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

Quin_Dub

Itssoeasy wrote: »

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.

Why is he asking the White House - Surely it would be a whole lot easier just to ask Bolton or his publisher??

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

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

The Washington Post APPARENTLY ran a report that Mike Pompeo was one of the people in the admin who pushed for the killing of Gen Soleimani. It included reference to Mike Pompeo linking the killing as necessary on biblical grounds, something to do with Queen Esther as in the bible, while he kept a bible in his office open at the page referencing her. The link does have an unusual title, though it's story mentions WaPo and the NYT. https://madmikesamerica.com/2020/01/pompeo-awaiting-the-rapture-pushed-trump-to-strike-soleimani/

I find the notion that there are people of a strong religious bent antagonistic towards Iran sitting at the left and right hands of Don scary advising him on what to do as POTUS when it comes to Iran and the power that country has in the Middle-East.

amandstu

Quin_Dub wrote: »

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.

I would not be surprised if he also viewed the killing of Suleimani in terms of oneupmanship vis a vis Obama's killing of OBL(from either a narcissistic pov or because he saw a reputational /electoral benefit )

woohoo!!!

So what's it gonna be, more doubling down or one of the most famous u-turns in history? I can't imagine Trump going quietly in the night.

Quin_Dub

aloyisious wrote: »

The Washington Post ran a report that Mike Pompeo was one of the people in the admin who pushed for the killing of Gen Soleimani. It included reference to Mike Pompeo linking the killing as necessary on biblical grounds, something to do with Queen Esther as in the bible, while he kept a bible in his office open at the page referencing her. The link does have an unusual title, though it's story mentions WaPo and the NYT. https://madmikesamerica.com/2020/01/pompeo-awaiting-the-rapture-pushed-trump-to-strike-soleimani/

Aligns with this story from Mother Jones recently

This articles talk about the specific flavour of Evangelical beliefs that are prevalent among Trump supporters and his circle.

Basically - They believe that the second coming of Christ will occur during the "End Times"- When the world is almost at an end and consumed by Global war. And that when Christ comes he will save all the "good" Christians and leave everyone else to burn - The Rapture.

They also believe that these "End Times" will begin with a war in the middle east and not only welcome it , but actively promote it as they look forward to the coming of Christ etc.

Itssoeasy

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Why is he asking the White House - Surely it would be a whole lot easier just to ask Bolton or his publisher??

Lookit I've given up trying to work out the reasons why any GOP members of congress or Trump administration do what they do.

amandstu

If this pans out how it looks is it going to just be a case of Bolton said/Trump said or is Bolton likely to have any documentation to back up his side of the story.

Was this book even an attempt to buy time to allow him to get his ducks in a row on that front?

What if he loses?

Itssoeasy

amandstu wrote: »

If this pans out how it looks is it going to just be a case of Bolton said/Trump said or is Bolton likely to have any documentation to back up his side of the story.

Was this book even an attempt to buy time to allow him to get his ducks in a row on that front?

What if he loses?

Well several people who have worked with and for John Bolton say he's someone who takes piles of notes on things so the likelyhood is that for this book he's using notes he took at the time to write the book.

Igotadose

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well several people who have worked with and for John Bolton say he's someone who takes piles of notes on things so the likelyhood is that for this book he's using notes he took at the time to write the book.

He could share an eyewitness account of Trump aborting a pregnant woman on the altar at St. Patrick's cathedral as part of celebrating a gay wedding, and still the Senators will vote to acquit.

Itssoeasy

Igotadose wrote: »

He could share an eyewitness account of Trump aborting a pregnant woman on the altar at St. Patrick's cathedral as part of celebrating a gay wedding, and still the Senators will vote to acquit.

WTF ?

Igotadose

Itssoeasy wrote: »

WTF ?

Bolton testifies. Nothing changes - they WON'T impeach Trump. Too much at stake. No matter what Bolton testifies to.

aloyisious

amandstu wrote: »

If this pans out how it looks is it going to just be a case of Bolton said/Trump said or is Bolton likely to have any documentation to back up his side of the story.

Was this book even an attempt to buy time to allow him to get his ducks in a row on that front?

What if he loses?

If the publication causes the reversal of Mitch's position on the calling of witnesses [against Don's inclination] then it would mean anyone in the Admin [senior and junior] who had interactions with Bolton on a daily basis could be called to testify on oath to the bible. That should, in theory, rein in the liars. I'm surprised to see that Don apparently only became aware of Bolton's book in December seeing as how [afaik] the Admin knew of it from late Sept. I'd reckon that JB kept private diaries of what he was involved in while Don's NSC.

aloyisious

Itssoeasy wrote: »

WTF ?

It's on the east side of 5th Avenue, NYC.

pixelburp

Bolton will testify, seems to be going that direction, but all that does is it gives Susanne Collins and her ilk the circumstances to feign due diligence and fairness. It'll be the same charade as we saw with Judge Kavaunagh, where serious allegations spawned faux outrage and concern, ultimately allowing GOP members the chance to split the difference: play the sober lawmaker in listening to the concerns, while still falling onside with Trump & the base back home that could otherwise chuck the senators out on the street.

It's all just another flavour of "thoughts and prayers".

Igotadose

The one silver lining I can see to witnesses, even though I think in the long run nothing will change, is that the trial will drag on and on. Bad for Dem candidates trying to hit rallies and press the flesh for votes, but good for the public to see just what a cesspit this Administration is. I'd be overjoyed if the trial lasted well into February. A quick trial benefits Trump, and disadvantages the American public (cue the 'It's a sham/witch hunt/people are tired of it brigade')

amandstu

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well several people who have worked with and for John Bolton say he's someone who takes piles of notes on things so the likelyhood is that for this book he's using notes he took at the time to write the book.

You'd have thought Trump would have screened out anyone who took notes (he insists on his lawyers not doing so)

Only the best and most compliant,surely.:)

peddlelies

pixelburp wrote: »

Bolton will testify, seems to be going that direction, but all that does is it gives Susanne Collins and her ilk the circumstances to feign due diligence and fairness. It'll be the same charade as we saw with Judge Kavaunagh, where serious allegations spawned faux outrage and concern, ultimately allowing GOP members the chance to split the difference: play the sober lawmaker in listening to the concerns, while still falling onside with Trump & the base back home that could otherwise chuck the senators out on the street.

How's Michael Avenatti doing these days?

As for Blasey Ford, her own best friend didn't believe her who was then subsequently threatened - and the 4 people she claimed were present with her at the party deny that party ever taking place. Ford is a liar, and I have zero hesitation in saying that.

Please tell more about these serious allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, remember it was Democratic lawmakers who were scuffling through his year book during hearings trying to link him to some Illuminati sex cult.

Don't pretend like the same Political spoon bending doesn't exist on both sides, although you'd like to pretend your side is righteous and superior in every way, history tells a different story.

Outlaw Pete

Statement from Mulvaney through his lawyer:

pixelburp

peddlelies wrote: »

How's Michael Avenatti doing these days?

As for Blasey Ford, her own best friend didn't believe her - and the 4 people she claimed were present with her at the party deny that party ever taking place. Ford is a liar, and I have zero hesitation in saying that.

Please tell more about these serious allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, remember it was Democratic lawmakers who were scuffling through his year book during hearing trying to link him to some Illuminati cult.

Look, not going to dredge up that old conversation, so you're wasting your breath. I think on balance Kavaunagh was not a good candidate for the role based on the hearings, and shouldn't have been confirmed. We can agree to disagree.

However, the GOP are masters so far in this Presidency of hearing "concerns", and feigning due diligence. When John McCain was seen as the wildcard, something had gone wrong with the concept of the Party Whip.

I expect any Bolton testimony, if indeed it shows something resembling a political smoking gun, will manifest this same charade.

Igotadose

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Statement from Mulvaney through his lawyer:

Meaningless unless given under oath.
Like, in a trial.

peddlelies

pixelburp wrote: »

I expect any Bolton testimony, if indeed it shows something resembling a political smoking gun, will manifest this same charade.

No Trump supporter in US politics will give a crap what Bolton has to say because of everything that has precedented it to do with this Presidency, and I can understand it to a degree.

To name a few, Comey's infamous press conference, FISA warrants, the DNC dossier, Mueller special council and so on. All those things play into the hands of Trump and if Bolton does testify and expose a "bombshell", Trump supporters will think to themselves "another one or two and the score will be even". That's just how it is.

Trump will be acquitted and use it as part of his 2020 campaign. I still think he loses fairly handily in 2020 so the Dem's won't have to wait much longer to get rid of him.

Gbear

pixelburp wrote: »

Look, not going to dredge up that old conversation, so you're wasting your breath. I think on balance Kavaunagh was not a good candidate for the role based on the hearings, and shouldn't have been confirmed. We can agree to disagree.

However, the GOP are masters so far in this Presidency of hearing "concerns", and feigning due diligence. When John McCain was seen as the wildcard, something had gone wrong with the concept of the Party Whip.

I expect any Bolton testimony, if indeed it shows something resembling a political smoking gun, will manifest this same charade.

While this is true, everything has a cost.

Republican representatives are retiring at quite a high rate as it is, we're off the back of one of the largest mid-term swings in history in 2018, and that was before this current shambles was exposed.

It's easy to warble on about how this won't matter, which I must confess I find a puzzling reaction to keep seeing from people on this site, as if gleeful that such as Trump will continue to undermine the US, but if you look at it from the other side, is Trump and all the crimes that go with him, and the dereliction of duty, and the self-serving actions of his presidency, all things that Republicans want to have to deal with during their reelection campaigns? The answer is obviously "no".

In some places they will be able to get away with it, such is the cultish nature of conservatism, but it will harm them.

peddlelies

Gbear wrote: »

While this is true, everything has a cost.

Republican representatives are retiring at quite a high rate as it is, we're off the back of one of the largest mid-term swings in history in 2018, and that was before this current shambles was exposed.

It's easy to warble on about how this won't matter, which I must confess I find a puzzling reaction to keep seeing from people on this site, as if gleeful that such as Trump will continue to undermine the US, but if you look at it from the other side, is Trump and all the crimes that go with him, and the dereliction of duty, and the self-serving actions of his presidency, all things that Republicans want to have to deal with during their reelection campaigns? The answer is obviously "no".

In some places they will be able to get away with it, such is the cultish nature of conservatism, but it will harm them.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/barack-obama-won-the-white-house-but-democrats-lost-the-country/

Democrats lost more than 1030 state legislatures, governor's mansions and Congressional seats under President Obama.

"In his eight years in office, Obama oversaw the rapid erosion of the Democratic Party’s political power in state legislatures, congressional districts and governor’s mansions. At the beginning of Obama’s term, Democrats controlled 59 percent of state legislatures, while now they control only 31 percent, the lowest percentage for the party since the turn of the 20th century. They held 29 governor’s offices and now have only 16, the party’s lowest number since 1920."

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Statement from Mulvaney through his lawyer:

It's best there is a printed statement of what he has to say.

Because when he holds a press conference for example, he tends to blurt out the truth.

amandstu

everlast75 wrote: »

It's best there is a printed statement of what he has to say.

Because when he holds a press conference for example, he tends to blurt out the truth.

He probably gets on well with Trump as he is good at reading from cards with big letters.

everlast75

Anyone want to try advance a legit defence for Trump in the Senate?

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Statement from Mulvaney through his lawyer:

Did the president's NSA have any obligation to tell Mulvaney what he discussed with the president?

I think it likely, with his track record, that Don that would not have a conversation about what he wanted his COS to do but would issue him an instruction to get it done.

Re his absenting himself from conversations between Don and Rudy on the basis of preserving lawyer/client privilege ensuring he had no recollection of any conversation resembling that reportedly described in Mr Bolton's manuscript, one must assume that he was never present whenever Don & Rudy were together in the White House or were in international phone conversations together.

In any case that quote from Mulvaney's lawyer about absenting himself whenever Don & Rudy were chatting together is very convenient when there is talk in the air from GOP senators about the calling of witnesses to the trial. He's letting the pair know he won't testify about whatever they said together "I wasn't there", telling the lawyers for the different house & senate committees and the senate trial "I know nothing", lawyering up at a personal level, not using the White House lawyer provided to all White House employees for legal advice, getting his denials in first. The first part of his lawyers statement on behalf of his client, about publicity, covers it all.

Thing is, if so much as one differing piece of information pops up anywhere, he's caught on a hook of his own making, giving cause for his lawyer to walk away "your honour, I want to come off record as Mr Mulvaney's lawyer".

everlast75

https://twitter.com/VanityFair/status/1221934436847099904?s=19

For those Trump supporters in favour of witnesses, are you still 100% sure Trump had nothing to hide?

Christy42

Didn't we have the letter mentioning Guiliani was working on behalf of Trump personally?

And we have Mulvaney claiming anything Guiliani did was as Trump's personal lawyer. Otherwise he wouldn't need to leave the room every time.

Given all of this. Surely any deal Guiliani worked out was on behalf of Trump and not the US and therefore was a quid pro quo?!?

We know Guiliani didn't go rogue. That would be an instant firing offense. I am at a loss as to why Bolton is even needed here.

duploelabs

Christy42 wrote: »

Didn't we have the letter mentioning Guiliani was working on behalf of Trump personally?

And we have Mulvaney claiming anything Guiliani did was as Trump's personal lawyer. Otherwise he wouldn't need to leave the room every time.

Given all of this. Surely any deal Guiliani worked out was on behalf of Trump and not the US and therefore was a quid pro quo?!?

We know Guiliani didn't go rogue. That would be an instant firing offense. I am at a loss as to why Bolton is even needed here.

I'd say its given that Rudi has collapsed under question on TV so many times that they need an adult