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

duploelabs

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Exactly - And this pushes the extreme end of the Palestinians to kick off and the Israel then re-elects Bibi as he's the "war time" PM.

That then firms up the Pro-Israel , Religious Zealot vote for Trump for November as well.

Wins all round eh?

When anything strange or out of the blue happens with this administration, you have to ask yourself Cui bono

marno21

https://twitter.com/PhilippeReines/status/1222409078309298177

Fox News cutting away from Trump's rally after his brain short circuits again

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1222496705763008515?s=19

Why is the problem ALWAYS with someone else?

He does get a lot of people begging him for a job.

Speaking of jobs, Don and Mike Pence were PR-ing at the signing of the USMCA deal today and mention was made in a follow-up item on CNBC US squawk alley of the US deficit figures announced yesterday. I thought initially it was about the Federal deficit [as mention was made about the national infrastructure -roads]so had a look online for info on the figures and see it was about the trade deficit. The Independent reporting them as the highest in 5 years - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/us-trade-deficit-at-five-year-high-economic-growth-estimates-likely-to-be-cut-1464488.html - but another link - https://www.prosperousamerica.org/june_report_shows_little_change_in_us_trade_deficit - showed a slight decrease in the figure from the previous figures.

Are US goods for export sales figures getting better or are the figures being manipulated by the Admin agency to make things look good for Don?

Sean.3516

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.

Does Bolton having anything to say that would demonstrate that Trump's sole motive was to get dirt on Biden to help him in 2020? The leak from his book states that Trump tied aid to investigation into the Bidens, however this doesn't address the key question here which is Trump's motive. Was he acting in solely with an eye toward 2020? Or is he acting in the US national interest by trying to investigate corrupt acts performed by the previous administrations.

pixelburp wrote: »

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.

The outrage with regard to Kavanaugh was due to the fact the allegations were made at the last possible moment, despite being held be Dem senators for weeks, having no substantiating evidence whatsoever. The Dems argued that his nomination should have been withdrew on this alone.

Sean.3516

everlast75 wrote: »

If this guy is the best Trump has for the middle east crisis, then that Nobel prize will elude him forever..

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1222267596210343940?s=20


Here's hoping Jared never works for the Samaritans on the phone. The rate of suicides would increase exponentially

Jared's absolutely right in this clip. There have been countless opportunities for the arabs in Palestine to form their own state. They consistently refuse every time as the one concession is always that they recognise Israel and cease their terrorism. It'll probably be the same this time. They have never been and still are not able to tolerate the idea of having a Jewish state next to them.

droidus

Whatever your personal views the record shows that Israel has been in violation of international law since UN 242, and every move they have made since than has been an attempt to expand their territory. The only time there was anything close to an equitable peace deal was in Taba and that was nixed at the last minute by the US. The idea that a bunch of corrupt grifters handing Israel everything they want is the basis for a peace deal is so idiotic it almost defies belief.

Sean.3516

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Getting Netanyahu re-elected , which in turn helps them with the Jewish Vote and the Evangelicals in the US for November.

So, as with everything he does , it's all about him and how it benefits him and nothing else.

It's strange how people think that Netanyahu being replaced would lead to some major change in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I doubt that Trump really has an interest in who succeeds him. Certainly not from a foreign policy perspective.

Almost every party in Israel is on the same page with regard to the Palestinian conflict. Their divisions are primarily based on internal issues. Netanyahu's most likely successor was the former head of the IDF.

Pretty much every US President has attempted to mediate an end this conflict. There's nothing unique about Trump trying to do it.

Certainly it's nothing to do with the 2020 US election. Most American Jews are secular and don't care about Israel and not a single US evangelical is going to vote Democrat in 2020 with the way that party is currently constituted.

aloyisious

Retired CPO Gallagher is back in the news for allegedly publishing a video on his F/B page & Instagram account slamming his former team mates who testified against him at his court martial, also publishing personal details of them [names, photos, current units and duty status] to the public. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2020-01-27/video-retired-navy-seal-eddie-gallagher-strikes-back-at-seals-who-testified-against-him

aloyisious

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Does Bolton having anything to say that would demonstrate that Trump's sole motive was to get dirt on Biden to help him in 2020? The leak from his book states that Trump tied aid to investigation into the Bidens, however this doesn't address the key question here which is Trump's motive. Was he acting in solely with an eye toward 2020? Or is he acting in the US national interest by trying to investigate corrupt acts performed by the previous administrations.

This part of Outlaw Pete's post [post 833 on page 56] might be of help to you in respect to Rudy's investigation. Quote: It's on record from Rudy's remarks that the Biden stuff had come up during his investigations. They weren't the separate things like they are now. Rudy was looking into Chalupa, Leshchenko, the Washington Meetings etc and so the Biden stuff became part of that... end quote. I read that to mean Rudy was not investigating Joe Biden but came across his name during his investigations into Burisma. If that's correct, Rudy did not seem to have been investigating things Joe allegedly did in connection with Burisma while V/P in the previous [Obama] administration at that time but Burisma itself for some reason.

aloyisious

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Jared's absolutely right in this clip. There have been countless opportunities for the arabs in Palestine to form their own state. They consistently refuse every time as the one concession is always that they recognise Israel and cease their terrorism. It'll probably be the same this time. They have never been and still are not able to tolerate the idea of having a Jewish state next to them.

I think you'll find that the status of Jerusalem, and the two co-located religious sites there-in are an important part of the dispute. Remember Israel did not get control of East Jerusalem & the West Bank until after the 6 day war in '67.

Sean.3516

droidus wrote: »

Whatever your personal views the record shows that Israel has been in violation of international law since UN 242,

UN Security Council Resolutions don't determine international law. If we're going to consider what international law really states with regard to Israel and the Arabs, it's that when a country starts a war with you and you win, you have to right to occupy the aggressing country's territory until such a time as a peace treaty is agreed upon. This isn't a theory. Lots of lawyers who are intellectually honest such as Alan Dershowitz will point this out.

Jordan and Egypt who owned this land before Israel occupied it (There was never a "palestinian" state here) have no interest in making a deal.

droidus wrote: »

and every move they have made since than has been an attempt to expand their territory.

Yes, they've expanded their territory into moving into areas where no nation state was in existence and where the inhabitants were unwilling to form one despite being offered the chance on multiple occasions. To me it seems unreasonable that Israel should just occupy this land forever without ever integrating it when the people they took it from have no desire to have it back.

droidus wrote: »

The only time there was anything close to an equitable peace deal was in Taba and that was nixed at the last minute by the US.

Actually there were two state solutions on offer in 1936, 1947, 1967, 2000 and 2008 also. Taba fell through due to unavoidable elections in the US and Israel. A year before that at Camp David, they were offered 94% of the West Bank, all of Gaza along with East Jerusalem. They refused.

Sean.3516

aloyisious wrote: »

This part of Outlaw Pete's post [post 833 on page 56] might be of help to you in respect to Rudy's investigation. Quote: It's on record from Rudy's remarks that the Biden stuff had come up during his investigations. They weren't the separate things like they are now. Rudy was looking into Chalupa, Leshchenko, the Washington Meetings etc and so the Biden stuff became part of that... end quote. I read that to mean Rudy was not investigating Joe Biden but came across his name during his investigations into Burisma. If that's correct, Rudy did not seem to have been investigating things Joe allegedly did in connection with Burisma while V/P in the previous [Obama] administration at that time but Burisma itself for some reason.

Rudy didn't just uncover the Joe Biden connection with Burisma. The allegations that Joe Biden had held back aid in order to get the prosecutor investigating Burisma fired had been around for years.

It wasn't that he was investigating Biden and came across Burisma or that he was investigating Burisma for some unknown reason and came across Biden. It's far more likely that he was investigating Burisma because he already knew Biden was involved somehow since this was already public knowledge.

duploelabs

Jesus

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1222303340081680384?s=09

FatherTed

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Getting Netanyahu re-elected , which in turn helps them with the Jewish Vote and the Evangelicals in the US for November.

So, as with everything he does , it's all about him and how it benefits him and nothing else.

Jews in US elections always vote overwhelmingly democratic e.g. the last 4 elections it's been 76%-24%, 78%-22%, 69%-30%, 71%-24%. That's not going to change, actually it will probably go up to 75%-80% this election.

StringerBell

It's on the record that Rudi asked them to look into the Bidens.

mcmoustache

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The allegations that Joe Biden had held back aid in order to get the prosecutor investigating Burisma fired had been around for years.

Those allegations have not been around for years. They only started very recently.



What actually happened is publicly available on the internet because the internet, news websites and government websites existed back then and they can be looked up. The articles are dated and if you don't trust them, there are web archives available.


To save you some time, the US, the EU, the IMF and Senate Republicans wanted rid of Shokin because he was failing to investigate and prosecute corruption.


There is a heap of evidence for this but here is one example from George Kent of the State Department during Obama's tenure (Zlochevski is basically Burisma):

Kent, who had long pushed Ukrainian prosecutors for investigations into Zlochevsky, “scolded” the deputy prosecutor for having “shut the criminal case” that had been the basis for a U.K. court freezing Zlochevsky’s assets, demanding, “Who took the bribe and how much was it?,” Kent asked. Kent’s effort was coordinated with the Justice Department,

So again, this idea that the allegations have been around for a long time is utter horse-sh!t. It's not even close to being believable to anyone with a memory that goes back more than 6 years.

StringerBell

You gotta hand it to dershowitz, he just doesn't give a damn. His argument today that even if it was all true, even if there was a quid pro quo to help get Trump re elected then that could be reasonably seen as being in the national interest and is therefore ok.

Unbelievable, this man teaches law at Harvard?

Itssoeasy

I have to laugh at the GOP and them wanting to call hunter or joe Biden. Have they conveniently forgotten that they are in the bloody majority with 53 senators. If they believe so strongly that either or both bidens are needed as witnesses than ****ing call them themselves. They don't need to wait.

They only say this though when the democrats want to call witnesses like John Bolton and make this stupid argument that if the dems get John Bolton then they get the bidens. But as I pointed out above they don't need to play this dance of witness reciprocity as they have the votes.

Sean.3516

StringerBell wrote: »

You gotta hand it to dershowitz, he just doesn't give a damn. His argument today that even if it was all true, even if there was a quid pro quo to help get Trump re elected then that could be reasonably seen as being in the national interest and is therefore ok.

Unbelievable, this man teaches law at Harvard?

Yep, Dershowitz is 100% correct. Abuse of power is an intent based crime as everybody is conveniently ignoring. If Trump believed that it was in the US national interest to investigate even the possibility of corruption in the previous administration with regard to Ukraine and to use aid as leverage then that is completely legal. The fact that a senior official in that previous administration may be running against Trump in 2020 is circumstantial. It alone doesn't prove Trump's intent was corrupt.

Dershowitz has been a liberal Democrat his whole life. He voted for Clinton. But he's intellectually consistent and he understands that if impeachment is being abused, that's a problem. Even if it's against a president he disagrees with.

droidus

Sean.3516 wrote: »

UN Security Council Resolutions don't determine international law. If we're going to consider what international law really states with regard to Israel and the Arabs, it's that when a country starts a war with you and you win, you have to right to occupy the aggressing country's territory until such a time as a peace treaty is agreed upon.

Which war are you talking about? Israel started the war in 1967, there is no dispute over that.

UN resolutions do customarily inform international law, amongst civilised nations at least but regardless, Israel is in perpetual breach of multiple articles of the Geneva convention... annexation, occupation, collective punishment...

This isn't a theory. Lots of lawyers who are intellectually honest such as Alan Dershowitz will point this out.

Ah, OK, I see. That's fine, just fine, have a nice day [backs away slowly]...

StringerBell

Yeah, he isn't 100% right but I don't have time to get into this with you right now, if the account is still active I'll come back to you on it later.

Try to remember one thing, this is not a court of law, when making up defences don't get bogged down in legal arguments when talking about a political process.

K.

Sean.3516

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I have to laugh at the GOP and them wanting to call hunter or joe Biden. Have they conveniently forgotten that they are in the bloody majority with 53 senators. If they believe so strongly that either or both bidens are needed as witnesses than ****ing call them themselves. They don't need to wait.

It's because voting to call additional witnesses opens the door to John Bolton testifying as well as Hunter Biden.

Most Republicans bar four or five don't want to call Bolton. But those four or five plus the Democrats results in a majority vote for more witnesses. They're thinking "if they're getting John Bolton who himself has nothing of real consequence to say, then at least we'll get the Biden's"

everlast75

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yep, Dershowitz is 100% correct. Abuse of power is an intent based crime as everybody is conveniently ignoring. If Trump believed that it was in the US national interest to investigate even the possibility of corruption in the previous administration with regard to Ukraine and to use aid as leverage then that is completely legal. The fact that a senior official in that previous administration may be running against Trump in 2020 is circumstantial. It alone doesn't prove Trump's intent was corrupt.

Dershowitz has been a liberal Democrat his whole life. He voted for Clinton. But he's intellectually consistent and he understands that if impeachment is being abused, that's a problem. Even if it's against a president he disagrees with.

Laughable from your suggestion that Trump didn't have criminal intent all the way down to Dershowitz being consistent. 1998 Dersh even argues with today's Dersh

aloyisious

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yep, Dershowitz is 100% correct. Abuse of power is an intent based crime as everybody is conveniently ignoring. If Trump believed that it was in the US national interest to investigate even the possibility of corruption in the previous administration with regard to Ukraine and to use aid as leverage then that is completely legal. The fact that a senior official in that previous administration may be running against Trump in 2020 is circumstantial. It alone doesn't prove Trump's intent was corrupt.

Dershowitz has been a liberal Democrat his whole life. He voted for Clinton. But he's intellectually consistent and he understands that if impeachment is being abused, that's a problem. Even if it's against a president he disagrees with.

Alan Dershowitz's statement is being used by others to propound the idea that anything Don Trump does is constitutional if he makes a statement that he believes that it is in the interest of the US and is being extended to include a belief Don might have that his re-election is in the interest of the US thus ruling out any impeachment move against him. Alan Dershowitz [as a constitutional lawyer] must have come up with his opinion from some start point [a statement or comment] and not just assumed that Don [or any other president] might have such a notion in mind. A risk is if any president states that it is in the best interest of the US if he/she is re-elected regardless of any proof of High Crimes or Misdemeanours laid against him/her in a court similar to the one deciding on Don's future tonight, then the court might as well shut up shop regardless of law.

One of his defence team actually stated tonight that any impeachment move against any president would be impossible in the future if his side won the case against impeachment.

Gbear

aloyisious wrote: »

One of his defence team actually stated tonight that any impeachment move against any president would be impossible in the future if his side won the case against impeachment.

It of course wouldn't, because impeachment isn't based on law, but politics.
They're not making a constitutional argument in the Supreme Court. They're making a political argument to the Senate, and indirectly, to the electorate.

A Republican majority in the house and a supermajority in the senate would automatically impeach a Democrat for no reason other than they're a Democrat.

Itssoeasy

Sean.3516 wrote: »

It's because voting to call additional witnesses opens the door to John Bolton testifying as well as Hunter Biden.

Most Republicans bar four or five don't want to call Bolton. But those four or five plus the Democrats results in a majority vote for more witnesses. They're thinking "if they're getting John Bolton who himself has nothing of real consequence to say, then at least we'll get the Biden's"

John Bolton has many things of real consequence to say and that IMO is the republicans fears as they don't want to hear someone who despite the attempts to smear the guy(and I'm not a John Bolton fan at all) who has standing in the conservative sphere. Hunter Biden has nothing of consequence to say about the July 25th phone call or the OMB decision so calling him would be a wholly political move whereas John bolton is the so sought after "first hand witness" that the republicans claimed hadn't been heard from yet. Well there is a first hand witness and they won't call him.

aloyisious

This should be an interesting argument between both sides as to what counts as evidence before the body sitting in judgement, mindful of the House D Rep making it clear they were not sitting in a court.

Umm. Is the president hiding evidence of wrongdoing on his part or his staffs part or is he protecting state secrets?

laugh

Pam Bondi can barely put a few thoughts together.

AMKC

So now Trump said in a Tweet that if he had of listened to John Bolten we would be in WW6. Did you every here of anything so stupid and this from the POTUS. We would not get to WW4 never mind 6 as the Nukes would destroy everything. Just goes to show what a childish stupid idiot he is. Also what he has done with the Palastians and Isreal does not fix things it just makes it worse.

aloyisious

Alan Dershowitz is arguing that an impeachable offence must be a crime and not just maladministration [which he said the writers of the constitution refused to put into the constitution because it was a British idea] while the House rep rejects Dershowitz's contention. Dershowitz also made it plain that his ideas had not stayed frozen in time since he originally propounded his opinion years ago. I don't know if Alan is able to understand [or admit to] the difference between the word crime [as referred to by High Crimes in the constitution] and crimes as listed and charged under criminal law.

Edit: To me the crime Don is accused of under the impeachment charge is maladministration [bad administration] in this case using the High Powers of the presidency for his own benefit to damage the reputation of his likely opponent in the 2020 election which Don is also running for thereby committing a High Crime. That misuse of power not being intended for the benefit for the US is the reason for the charge and cause enough for his removal from office.