Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2003 of 4573 (831027)
04-11-2018 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 2002 by NoNukes
04-09-2018 8:23 PM


Re: Trump Bullies Panama
NoNukes writes:
This particular action would appear to be blatantly illegal if Trump were involved, but then Trump is not overseeing the day to day activities of his hotels.
I don't think that's relevant, and anyway, even before he became POTUS and relinquished his roles as chairman and president of the Trump organization he was not likely "overseeing the day-to-day activities of his hotels," just my opinion. Trump just doesn't seem like a detail "day-to-day" kind of guy to me. The Trump business was placed in a trust (not a blind trust, just a trust) run by his sons Donald and Eric. But the trust and the sons' management is just a smokescreen. Trump still owns the business, and I believe Trump has just as much control over The Trump Organization as he ever did.
But the issue, as I interpret it, is that a business owned by POTUS sent the Panamanian president a letter threatening "repercussions" if the issue concerning a property was not resolved in POTUS's favor. You can find a copy of the letter here, but here are some scary excerpts:
quote:
We are the law office Britton & Iglesias and we write to you...to URGENTLY request your influence in relation to a commercial dispute involving Trump Hotel aired before Panama’s judiciary.
Aware of the separation of powers of the State,...
How's that for chutzpah? They're aware that Panama has the same separation of executive and judiciary as the US, but they nonetheless request the Panamanian president's influence to resolve a judicial matter in their favor.
quote:
...we would like to raise a situation that even though is currently being addressed by Panama’s judiciary, has repercussions in the Panamanian State, which You preside over.
They say the situation has repercussions for the Panamanian State. The specifics are never spelled out, but given that the property's owner is POTUS and given the volatility and impulsivity of the current POTUS, the mention of repercussions must be very concerning to Panama's interests.
quote:
We appreciate your influence in order to avoid that these damages are attributed not to the other party, but to the Panamanian government due to a clear violation of the Treaty protections, specifically due to a denial of justice in the form and terms that said protection must be understood in international investment arbitration.
They say the damages to the Trump Organization are attributed to the Panamanian government because of "Treaty violations." I'd feel very threatened if I were the Panamanian president.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2002 by NoNukes, posted 04-09-2018 8:23 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2005 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2018 2:40 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2008 of 4573 (831116)
04-12-2018 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 2005 by NoNukes
04-11-2018 2:40 PM


Re: Trump Bullies Panama
NoNukes writes:
I had thought your argument was that you could attribute this directly to Trump in a way that made it blatantly illegal. But, first, the management by his sons is enough to remove the blatancy in my opinion.
Actually, the term I was using wasn't "blatantly illegal" but "improper conflict of interest." I couldn't comment about possible illegality, I'm not familiar with the relevant laws. But in my view The Trump Organization has threatened Panama with "repercussions" if the legal matter involving the hotel and The Trump Organization isn't resolved in their favor. It's no secret that the owner of The Trump Organization is the president of the United States, so threats of "repercussions" is especially chilling. Panama is a tiny country to whom a loss of American good will would have a serious impact - I have little doubt the matter of the hotel will soon be resolved in The Trump Organization's favor.
If that does happen then it adds to arguments in favor of laws requiring full divestiture of businesses for incoming presidents, not to mention disclosure of tax returns.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2005 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2018 2:40 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2010 of 4573 (831536)
04-20-2018 9:45 AM


Trump is a Liar Extraordinaire
Trump is a liar. We already knew that, but he is even better than we thought.
In today's Washington Post Jonathan Greenberg describes how he was duped by Trump to get included on the Forbes 400 list of richest people in America when he didn't belong there (Trump lied to me about his wealth to get onto the Forbes 400. Here are the tapes.). How'd he do it? This way:
  • For the inaugural 1982 Forbes 400 list Greenberg contacted Trump who claimed his properties were in Forest Hills when they were in fact in Jamaica Estates, making them far less valuable.
  • Knowing Greenberg was skeptical of his claims Trump called him six weeks later and claimed again that he was far richer than whatever Greenberg's estimate was.
  • Trump had his lawyer Roy Cohn (yes, that Roy Cohn, he of the McCarthy era) call him claiming to have a bank statement showing Trump had $500 million in liquid assets. When Greenberg requested a copy of the statement he was told it was confidential. Trump was placed on the 1982 list at a net worth of $100 million. But information that only came out years later revealed that his net worth at the time was around $5 million, and he should not have been on the list at all.
  • For the following year's 1983 list Cohn called Greenberg again and made many unsubstantiated claims about Trump's wealth. Trump was included on the list at $200 million, but again he should not have been on the list at all.
  • For the next years's 1984 list Trump called Greenberg posing as John Barron (the deception only came to light years later - Trump's youngest son is named Barron) and told him that he owned 90% of the family business, making him a billionaire. While Greenberg didn't believe this, Forbes did increase Trump's net worth on the list to $400 million. Turns out Trump as Barron had lied about almost everything. Years later it was revealed that Trump did not own any of the family business and was worth only around $5 million. He again should not have been on the list.
  • The deceptions continued. In 1988 Trump was on the list at $1 billion, and in 1989 at $1.7 billion. But required financial disclosures to the New Jersey Casino Commission when he was building his Atlantic City casino revealed an estimated net worth worth around $205 million.
See the article for lots more, it's a fascinating read. People may also be interested in Inside The Epic Fantasy That’s Driven Donald Trump For 33 Years by Forbes editor Randall Lane in 2015.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 2011 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2018 1:13 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2023 of 4573 (832618)
05-06-2018 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 2019 by frako
05-02-2018 6:30 AM


Re: Oh for Pete’s sake
Thank you - have not seen that in nearly half a century.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2019 by frako, posted 05-02-2018 6:30 AM frako has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 2024 of 4573 (832619)
05-06-2018 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 2021 by NoNukes
05-05-2018 10:53 AM


Re: Two Hours
Trying to understand this part, and something I read related to this:
NoNukes writes:
On the other hand, attorney-client privilege applies only to conversations with a lawyer for the purpose of gaining legal advice and not conversations with a third party. The subject matter that can be covered is very limited. If you were talking about a business deal, then the privilege would not cover the discussion.
So do I have this right:
If Trump talks about his own legal matters to Cohen or Giuliani, that is privileged.
If Trump talks about his own legal matters, including the conversations with Cohen and Giuliani, with a golfing buddy, that is not privileged. Can the golfing buddy be subpoenaed and compelled to testify about the conversation? Does that make the conversations between Trump, Cohen and Giuliani non-privileged? If so, does that mean that Cohen and Giuliani can be compelled to testify about the same legal matters discussed with the golfing buddy?
If Trump, Cohen or Giuliani talks about Trump's legal matters to the press, is whatever they talk about public and no longer privileged? And if so how broadly is that interpreted? For example, if Giuliani tells the press that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the Stormy Daniels payment, do other related matters become non-privileged, such as conversations between Trump and Cohen about the Daniels payoff?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2021 by NoNukes, posted 05-05-2018 10:53 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2028 by NoNukes, posted 05-06-2018 9:00 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2025 of 4573 (832620)
05-06-2018 7:48 AM


SNL Nails It
The Washington Post says last night's opening SNL skit was "straddling a fine line between being clever and convoluted," but I think it is crystal clear for anyone who's been following the news:
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2026 of 4573 (832626)
05-06-2018 1:03 PM


To: Legal Team
Alan Dershowitz is on Meet the Press saying that motive is not a factor in determining whether a crime has been committed. True?
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 2027 by NoNukes, posted 05-06-2018 8:42 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2029 of 4573 (832784)
05-10-2018 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 2027 by NoNukes
05-06-2018 8:42 PM


Dershowitz was trying to express his answer generally, but the question was about the firing of Comey. Dershowitz was in essence arguing that it didn't matter whether the president's motive in firing Comey was his screwing up the Clinton email server investigation or to obstruct the Russia investigation. Firing Comey was within the president's prerogative, and motive was irrelevant. The concept of intent wasn't mentioned.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2027 by NoNukes, posted 05-06-2018 8:42 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2031 by NoNukes, posted 05-10-2018 7:12 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 2054 by Taq, posted 06-07-2018 6:30 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2030 of 4573 (832786)
05-10-2018 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 2028 by NoNukes
05-06-2018 9:00 PM


Re: Two Hours
NoNukes writes:
If Trump talks about his own legal matters, including the conversations with Cohen and Giuliani, with a golfing buddy, that is not privileged.
Once a fact has been disclosed to a third party who does not owe a duty of privilege, that fact cannot be protected by privilege even if it was discussed with the lawyer.
Interesting. If I can safely assume that Trump blabs about everything to all his buddies, then there's probably little he's said to his lawyers that could be protected by privilege. I wonder how many of Trump's buddies Mueller has asked in for a meeting.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2028 by NoNukes, posted 05-06-2018 9:00 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2032 of 4573 (833016)
05-16-2018 7:45 AM


North Korea: Why am I not surprised?
We haven't discussed negotiations with North Korea here, but in my mind the overriding question all along was, "Why is Kim doing this now that he has nuclear weapons and delivery systems?" The obvious answers are a) He just wants a meeting with the preeminent leader of the free world; b) He wants to show he can yank Trump's chain; c) He's not going to do anything.
So today comes the news that Kim may scuttle the meeting with Trump because of declarations by the Trump administration that North Korea must completely give up its nuclear arsenal and agree to fully open inspections to guarantee their nuclear effort is over, and only when that is in place will the United States lift sanctions that will free up firms around to world to make investments in North Korea that will make it the equal of the South (I'm mostly paraphrasing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton). Kim rejects this, here are excerpts from his statement (from North Korea: Full response to US remarks on Trump-Kim summit):
quote:
High-ranking officials of the White House and the Department of State including John Bolton, White House national security adviser, are letting loose the assertions of a so-called Libya mode of nuclear abandonment: "complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation", "total decommissioning of nuclear weapons, missiles, biochemical weapons" etc, while talking about a formula of "abandoning nuclear weapons first, compensating afterwards".
This is not an expression of intention to address the issue through dialogue.
It is essentially a manifestation of an awfully sinister move to impose on our dignified state the destiny of Libya or Iraq, which had been brought down due to yielding the whole of their countries to big powers.
I cannot suppress indignation at such moves of the US, and harbour doubt about the US sincerity for improved DPRK-US relations through sound dialogue and negotiations.
...
We shed light on the quality of Bolton already in the past, and we do not hide our feeling of repugnance towards him.
...
But now, the US is miscalculating the magnanimity and broad-minded initiatives of the DPRK as signs of weakness and trying to embellish and advertise as if these are the product of its sanctions and pressure.
The US is trumpeting as if it would offer economic compensation and benefit in case we abandon nukes.
But we have never had any expectation of US support in carrying out our economic construction and will not at all make such a deal in future, too.
...
However, if the US is trying to drive us into a corner to force our unilateral nuclear abandonment, we will no longer be interested in such dialogue and cannot but reconsider our proceeding to the DPRK-US summit.
Given the unpredictable nature of the North Korean regime, and given the chaotic and impulsive nature of the Trump administration, there is no way to predict how bargaining about the upcoming Trump/Kim meeting will play out, but I continue to believe what I've believed all along since this fiasco began, that there will be no meeting and North Korea will not give up its nuclear weapons.
North Korea has never been trustworthy in negotiations, and now with Trump in charge the United States isn't either.
Interesting image, Korean peninsula at night:
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 2033 by jar, posted 05-16-2018 9:05 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 2036 by 1.61803, posted 05-16-2018 12:08 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2037 of 4573 (833489)
05-21-2018 8:05 PM


Mueller Can Indict Trump
The opinion has been expressed in some quarters that a sitting president cannot be indicted, but according to Neal Katyal, who drafted the 1999 special counsel regulations for the Justice Department, he can. If Mueller decides to indict Trump then he must request an exception from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who if he grants it must notify both parties in Congress. Details here: Can a Sitting President Be Indicted?
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2038 of 4573 (833637)
05-24-2018 2:00 PM


Nobel! Nobel! Nobel!
NOT!
Trump has cancelled the summit with Kim. What a surprise.
This might seem like a wasted opportunity, squandered by Trump officials who were unable to keep their big mouths shut (specifically, Pompeo, Bolton, Pence). Making complete North Korean nuclear disarmament with stringent verification a precondition was obviously a non-starter, and comparisons to Libya were highly ill-advised.
But the reality is that there was never any opportunity. Like Lucy pulling away the football, we already knew what was going to happen. North Korea has a long, long, long history of doing what they just did, holding out the promise of reconciliation then pulling it away.
Quoting myself from Message 2032: "There will be no meeting and North Korea will not give up its nuclear weapons."
God I'm good!
But this isn't the end of the matter. Trump and Kim are peas in a pod when it comes to unpredictable impulsivity and lack of consistency. There'll be dueling tweets and back and forth bluster and talks and plans and cancelled plans and on and on, but North Korea will not give up its nuclear weapons.
Trump *is* better disposed than past presidents to deal with the North Korea problem. His ignorance makes him fearless on the world stage (no matter how many lives he puts at stake), and he will ramp up sanctions and put pressure on other countries to a degree past presidents would not dare. Mostly that means China, but also India, Pakistan, Russia and the Philippines.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 2039 by NoNukes, posted 05-24-2018 9:48 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 2040 of 4573 (833670)
05-25-2018 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 2039 by NoNukes
05-24-2018 9:48 PM


Re: Nobel! Nobel! Nobel!
NoNukes writes:
This might seem like a wasted opportunity, squandered by Trump officials who were unable to keep their big mouths shut (specifically, Pompeo, Bolton, Pence).
I am of the opinion that those folks were charged with blowing up the summit.
I don't think Bolton needed any direction - he didn't want the summit anyway. What he wants to blow up is North Korea.
I think Pompeo may actually have believed North Korea would agree to the terms he laid out in public statements. He was drinking his own Kool-Aid.
About Pence, I agree, he's just a Trump lackey.
There was a perception internationally that Kim was playing our administration like a Stradivarius. I think Trump and his advisors wanted out of a meeting that they were ill prepared to handle and that Trump allowed his squad of idiots to mouth provoke Kim until there was an excuse to back out of the deal.
Given their handicap of idiocy, you have to give them credit for eventually recognizing they were headed for a diplomatic disaster.
In my post I said that Trump was uniquely able to pressure countries to up the ante on North Korean sanctions, but an article in today's CNN casts doubt on this:
quote:
Russia, along with China, has in the past resisted US attempts to increase pressure on North Korea, and Moscow reacted quickly. Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed "regret" about the cancellation.
...
The risk analysis firm Stratfor concluded that "if North Korea plays its cards carefully and refrains from conducting high-profile weapons tests or launches, China, Russia and South Korea will be more likely to sustain their diplomatic outreach," which includes economic incentives for continuing toward denuclearization.
The part about denuclearization is a pipe dream. I don't believe Kim has made a single move toward denuclearization, and I don't believe he will in the future. The test site that was blown up yesterday was no longer usable. If China, Russia and South Korea believe economic incentives will encourage North Korean moves toward denuclearization then they're as gullible as the Trump administration, and I don't think they are. If China, Russia and South Korea do provide diplomatic and economic incentives it will be because they want peace on the Korean peninsula for as long it can be sustained, and that means keeping Kim happy which in turn means letting him keep his nuclear weapons while hoping he never uses them.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2039 by NoNukes, posted 05-24-2018 9:48 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2041 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2018 9:25 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2052 of 4573 (834518)
06-07-2018 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 2051 by NoNukes
06-06-2018 1:55 PM


Re: Trump accuses Canada of trying to burn White house in 1812
Canada was a British colony during the War of 1812, so even though having no choice in the matter they were on the British side and considered a threat. It's even possible Canadians served in the British unit that burned the White House, though who knows. A sidenote: history makes it sound like the White House was burned to the ground, but the shell of the building was saved. The exterior we see today is the same one completed in 1800. Another sidenote: the entire interior was gutted basement to ceiling during the Truman administration. Let me see if I can find a photo of this, it's amazing:
Anyway, getting back to history, the War of 1812 was over trade. Britain didn't want the US trading freely with the rest of Europe (actually France, with whom Britain was at war, but also anyone Britain saw as aiding France, such as Denmark, Russia, others), plus they were impressing seaman off our ships who they believed were British deserters (they were often right). Serendipity (an assassination and a change in Britain's prime minister) repealed the British policies in 1812, but by the time the news reached our side of the Atlantic we'd already declared war. The British sort of said, "Oh, all right, if you insist...", and a couple years later they burned the White House.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2051 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2018 1:55 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2057 by NoNukes, posted 06-07-2018 11:34 PM Percy has replied
 Message 2059 by ringo, posted 06-08-2018 11:55 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2053 of 4573 (834519)
06-07-2018 3:00 PM


Trump the Hater
Good editorial in today's NYT: 'I Want to Hate...'
--Percy

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024