on his last big outing in the Impeachment trial, I don't see him producing a win for the Democratic House but I'm hoping to be surprised.

I'm sure the 4 Dem appointed Justices will decide against Trump.

BonnieSituation

Where have you been watching it?

TomOnBoard

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Where have you been watching it?

PBS Newshour has a full recording on YouTube :

https://youtu.be/rAhPsDIBLcU

It's voice with subtitles. Very illuminating when you hear the tone off the questioning..

TomOnBoard

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Kayleigh McEnany is damn good at delivering a briefing. Just caught up with todays one.

I need to know her notes organising secret, everything they ask she moves to a place in her notes and has some nice dig, in relation to what they asked, aimed at a democrat or Washington post or something.

Admirable. Hope I'm not falling for her!

She is a smooth operator alright... Certainly the best one Trump has rolled out... Like, in her first briefing she said - with a straight face and innocence laden eyes - "I will never lie to you. You have my word on that.”.. She has lied ever since.. Not on everything.. Just on important stuff... And only on days ending in 'y'...

Roanmore

Not too sure if this has been posted but it's an excellent clip, really shows up the whole "Obamagate" for what it is, a soundbite made up by Trump / Republicans to take the heat of the Covid 19 debacle.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1260050135175753730

It's worth watching the presenters face when the guy starts talking, she was not expecting the reply she got.

jooksavage

The Obamagate thing is a good way of framing the election as a popularity contest between Trump and his predecessor.

Which is obviously f***ing terrible for Trump.

Quin_Dub

aloyisious wrote: »

Ta. I've just seen in the Washington Post that he's the NY County DA and that the S.C judges seem to have found less to criticize with the case presented by his General Counsel [Carey Dunne] presented to it to access Don's tax returns than they have with Congress's subpoena cases. The records sought by N.Y county are held by Don's accounting firm and financial institutions, Dunne said they are needed for an ongoing criminal investigation that touches more people than Trump and that federal courts already have decided that the request would put no additional burdens on the president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/12/trump-taxes-scotus-hearing-live/

TomOnBoard wrote: »

You could hear the Conservative justices argument being taken for a walk when Thomas questioned if the attempt to get access to Trump's taxes as being an attempt by the Dems to remove a President, rather than a legitimate need to make legislation. Ginsburg followed up by her questions which challenged that position.

I'd say it's going to come down on Donnie's side if Thomas has his way and his way persuades Alito. While I'm assuming that payback for favours keeps Gorsuch and Kavanagh in line, Gorsuch might just surprise and decide to upset the Rep apple cart. I haven't heard his questioning but he he has been known to vote with the liberal position on occasion.

That will leave Roberts with the swing in his hands. Based on his last big outing in the Impeachment trial, I don't see him producing a win for the Democratic House but I'm hoping to be surprised.

I'm sure the 4 Dem appointed Justices will decide against Trump.

I think they know that they can't really find for Trump here given the precedent it would set for the future.

From what I read the Lawyer representing the House committees was quite poor and fumbled their answers a few times but the NY guy was very sharp and had an answer and precedence for every question that was put to him.

I suspect that what we'll get is that they'll kick the house one back down to the lower court but stipulate a higher bar for qualification which will mean the House having to sub a new/revised subpoena. I think they'll agree with the lower court on the NY case and let them proceed.

That actually limits the pre-election damage for Trump but doesn't give Presidential immunity for ever, as the House almost certainly likely won't get what they want before the election and the NY team can't just release the information into the public - They'd have to process it and then bring charges based on what they find and who knows when that case might actually get to open court.

If the House got his tax returns they could literally read them out in committee for the world to see/hear and not actually have to do anything else with them.

As others have said all that matters to Trump is keeping as much of this as possible this out of the news until November 3rd. After that he doesn't care.

Although , if he manages to get re-elected but the GOP lose the Senate he's screwed.

Midlife

That's it. Cases rising rapidly in the heartland. Red states and rural America going to get hit hard now.

And just 2 days ago the clown declares it to be dropping everywhere.

People are less safe with him as president. He's toast.

EltonJohn69

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I think they know that they can't really find for Trump here given the precedent it would set for the future.

From what I read the Lawyer representing the House committees was quite poor and fumbled their answers a few times but the NY guy was very sharp and had an answer and precedence for every question that was put to him.

I suspect that what we'll get is that they'll kick the house one back down to the lower court but stipulate a higher bar for qualification which will mean the House having to sub a new/revised subpoena. I think they'll agree with the lower court on the NY case and let them proceed.

That actually limits the pre-election damage for Trump but doesn't give Presidential immunity for ever, as the House almost certainly likely won't get what they want before the election and the NY team can't just release the information into the public - They'd have to process it and then bring charges based on what they find and who knows when that case might actually get to open court.

If the House got his tax returns they could literally read them out in committee for the world to see/hear and not actually have to do anything else with them.

As others have said all that matters to Trump is keeping as much of this as possible this out of the news until November 3rd. After that he doesn't care.

Although , if he manages to get re-elected but the GOP lose the Senate he's screwed.

Someone should leak this stuff

Tchaikovsky

The Republicans need to be punished severely in November. They have as much blood on their hands as Trump. If it weren't for them, he would've been out of office in December.

Penn

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

The Republicans need to be punished severely in November. They have as much blood on their hands as Trump. If it weren't for them, he would've been out of office in December.

I said it before, but more than anything, more than the Presidency, the GOP need to lose the Senate. Biden with a GOP Senate would be a shambles. At the veryleast, Trump won't be able to get away with much if the Dems also have the Senate.

Retr0gamer

He needs to sort out the courts as well. The amount of ultra religious and conservative regressives Trump has appointed could end up rolling back years of liberal and social reforms.

StringerBell

Leroy42 wrote: »

If only we had some way to know which way the judges political affiliations lie!

In less partisan times it wouldn't matter but even so, I think you can expect justice Roberts to be the deciding vote. I also trust him to follow his principles and his judgement rather than simply party line.

duploelabs

StringerBell wrote: »

In less partisan times it wouldn't matter but even so, I think you can expect justice Roberts to be the deciding vote. I also trust him to follow his principles and his judgement rather than simply party line.

You would think, but I don't think he's impartial with the Senate impeachment hearing

StringerBell

Roanmore wrote: »

Not too sure if this has been posted but it's an excellent clip, really shows up the whole "Obamagate" for what it is, a soundbite made up by Trump / Republicans to take the heat of the Covid 19 debacle.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1260050135175753730

It's worth watching the presenters face when the guy starts talking, she was not expecting the reply she got.

So good

StringerBell

duploelabs wrote: »

You would think, but I don't think he's impartial with the Senate impeachment hearing

I guess it would come down to whether you feel it is consistent with his previous opinions or whether you feel he made a decision based on political bias.

check_six

StringerBell wrote: »

In less partisan times it wouldn't matter but even so, I think you can expect justice Roberts to be the deciding vote. I also trust him to follow his principles and his judgement rather than simply party line.

Was the US justice system always so politically motivated? There seems to be a trumpian obsession with getting "our guys" into senior justice roles. Are these judges not bound to decide based on law, or can they throw the law out the window and just get politically partisan as much as they like?

marno21

Penn wrote: »

I said it before, but more than anything, more than the Presidency, the GOP need to lose the Senate. Biden with a GOP Senate would be a shambles. At the veryleast, Trump won't be able to get away with much if the Dems also have the Senate.

Indeed. Biden + GOP Senate with Grim Reaper = 4 years of being able to do nothing, while the GOP roll out rhetoric about the deficit, nothing being done in Washington etc.

The Senate is becoming more optimistic looking for the Dems as time goes on. Colorado and Arizona are now heavily leaning D, 2 tossups in North Carolina and Maine, and 3 interesting races in Montana (Safe R until Gov. Bullock decided to run), Kansas (open seat but this is only interesting if the GOP nominate Kobach) and Iowa. Important to note that the Dems are likely to lose Sen. Doug Jones in Alabama as Roy Moore isn't his opponent this time.

Penn

duploelabs wrote: »

You would think, but I don't think he's impartial with the Senate impeachment hearing

Did he show any real partisanship with the Senate Impeachment hearing though?He presided over it, but all votes and rulings were by the Senators. The Judge was just there to ensure the rule of law in the trial was followed.

I don't know if you could really hold what happened with the impeachment trial against him.

Quin_Dub

Penn wrote: »

Did he show any real partisanship with the Senate Impeachment hearing though?He presided over it, but all votes and rulings were by the Senators. The Judge was just there to ensure the rule of law in the trial was followed.

I don't know if you could really hold what happened with the impeachment trial against him.

He kinda did just recently over the appellate court spot - Considered 2nd only to the Supreme court , where they are trying to install a Trump supporting Fox News mouthpiece , who's only been qualified as a lawyer for ~10 years.

A number of Judges from the circuit that the proposed new appellate judge currently sits on asked Roberts to review the vacancy to see if there'd been anything untoward and he refused to even consider it.

The feeling is that McConnell has been pressuring older conservative Judges to retire now so that he fill the seats with younger replacements while they still control the decisions. Between this and him refusing to confirm any Obama appointees, they have been able to hugely influence the make-up of the Judiciary across the board in the last 3 years.

PropJoe10

Quin_Dub wrote: »

He kinda did just recently over the appellate court spot - Considered 2nd only to the Supreme court , where they are trying to install a Trump supporting Fox News mouthpiece , who's only been qualified as a lawyer for ~10 years.

A number of Judges from the circuit that the proposed new appellate judge currently sits on asked Roberts to review the vacancy to see if there'd been anything untoward and he refused to even consider it.

The feeling is that McConnell has been pressuring older conservative Judges to retire now so that he fill the seats with younger replacements while they still control the decisions. Between this and him refusing to confirm any Obama appointees, they have been able to hugely influence the make-up of the Judiciary across the board in the last 3 years.

Even the fact that the governing party of the day can appoint their own justices and then delay/refuse the approval of appointees made by the other party is absolutely ridiculous and makes a mockery of the term "independent judiciary". Their system over there is so flawed its hard to know where to even start. I never saw anything as divided in my life.

Nody

Penn wrote: »

Did he show any real partisanship with the Senate Impeachment hearing though?He presided over it, but all votes and rulings were by the Senators. The Judge was just there to ensure the rule of law in the trial was followed.

I don't know if you could really hold what happened with the impeachment trial against him.

Which was not the case with several senators stating beforehand that no matter the evidence they would acquit Trump rather than have a unbiased review of the facts put forward to them.