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

Gbear

sid waddell wrote: »

This is a typical Taibbi opinion piece. It's designed to completely deligitimise the Trump-Ukraine story, full of straw man narratives and deflections.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/whistleblower-ukraine-trump-impeach-cia-spying-895529/

This kind of stuff really is quite contemptible.

I get the need to have a "both sides" thing in normal circumstances when you have 2 genuine political parties. It can be important to hold not just your opponents, but also your own "side" to account.

I'm a bit of a contrarian and generally identify as Libertarian or something approximating it, and I too lagged behind on the flood of nonsense that has been encroaching from the far right, especially online, over the past 5 or so years in particular, but at a certain point you have to be able to see that you can't see the shoreline of sanity anymore and you're trying to be in the middle not because it's balanced, but because you think there's some inherent virtue in being above or separate from the debate. It is totally a matter of egotism.

I can only assume these kinds of people became addicted to being seen as the "wise voices of moderation" for so long that now they can't bear to abandon the middle ground, even when that's become the ground between the centre, and the far-literally-put-brown-children-in-cages-right.

sid waddell wrote: »

I don't disagree that Trump is the symptom rather than the cause of decades of political corruption and pandering to racism and xenophobia and insane culture wars by the Republicans, and political impotence from the Democrats (they are in no way equivalent - the Democrats have been a consistent disappointment, the Republicans have for decades been a consistent existential threat to democacy and society). He's the logical outcome, for sure.

I think the mistake people make, and a gross underestimation of him, is to call Trump incompetent. In normal terms he's incompetent, yes, but in terms of what all this is about, I think he's the exact opposite of incompetent. His personality means he's exceedingly competent, he excels in fact, at the shut down of democratic norms, the spread of fear and panic, and the spread of kleptocracy and all the other nakedly hateful **** he has brought full blown into the mainstream. For somebody to destroy democracy in the US (or at least to turn it into a simulacrum), chaos, an alternate reality where truth has no currency, is needed. Republicans have been at this for years, but nobody is better at creating chaos than Trump.

Bizarre "charismatic" personality types excel at destroying or neutering democracy and bringing far right ideas into the mainstream. It's likely a necessary trait, certainly in a US or western context - the personality requirements Putin needed to destroy democracy in Russia were different.

Like, could Mike Pence or Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush have got elected and pulled this off? No chance. Because they don't have the personality type required. But Ivanka Trump does by virtue of who she is, she will put a fake gloss on the rotten whole and Trumpism will mutate while maintaining its essential kleptocratic and authoritarian nature.

I see what you're saying, but I don't really see that as competency. Trump seems more like a sort of idiot savant of Fascism in my eyes. I don't think there's much in the way of strategising how to lever his strengths and cover his weaknesses. I think he just spews out nonsense in a stream of conscience and it is, for whatever reason, appealing to a certain type of person. I don't think he particularly cares about the fallout from his policy decisions or his interactions on the international stage.

He has gone to very little effort to hide his crimes, truth be told, or about his ultimate goals for the presidency. It only works because conservatism is by its nature cultish and hierarchy-oriented rather than interested in facts.

I think he gets away with his lack of forethought because it's largely immaterial to his base. If you could have someone who publicly acts like Trump - just a load of off the cuff stuff about women, minorities, bombing people he doesn't like or whatever, it would probably play about as well as Trump does. I don't think his mumbling nonsense is particularly gripping to people in itself. It just loosely outlines a load of fragile white christian male grievances, and his fans imprint their own version of that onto it.

All that said, authoritarian demagogues who have come to power have quite often been total morons when it came to administration. Hitler was an atrocious leader, and not just in the moral sense. Mao was a fiendish plotter and politician and showed incredible ruthlessness in becoming the leader of China, but he was absolutely rubbish at running anything in practical terms, so perhaps you can only have one or the other.

laugh

Sean.3516 wrote: »

.... Trump was acting in the national interest.....


It’s not illegal for Trump to send a personal employee to Ukraine to gather info on Bursima.

Was there a DOJ investigation open on Bursima / Hunter Biden? Why not? Is it logical to proceed directly to seeking a foreign country to investigate the wrongdoing of a US citizen without enough evidence for an investigation case to be opened at home?

Why did house investigation evidence show that they only wanted the announcement of an investigation into Burisma and didn't particularly care if the investigation took place? Because Trump wanted a soundbite for the election campaign / something to tweet.

FreeThePants

Sean.3516 wrote:

I never said that Trump wasn’t at least somewhat concerned about his re-election prospects when he asked for the investigation. I believe that he was. This still doesn’t make it abuse of power.

This is Dershowitz’s whole point. Everything that any politician does is at least somewhat calculated to help them win the next election. As long as you’re acting in the national interest this isn’t criminal. When you disregard the national interest to act solely in you political interests, this is abuse of powe

So that explains why you stopped responding when I pointed out that Trumps own ex national security advisor John Bolton (hired by Trump) has said that Trumps own secretary of state Mike Pompeo (also hired by Trump) admitted to him that the Ukraine investigation was entirely fabricated and had no basis.

aloyisious

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Trump’s ridiculous tendency to embellish his own innocence to ridiculous proportions doesn’t make him guilty.

I'd agree with most of what you wrote above, except I'd replace "innocence" with "importance" and add "but it does tend to" after your last four words. A recent case was his "I gave it to you" quote in reference to Jerusalem while speaking about his peace plan for Israel and the Palestinians. It seems he thought his decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem gave the Israeli state and people Jerusalem as its capital by doing so. Ben was standing with him at the time.

Edit: the visit was by the Israeli PM to Washington, not Don to Israel.

26000 Elephants

Sean.3516 wrote: »

No.

Abuse of power is not a strict liability crime. It is an intent based crime.

A quid pro quo, literally means “this for that”, ie. Trump held back military aid in exchange for an investigation.

"Give me your wallet or I'll put a bullet in your head" is simply an intent based crime too.

No, wait......

Trumps intent was for personal gain - this is how this *crime* differs from your other examples you quoted.

sid waddell

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Actually it’s you that needs an English to English translation. For the umpteenth time. Dershowitz did not misspeak. He did not make a mistake. What he said makes perfect sense. I’ll break it down again for you.

“If a president does something that he believes will help them get elected in the national interest, this cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in an impeachment.”

So in this sentence Dershowitz is saying “if a president does something”. There are two aspects of the thing the president is doing that we need to look at.

1.) “[something] that he believes will help him get elected” This is an opinion/belief about the consequences of the thing being done. This is not the rationale for why the thing is being done. It is of no consequence with regard to the legality of the thing.



2.) “in the national interest.” This is the rationale. The thing being done is being done in the national interest. This tells us if an abuse of power is happening or not. If it’s not being done in the national interest but solely to help an election. It’s abuse of power. If it’s being done in the national interest, then ancillary benefits such as help in re-election make no difference.

Reading your posts and your nonsensical defences of the moron Dershowitz, the first thing that comes to mind is Sideshow Bob trying to claim that the "Die Bart, Die" tattoo on his chest was actuallly German for "The Bart, The" ("no one who speaks German could be an evil man").

Genuinely.

sid waddell

everlast75 wrote: »

This is utter, utter nonsense.

It was NOT in the national interest to withhold military aid to force a foreign Country to announce an investigation into your political opponent. If you don't accept that as a fact, you are not going to understand why it is a problem.

Your defence is predicated on the assumption that it was, and that assumption is categorically wrong.

Trump went on a solo run to discredit a political opponent using the powers of his office. That is 100% an abuse of this power.

The idea that Trump is concerned with corruption at all is fanciful, but to think that there was anything other than his own self interest at play here is utter nonsense.

Trump knew after Mueller's investigation that he should not use foreign interference in the election. The next day he's on the phone putting pressure on the Ukraine.

You say you have to look into the mind of the President and if the mens rea or intent isn't there, you must not convict.

Well in murder trials, you look at the evidence and the conduct of the accused in order to convict. You don't need a Vulcan mind meld ffs, otherwise there would be no one accused of murder.

I cannot tell if you or anyone else on here always believed the guff that is being spouted now, or that you have altered your opinion to fit the Trump narrative. Either way, its delusional.

Senator Angus King put a question to Trump counsel Philbin last night.

"Would it be permissible for a president to inform the Prime Minister of Israel that he was withholding congressional appropriated military aid unless the Prime Minister promised to come to the United States and publicly charge his opponent with anti-Semitism in the middst of an election campaign?"

Philbin couldn't answer, and instead rambled on with irrelevancies, despite the fact that King's scenario would be a pretty much exact replica scenario to what Trump demanded of Ukraine as regards Biden.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/nytmike/status/1223290139679567872?s=19

So the lawyer arguing why Trump shouldn't cooperate was covering his own hide?

sid waddell

everlast75 wrote: »

So the lawyer arguing why Trump shouldn't cooperate was covering his own hide?

Accessory to a crime.

peddlelies

Will he be acquitted today or will it be next week?

StringerBell

I suppose, there is something to the absolute bare nakedness of the corruption. It still feels somewhat surreal at times when you sit down and look at what's actually happening in full view of the public without a bit of a care. It really is a don't believe what you hear, don't believe what you see, only what we say.

StringerBell

peddlelies wrote: »

Will he be acquitted today or will it be next week?

Depends on how long the process takes, with debate, vote on witnesses, closing arguments, proposal to take the acquittal vote, amendment debate etc and the actual vote it could be late tonight I'd imagine as they want to get out of there and home for the weekend. Could be very late like, 11pm their time or so I'd imagine, the vote to deny the witnesses etc should be about 5pm, then you have the rest of the show, so I'd say 11/12 maybe. I'd expect it done and dusted today anyway.

FreeThePants

Also, how odd is the Dershowitz connection? He hated Trump and has had Clinton ties going back decades, yet strangely flipped over to Trump out of nowhere, despite hating him early on.

We also know Dershowitz was a client of Epstein. And we know Epstein was murdered while the highest profile prisoner under Trump and Barrs entire department of Justice. And we know that has been covered up extensively, something both Trump supporters and non supporters have agreed on throughout. We also know that William Barrs department of Justice are who are responsible for investigating this matter, and we know that very little investigating has been done in it at all.

What makes that extra interesting is Lev Parnas' claims that he wants to get all the info out in the open to feel safer, as he fears Bill Barr. Thats a pretty clear statement that he wants all of the dirt out there in the event he should "be suicided" and is not about facing jail time. You can talk in prison, you can't talk when you're dead.

We knew that there was association, but it's really looking like there may have been a lot more to Trump and some of his associates relationships with Epstein than meets the eye. It's not as if Dershowitz only began defend Trump when he was hired to be his attorney, he has blindly defended just about everything to do with him for a few years, in what was an immediate u turn, which otherwise doesn't make much sense. I mean, what could possibly have happened that cause Epstein client Dershowitz to do such a hard 180 on Trump with almost immediately?

And to top it all off, Trumps other attorney Ken Starr also represented Epstein. When he wasn't busy facilitating rape at Baylor University of course, something they eventually kicked him out over.

peddlelies

From my observation, Dershowitz opinion started changing when all the Russian accusations became public, early 2017.

sid waddell

StringerBell wrote: »

Depends on how long the process takes, with debate, vote on witnesses, closing arguments, proposal to take the acquittal vote, amendment debate etc and the actual vote it could be late tonight I'd imagine as they want to get out of there and home for the weekend. Could be very late like, 11pm their time or so I'd imagine, the vote to deny the witnesses etc should be about 5pm, then you have the rest of the show, so I'd say 11/12 maybe. I'd expect it done and dusted today anyway.

Claire McCaskill was speculating on MSNBC a few minutes ago that the Republicans may decide to delay the vote until after Trump's State of the Union address because of the Bolton New York Times story and to give the appearance of handing out a fake "punishment" to Trump.

That's possible, I guess, but even if that did happen it would be yet another choreographed manoeuvre to give the fake impression of some sort of due process and due diligence.

The Republicans did something similar with the Kavanaugh vote where they delayed it for a week in order to try and dilute the sheer shamelessness of it all.

It certainly won't change the outcome.

sid waddell

FreeThePants wrote: »

Also, how odd is the Dershowitz connection? He hated Trump and has had Clinton ties going back decades, yet strangely flipped over to Trump out of nowhere, despite hating him early on.

We also know Dershowitz was a client of Epstein. And we know Epstein was murdered while the highest profile prisoner under Trump and Barrs entire department of Justice. And we know that has been covered up extensively, something both Trump supporters and non supporters have agreed on throughout. We also know that William Barrs department of Justice are who are responsible for investigating this matter, and we know that very little investigating has been done in it at all.

What makes that extra interesting is Lev Parnas' claims that he wants to get all the info out in the open to feel safer, as he fears Bill Barr. Thats a pretty clear statement that he wants all of the dirt out there in the event he should "be suicided" and is not about facing jail time. You can talk in prison, you can't talk when you're dead.

We knew that there was association, but it's really looking like there may have been a lot more to Trump and some of his associates relationships with Epstein than meets the eye. It's not as if Dershowitz only began defend Trump when he was hired to be his attorney, he has blindly defended just about everything to do with him for a few years, in what was an immediate u turn, which otherwise doesn't make much sense. I mean, what could possibly have happened that cause Epstein client Dershowitz to do such a hard 180 on Trump with almost immediately?

And to top it all off, Trumps other attorney Ken Starr also represented Epstein. When he wasn't busy facilitating rape at Baylor University of course, something they eventually kicked him out over.

Everything surrounding Epstein's death is totally rotten. For a short while afterwards even I couldn't bring myself to think they could be that barefaced to just go and murder him.

I don't have many doubts now that they could and likely did.

StringerBell

Oh I dunno, can't imagine the Don being too happy not to do a lap of honour at the state of the Union in fairness. They will be told to get it done and get it done now.

sid waddell

Murkowski says No on witnesses.

Like there was ever a doubt!

In other news, tomorrow is Saturday and Michael Healy Rae will be elected in Kerry next week.

sid waddell

Lamar Alexander lobbied Murkowski to vote No.

Now Murkowski has come out with a 24 carat bulll**** statement that "there will be no fair trial, we have degraded this institution".

After being lobbied by the guy who said "he's guilty, but I don't care".

The sheer, shameless brass neck of these corrupt scumbags, it would be almost hilarious if it wasn't so serious.

Banana Republic doesn't even come close to describing it.

Cody montana

I actually think this may be beneficial.
The truth will come out in March anyway.
Nothing is going to stop this.

And the GOP blocked the truth from being revealed.

Also remember when Obama wore a tan suit?

PropJoe10

sid waddell wrote: »

Lamar Alexander lobbied Murkowski to vote No.

Now Murkowski has come out with a 24 carat bulll**** statement that "there will be no fair trial, we have degraded this institution".

After being lobbied by the guy who said "he's guilty, but I don't care".

The sheer, shameless brass neck of these corrupt scumbags, it would be almost hilarious if it wasn't so serious.

Banana Republic doesn't even come close to describing it.

We're witnessing the disintegration of the US constitution in real-time. it's not pretty to watch!

Outlaw Pete

sid waddell wrote: »

The sheer, shameless brass neck of these corrupt scumbags, it would be almost hilarious if it wasn't so serious.

I'd suggest that the only people that deserve being called "corrupt scumbags" would be those using the impeachment process to try and oust the current President of the United States from office, purely because they don't like him and that they know they have little hope of beating him in November. And of course who abused the whistleblower process so they could facilitate one of "the resistance" to act as if he was doing something noble, instead of what they were really doing which was leaking information which could be twisted to be something which it never was.

Their concerted and constant effort to impeach Trump started the day he was inaugurated and the left can act as if that is not the case as much as they like but to most everyone else it's been perfectly clear that has been their devious objective. The accusations are just as absurd as the accusations during the Trump-Russia collusion farce. I think they believe that if they keep saying that the evidence is "compelling" that it will become so.

I also see now they are playing clips of Sondland again! The guy who admitted he had no evidence that Trump was withholding aid in exchange for investigations, bar his own "presumptions" that is !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Bzz8WY66VM

sid waddell

Cody montana wrote: »

I actually think this may be beneficial.
The truth will come out in March anyway.
Nothing is going to stop this.

And the GOP blocked the truth from being revealed.

Also remember when Obama wore a tan suit?

Sorry, there isn't going to be a lightbulb moment.

Sunken costs, not a single Republican politician or Trump supporter will care.

But hey, you mentioned Obama's tan suit - what a scandal! He has shamed America and brought the office of the presidency to an all-time low! Has he no shame?!

Lock him up!

Cody montana

sid waddell wrote: »

Sorry, there isn't going to be a lightbulb moment.

Sunken costs, not a single Republican politician or Trump supporter will care.

But hey, you mentioned Obama's tan suit - what a scandal! He has shamed America and brought the office of the presidency to an all-time low! Has he no shame?!

Lock him up!

Well then, they deserve everything they get.

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I'd suggest that the only people that deserve being called "corrupt scumbags" would be those using the impeachment process to try and oust the current President of the United States from office, purely because they don't like him.

And if Don and the GOP were able to get through the present trouble he has caused them and went on as the GOP candidate in Nov [as his supporters say would be a true test] and the Democrat candidate was to win in Nov, both by the popular vote and in the Electoral College, what will you say to explain away the defeat for Don and the GOP?

BTW, ref the linking you make between lefties and the Democrat party which is pursuing the case against Don in the senate, can you explain Don's membership of the Democrat Party, like; was he a leftie back then?

Outlaw Pete

Not all US democrats are lefties. There are many moderates.

As for what would I say if he lost in the manner you suggest? Eh, I have no idea. 'Crap' maybe?

sid waddell

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I'd suggest that the only people that deserve being called "corrupt scumbags" would be those using the impeachment process to try and oust the current President of the United States from office, purely because they don't like him

Eternal innocence, eternal victimhood - the creed of Putin, and the creed of the right-wing cultists in the west.

A classic of the genre here.

Outlaw Pete

You seem to link everything with Putin. Much like the democrats do. It's something of an obsession with them in fact.

'All roads lead to Putin' Pelosi absurdly claims .. Schiff similarly suggests as much regularly.

Yeah, cause I bet Putin was absolutely delighted with Ukraine finally getting that lethal aid Obama wouldn't give them.

aloyisious

The latest part of John Bolton's book released in the NYT that Don told him in early May , at a meeting allegedly attended by one of Don's trial defence team lawyers, to pressure Ukraine for info on democrats. This is before the phone calls in July between both presidents.

It creates a question as to whether the defence team lawyers for both sides were sworn in, in any manner, at the start of the trial or were reminded of their duty to obey the oath they are obliged to heed as practicing lawyers. Giving answers to juror-senators on the floor of the senate while keeping silent on matters relevant to the trial [learned not as part of the defence team but 7/8 months earlier] might be legally troublesome for any lawyer now acting for the defence. One question might come up as to why he was present during a meeting between Don, JB, Mulvaney and Rudy Giuliani about Ukraine. Rudy, btw, has tweeted that he was not at the meeting and has said, that if Bolton has him being at the meeting in his book, he's a liar.

Senator Murkowski has given an explanation for her statement of her "NO" vote decision that she did not want to bring CJ Roberts into the vote matter in the case of there being a tied-vote. Its being reported that her decision leaves a possible 51-49 vote result tonight [if the vote is held today]. It seems there are requests for the vote to be held over until next week [Wed] to let the senators write speeches, apparently for the state of the union address on Tuesday.

sid waddell

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You seem to link everything with Putin. Much like the democrats do. It's something of an obsession with them in fact.

'All roads lead to Putin' Pelosi absurdly claims .. Schiff similarly suggests as much regularly.

Yeah, cause I bet Putin was absolutely delighted with Ukraine finally getting that lethal aid Obama wouldn't give them.

A hell of a lot of things seem to link back to Putin, actually. If you had a curious mind you might do some digging about what Russia gets up to, but alas.

Russia's and Putin's number one foreign policy goal is to humble the United States and the post World War II western order, to discredit it as a foreign policy actor, to sow chaos internally, and to profit from that chaos. And they're very much achieving that.

It's so cute how Trump supporters think Putin is a statesman who would never, ever intervene in anything abroad, no siree, not a chance, he always keeps his and Russia's hands out of other people's business, always! Yeah!

I mean it's not as if Russia has been using Trump as a front for money laundering for decades or anything, oh wait...:D