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

woohoo!!!

No way Trump would ever stand down. He'll be dragged kicking and screaming, shouting about an establishment plot to remove him. It'll be pure gold.

There are quite a lot of GOP senators stepping down, they've nothing to lose by turning on Trump. Over the next few months and years, it'll all come out.

woohoo!!!

duploelabs wrote: »

If Pence was outside the cabal in this Ukrainian plot, that may have been a reasonable tactic. However he's already been implicated so I don't think he'll escape untouched

President Nancy?

Nody

valoren wrote: »

Bolton was originally touted as a potential SOS but, comically, Trump didn't like his moustache. Trump interviewed him for NSA and in line with his policy of having "the very best people" he was appointed. Funny now how Bolton, one of those best people, is framed as a liar just looking to promote his new book with LIES. His smoking gun testimony, which will likely never be heard at the trial, is dangerous for Trump. It might be high time for McConnell to visit the WH and demand a resignation. The play would salvage some reputation for the GOP. Blocking this testimony will cause irreparable damage to the party's already tainted reputation and credibility. If Trump relents and resigns before a vote is taken, they can play it as the Dems hunting their President out of office, a witch hunt etc and get Pence to run in November on that platform or if Trump baulks at resignation, the threat of removing him would linger and the GOP will play it as their guy being unfit for office, them doing their constitutional duty, Trump is gone dolally and must be removed by impeachment hoping it plays well for November with Pence.

Problem is either of those two routes will upset the core Trumpians because their Emperor said he was innocent so that's the Truth. Even if Trump would resign willingly the GOP body guard would be seen as failing in their duty to protect him by deflecting and/or taking the blame instead.

I'd also love to see how Trump supporters reconcile the claims of "hiring the best people" with said people constantly coming out against Trump later and then are "lying". Either Trump can pick the best people and then what they say is true or he can't and they lie; which is it? But this is 1984 in practice so as always they will simply start up on something else such as "But Hillary", "But Benghazi" or "Obama's birth certificate" etc.

duploelabs

woohoo!!! wrote: »

President Nancy?

Such is the line of succession

DrumSteve

I can't help but feel that absolutely none of this matters; he's going to be acquitted and re-elected in November.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/revrrlewis/status/1221760255853502470?s=19

Hats off to Kilmeade, for admitting that this is devastating because they nearly had the trial closed down without witnesses, and that damn truth reared its ugly head

EltonJohn69

Trump panicking on Twitter about Bolton.... there might actually be a chance he will testify......

pixelburp

I wonder how many of all these folk - Bolton, Tillerson et al - went into Trump's administration expecting his behaviour to be an elaborate act (ala Boris Johnson), or thought by being more intelligent and worldwise, they could steer Trump? John Bolton is an odious individual who would advocate carpet bombing as a goto diplomatic strategy, yet he appears to be an emotionally mature individual (which in some respects makes his zeal for military intervention more distasteful). Did he just think Trump was a wild bull he could course correct, only to bail out when he - like all the others - realised this man was a thundering arrogant moron?

Itssoeasy

So I only saw the John Bolton book news this morning and I doesn't surprise me that even trumps own people are saying he did something wrong. John Bolton is a long time republican and unlike the others that the GOP have disparaged they won't do that as easy to John bolton.

mcmoustache

Didn't the whitehouse release a weird hostage video recently with Trump denouncing foreign interference and accepting the conclusions of the intelligence community?

Ah, found it.

https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1220840205067919360

It seemed to come out of nowhere. I wonder if this has anything to do with it.

Itssoeasy

He lied in that statement shock horror as he claimed he's always accepted the intelligence communities assertions where we know full bloody well that no he hasn't.

Itssoeasy

I can't seem to find the link now it but did anyone else see a report yesterday that Lindsay graham apparently won't vote to subpoena hunter Biden ? I wonder will trump throw him under the bus for that ?

aloyisious

Nody wrote: »

I'd also love to see how Trump supporters reconcile the claims of "hiring the best people" with said people constantly coming out against Trump later and then are "lying". Either Trump can pick the best people and then what they say is true or he can't and they lie; which is it?

A combination: Hiring the best people - at lying, and he should know.

aloyisious

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I can't seem to find the link now it but did anyone else see a report yesterday that Lindsay graham apparently won't vote to subpoena hunter Biden ? I wonder will trump throw him under the bus for that ?

Lindsay sees that a YES vote on Joe Biden being subpoenaed would mean that any other subpoenas floating around could be enforceable in law and could get Don to see that with a little help from the two Mikes. It'd put the courts to their mettle and Chief Justice Roberts in an awkward spot as well, doubling jobbing as it were unless he recused himself.

aloyisious

I googled to see if Simon & Schuster had been issued with a restraining order from the Courts over Bolton's book, nil result. This other historical item showed up in the Bolton-linked result in reference to why Don employed JB as his NSA. https://theunitedstatesblues.com/john-boltons-pending-legal-problems-could-explain-why-trump-appointed-him/

everlast75

https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1221790971991592961?s=20

It is sad to say that some sort of quid pro quo sounds plausible here....

Nody

everlast75 wrote: »

It is sad to say that some sort of quid pro quo sounds plausible here....

More likely distraction than quid pro quo simply because the book got published with the claims in it.

Itssoeasy

The John Bolton revelations have made it "increasingly likely" that GOP senators will support witnesses according to Utah senator mitt Romney.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1221815101700919296?s=19

The Reps must have been blind sided by this book revelation. It's hilarious!!

Outlaw Pete

everlast75 wrote: »

It is sad to say that some sort of quid pro quo sounds plausible here....

Interesting.

Can you unpack that a little? You think he had Sulimani killed as a part of a deal with John Bolton?


Presser is apparently back on by the way, just with less Senators:


https://twitter.com/jamiedupree/status/1221818815119593472

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Interesting.

Can you unpack that a little? You think he had Sulimani killed as a part of a deal with John Bolton?

the tweet speaks for itself.

it is sadly plausible the strike on Iran may have been to appease Bolton.

the story has already broken that Trump was happy to carry out a strike to muster support from Senators in his impeachment trial. why do you find it so hard hard to believe he would do so at the same time to curry favour with Bolton?

Sulimani was not an urgent threat, nor a part of any larger strategical plan. Trump is Mr Quid Pro Quo, so it checks out to me that this may have happened

Outlaw Pete

Man, you must really hate Donald Trump to think he would do that.

Anyway, looks like they'll get their numbers for witnesses as a result of this leak, which was the objective of it of course, but that begs the question on it's accuracy given it was clear that it would result in precisely what it has done.

Either way, I think both sides calling whatever witnesses they want is for the best.


https://twitter.com/SenatorCollins/status/1221822472292634625

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Man, you must really hate Donald Trump to think he would do that.

Anyway, looks like they'll get their numbers for witnesses as a result of this leak, which was the objective of it of course, but that begs the question on it's accuracy.

Either way, I think both sides calling whatever witnesses they want is for the best.


https://twitter.com/SenatorCollins/status/1221822472292634625

Like I said - it has already been reported that he carried out the strike to get some Reps to defend him. He only speaks in Quid Pro Quos. Why wouldn't he do that for Bolton at the same time?

As for witnesses, you would wonder why Trump blocked everyone and lied about doing so. Any witness relevant to the issues should be there. That excludes Biden and Son.

Trump on the other hand could not be more relevant to the proceedings.

Christy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Man, you must really hate Donald Trump to think he would do that.

Anyway, looks like they'll get their numbers for witnesses as a result of this leak, which was the objective of it of course, but that begs the question on it's accuracy given it was clear that it would result in precisely what it has done.

Either way, I think both sides calling whatever witnesses they want is for the best.


https://twitter.com/SenatorCollins/status/1221822472292634625

Why would this causing witnesses to be called beg a question on its accuracy? What are you calling into question. John Bolton's facts or the leak saying that this is what the book says. Because the second is all Dems might have had some control to lie about but has not been questioned from the white house or John Bolton who have all read (or written this book already).

Whether or not John Bolton is speaking the truth is up for debate but the calls of people saying this is what happened is growing louder and louder

amandstu

Seems that it would be wrong to call the Biden's but would it also be wrong for the Bidens to ignore a subpoena even though they could point to the President's own obstruction of Congress?

Would it be a case of two wrongs.....?

woohoo!!!

Christy42 wrote: »

Why would this causing witnesses to be called beg a question on its accuracy? What are you calling into question. John Bolton's facts or the leak saying that this is what the book says. Because the second is all Dems might have had some control to lie about but has not been questioned from the white house or John Bolton who have all read (or written this book already).

Whether or not John Bolton is speaking the truth is up for debate but the calls of people saying this is what happened is growing louder and louder

I'm sure the senators would be interested to the answer to this question:

https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/1221809911383937025?s=19

Outlaw Pete

everlast75 wrote: »

Like I said - it has already been reported that he carried out the strike to get some Reps to defend him.

So what if it has been "reported"? It was reported for three years that Trump colluded with Russia. Show me proof that he carried out the strike to get some Reps to defend him. Why do you believe every negative thing that is reported about Trump? You would chastise anyone that believed something about a democrat that had little to back it up, so why does your standard drop so low when it's Trump?

He only speaks in Quid Pro Quos. Why wouldn't he do that for Bolton at the same time?

Why wouldn't he kill someone for Bolton? That's what you're genuinely asking me?

As for witnesses, you would wonder why Trump blocked everyone and lied about doing so. Any witness relevant to the issues should be there. That excludes Biden and Son.

I agree with regards to witnesses but then I remember when I was saying that during the congressional hearings, pretty much none of you on this thread felt that republicans should get the witnesses they requested.

Without a shadow of a doubt the attitude so far from republicans towards dems getting to call witnesses in the Senate has been because of how they were treated during those hearings.

I want to hear from everyone personally, including Pompeo.

Christy42 wrote: »

Why would this causing witnesses to be called beg a question on its accuracy? What are you calling into question. John Bolton's facts or the leak saying that this is what the book says.

The latter. If the book excerpts are so damning, then why did the leaker not scan it or take a pic and leak that? That they didn't, suggests to me that it's not that damning at all and the effect of an ambiguous leak (with little or no specificity) is what they wanted as they knew that it would result in precisely what it has done and lead to enough republicans then voting to allow witnesses.

Whether or not John Bolton is speaking the truth is up for debate but the calls of people saying this is what happened is growing louder and louder

Well, I wouldn't say that Bolton would lie myself and sure would be interesting to hear what he meant by 'drug deal' and if he felt Trump was involved or if Sondland and Rudy were saying and doing things which Trump was not instructing them to. Morrison certainly seemed to think so.

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So what if it has been "reported"? It was reported for three years that Trump colluded with Russia. Show me proof that he carried out the strike to get some Reps to defend him. Why do you believe every negative thing that is reported about Trump? You would chastise anyone that believed something about a democrat that had little to back it up, so why does your standard drop so low when it's Trump?

Track record.

Next question please.

Quin_Dub

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So what if it has been "reported"? It was reported for three years that Trump colluded with Russia. Show me proof that he carried out the strike to get some Reps to defend him. Why do you believe every negative thing that is reported about Trump? You would chastise anyone that believed something about a democrat that had little to back it up, so why does your standard drop so low when it's Trump?



Why wouldn't he kill someone for Bolton? That's what you're genuinely asking me?

I very much doubt he ordered the strike "for" Bolton , but it's entirely plausible that he ordered the strike "because" of Bolton.

Trump can't handled be called weak etc.

So if Bolton's manuscript had a form of words that said some thing like "The President was too weak/worried about impact etc. to take a bold move on Iran , I'm really disappointed , I thought he was stronger than that"

I can absolutely see Trump taking a "I'll show him who's Strong enough!!!!" knee-jerk reaction.

It wouldn't be the 1st time - First time he'd have ordered someones assassination for sure , but not the 1st time he's made a rash "I'll show them who's Boss" type decision that's for certain.

Itssoeasy

So it seems that Lindsay graham is asking the WH to give them the manuscript of John boltons book.

This could be a game changer in at least getting witnesses as part of the impeachment trial.