|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 46/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Trump is becoming increasingly frenzied and volatile in his Tweets and at his rallies, and he seems very upset at the possibility that his son Donald Jr. may have some serious legal exposure. Mueller's job seems increasingly vulnerable.
Starting in the early 1970's William D. Ruckelshaus served in posts like EPA administrator, acting director of the FBI, and deputy attorney general. He has an editorial in today's Washington Post:
Anyone want to guess who he's talking about before I give it away? Is there even anyone who doesn't already know? Ruckelshaus was one of the players in what has become known as the Saturday Night Massacre when Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox. Richardson refused and resigned. Nixon gave the same order to Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus who also refused and resigned. Solicitor General Robert Bork (later a failed Supreme Court justice nominee under Reagan) did the job. If Trump orders Mueller fired will anyone stand up to him? Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein seem to stand up to him a fair bit. If Trump orders Mueller fired then Jeff Sessions dodges a bullet since he recused himself, but I can see Rosenstein resigning rather than carry out the order. The job would then fall to Solicitor General Noel Francisco who seems like a nice guy but with not a lot of backbone, so he will probably be the guy to Bork Mueller should it come to that. If Francisco does refuse then the line of succession goes like this, I'll start at the top with Sessions just so the list is complete, even though Sessions doesn't factor in:
Like I said, should Trump order Mueller's firing I'm betting Francisco does the job. If by some chance he does not I can't imagine any of those lower on the list refusing. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Harry Litman is a former deputy assistant attorney general and a constitutional law professor at UC San Diego. David Lieberman is a former Massachusetts assistant attorney general and a lawyer with the Whistleblower Law Collaborative. They have an editorial in today's Los Angeles Times stating that No, the Trump Tower meeting was not 'totally legal'. Some excerpts:
quote: In other words, Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner and probably Trump himself even though not at the meeting give all the appearance of having conspired with a foreign government to influence an American election. They then lied about the meeting over and over again, which is a coverup and constitutes obstruction of justice. While lying to a newspaper is not a crime, Trump's efforts to influence the Mueller investigation constitute obstruction of justice. It's a long way from appearances to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but the alleged conspirators appear in a very exposed position right now. It is not a coincidence that Trump is suddenly tweeting manically and maniacally. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
caffeine writes: Sorry to continue the slightly off topic distraction, but where does it indicate this? I had a look at some pictures and can't see it. What Hyroglyphx said was, "There are, however, Limited-Term Drivers Licenses issued to non-residents with proof of work/school visas. And, at least in Texas, it states the type of license you hold in big, red block letters." I looked this up, and apparently they're issued to anyone who only has temporary lawful status in the United States. Here's what one looks like:
But now that I think about it, that means that permanent residents get regular licenses, so unless Hyroglyphx or Jar can give us more information, it looks like driver's licenses are not a reliable indicator of citizenship even in Texas. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
A study published earlier this week in the International Journal of Health Services finds that immigrants use fewer healthcare resources than citizens:
quote: Trump's claims that immigrants are healthcare moochers is dead wrong. The reality is that US born individuals are benefiting from the presence of immigrants with regard to healthcare because immigrants pay a proportionally larger share. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
The Trump administration keeps touting the strong economy, but how much does that really help American workers?
If Apple and GM and Walmart all have strongly increasing revenue, does that help American workers? Let's see. Here's a graph of annualized GDP growth by quarter over the past two and half years:
That's an average GDP growth rate of 2.85%, which is pretty good. The economy is roaring along. Unemployment is also low, as shown by this graph that goes back about ten years:
So all this is great news for workers, right? A strong economy and low unemployment - what more could you want? But rapidly growing economies tend to cause inflation, so wages must also grow in order for workers' pay to keep up, but are they? Well, according to the latest figures wages are up 2.7% over the past year, but the cost of living is up 2.9%. Workers' pay is worth less now than a year ago. (Source: U.S. wage growth is getting wiped out entirely by inflation) Most economists expect that low unemployment would put strong upward pressure on wages, but for some reason it is not. This is not Trump's fault because low unemployment under Obama didn't cause strong wage growth, either. But what *is* new under Trump is that the inflation rate has surpassed the wage growth rate, and this is because his tax cuts added to an already strong economy are causing overheating. The Fed has been slowly increasing interest rates to help tamp down inflation, but when the engines of economic growth wind into overdrive then the Fed's actions are like twigs in a hurricane, to mix my metaphors. Clearly a strong economy is good for workers because it keeps unemployment low. But too strong an economy can be bad for workers because it causes more inflation than wage growth. The economy grew at or above 4% for a fair stretch of the 1990's, so there's nothing wrong with the current 4.1% growth rate, but the unemployment rate during the 1990s probably averaged around 6%. Most economists consider full employment to be around a 5% unemployment rate. Well, we're way below 5% unemployment now at 3.9%. It's amazing how easily influenced leading economists can be by short term effects - Federal Reserve economists are currently saying that full employment is no longer an unemployment rate of 5% as was believed for decades but is now somewhere between 4.1% and 4.7%. I will walk out on what I believe is a very short and sturdy limb and predict that we're heading for high inflation (>6%), low wage growth (<3%), and rising unemployment (caused by economic disruptions caused by the Trump trade wars). --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
This could easily have gone in the humor thread, but there's a lot of political commentary, too, so I put it here. Bill Maher explains Q and why everything you think is the opposite:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
This is Michael Avenatti's speech at the Iowa Wing Ding, a Democratic Party fund-raiser in Clear Lake, Iowa. It's considered an event where prospective candidates can test the waters. This is only nine minutes of a twenty-six minute speech:
I'd say he's still finding his voice. He needs an experienced political adviser, a better speech writer and speaking coach, but all the raw material is there. I wish he'd given us a few specific examples of, "When they go low, we go harder." For those with the patience and interest here it is, all twenty-six minutes:
Unfortunately the sound and video are not precisely synchronized, and there are a few unfortunately timed cut-outs, but if you have the time the longer one is the one to watch. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
The Trump tax cuts have been in place for about six months, and the Washington Post has run an article about how they're faring: You Know Who the Tax Cuts Helped? Rich People. That headline about sums it up.
I was going to present the graphs from the article in this post, but that doesn't work. Only part of each graph is in a PNG. All the textual and numerical portions are produced with CSS and carefully positioned div's, obviously produced with some software tool. So since I can't present any graphs I can't meaningfully present the case made by the article. Those interested will have to read it. I'll just summarize by saying that it shows companies are buying back their stock, which helps the higher up employees of the company who own significant amounts of stock rather than the rank and file. Investments by companies in their businesses have leveled off instead of increasing. Real wages have declined because inflation exceeds wage increases. And the federal deficit has exploded. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I can't believe how little is being made of how negatively the recording of John Kelly firing Omarosa reflects upon him. I'd embed the audio in this message, but I haven't yet found it in a form that allows me to do that. The full recording can be found on this webpage: Omarosa Releases Tape Of John Kelly Firing Her In White House Situation Room. Scroll down just a little to where you see a video that has the word "EXCLUSIVE" in the upper right. That's the full audio.
A full transcript can be found at John Kelly firing Omarosa in the situation room. Here are my comments on the interaction between Kelly and Omarosa:
quote: Kelly has just accused Omarosa of the civilian equivalent of an offense worthy of court martial. He does not say what the offense is.
quote: Kelly still doesn't say what Omarosa did.
quote: Kelly is pretty unambiguously threatening Omarosa with legal action if she doesn't make this a "friendly departure."
quote: Kelly repeats the threat, this time to her reputation. So first he threatens her legally, then he threatens defaming her character.
quote: Kelly is threatening Omarosa legally again.
quote: So that's it, and we're left wondering what Omarosa did. Since they're obviously unaware of her recording activity, it wasn't that. And since Omarosa is making all this public, she evidently isn't cowed by any legal threat. Her publishers legal department (Gallery Books) has probably assisted her in vetting how much she can make public. A little Googling says that the supposed offense was using the White House car service for office pick-up and drop-off. This is not a severe integrity issue. This is a "Hey, cut it out" type of offense, and that's it. I also don't believe the reports that Omarosa tried to "storm the White House residence to appeal to Trump, according to one of the officials, accidentally tripping an electronic Secret Service wire that monitors entry and egress from the residence." That's from Politico. Reason I don't believe it? I think guards are stationed at the entries and exits from the residence. I doubt the doors are just open with only "an electronic Secret Service wire." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Stephen Miller is one of Trump's senior advisors, so in case you didn't already see this one: Stephen Miller’s Uncle Calls Him a Hypocrite in an Online Essay. Here's the essay: Stephen Miller Is an Immigration Hypocrite. I Know Because I’m His Uncle.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Yeah, Omarosa lacked qualifications.
For me, though, Kelly comes off as bullying and dishonest. Whether Omarosa was qualified or not, the interaction reads to me like him railroading her out. After cutting her off he says, "We can talk another time," like there's ever going to be an opportunity for her to talk to him after she's out of the White House. And if I have this right, according to Omarosa this was her first meeting with Kelly. The public needs these glimpses, even from people we don't like (that might just be me - independent of her competence, I just don't like Omarosa), into the inner workings of this presidency of a corrupt and repugnant man. Sean Spicer must have signed one of those NDAs Omarosa talks about. It explains the insipid fawning untruthfulness of his book. How can you trust anything anyone who worked in the Trump administration says when they've signed an NDA that has clauses like this (link to NDA):
There's been some discussion in the press about this NDA being unenforceable because it is overly broad (in the case of the the White House version of the NDA) and because it seeks to restrict information about a candidate for public office (in the case of the Trump Election Committee version of the NDA). Omarosa says she signed an NDA while working on the apprentice, and another NDA while working for the Trump campaign, but not when she started working in the White House. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: But NDAs that prevent you from speaking out well after employment are not common employment practice in the public sector. My hope would be that the practice would be unheard of in the public sector. There's been a lot written in the press recently expressing doubt about their enforceability, e.g., Mark Zaid: 'Any NDA that extends beyond classified information would be unconstitutional.'. It would also be my hope that any "no badmouthing in perpetuity" clause would be unconstitutional on 1st Amendment grounds no matter the sector. It shouldn't be possible to coerce lying (either explicit or by silence) through the promise of employment, which would be the case were all employers to begin using such NDAs. (And though not the topic I'll add that I don't believe the flood of mandatory binding arbitration agreements is right, either, such as in product warranties, credit card agreements, health treatment consent forms, and so forth.) Refreshingly the National Review is not a Trump fan, and about this they say the NDA removes all credibility:
quote: Along these lines, I recently commented that the NDA explained the fawning Sean Spicer book. I don't know why the news media so often gives serious consideration to anything said by the Trump administration until disproven by hard evidence. Compare politicians and scientists. Maybe I'm biased, but I strongly believe that in general scientists have a great deal more integrity than politicians, yet the tobacco industry had no problem getting scientists to shill about the safety of cigarettes. Therefore scumbag politicians like Trump have an even easier time getting their entire administration (and half of Congress) to shill for them, and the news media should assume they're lying until they prove they're telling the truth. The evidence thus far says they'd be right far more often than wrong. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: My hope would be that the practice would be unheard of in the public sector. There's been a lot written in the press recently expressing doubt about their enforceability, e.g., Mark Zaid: 'Any NDA that extends beyond classified information would be unconstitutional.'.
At this point, you are wishing. We knew that Trump was making volunteers sign NDAs even during his campaign. Not counting Trump - we already know he's a scumbag using NDAs to prevent knowledge of his illegal and/or immoral actions from becoming public. I wasn't thinking of political campaigns as part of the public sector, and Wikipedia's article about the public sector doesn't mention them, but maybe they are. I don't know. If they are then according to numerous experts both the campaign and the White House NDAs are likely unenforceable, see further below.
As for the idea that an NDA extends beyond classified information being unconstitutional, that's simply bad legal advice. Perhaps there was some context to Zaid's remarks that makes then something other than wishful thinking. Are you referring to Zaid's remark in the headline or to his comments in the article? You didn't quote anything, so I can't tell what you're referring to. Here's the link to the article again: Mark Zaid: 'Any NDA that extends beyond classified information would be unconstitutional.'. If it helps here's some of what he said in the article:
quote: From White House spokesman: I've never seen an NDA in Trump White House:
quote: From Are The White House's NDAs Enforceable? Maybe Not:
quote: I'll stop there. I'm not trying to make legal arguments, just trying to point out that Zaid isn't a lone voice in the night - there are other legal voices that agree with him. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
We've all heard of the Nixon tapes. Well now there's the Omarosa tapes, and as Donald Jr. would say, "I love it!" The score is currently Omarosa 3, Trump administration 0. Here are the details:
Why is the media investing Omarosa with so little credibility? Omarosa was on one of the Sunday morning political interview programs facing a panel of liberal interviewers (and one conservative) who all challenged her credibility but asked her virtually not a single question about any of the information in her book that had already been made public prior to the Tuesday release. I never watched the Apprentice and I had no awareness of Omarosa before the 2016 campaign began, and very little awareness of her after. My impression from what little I saw was that she was a verbally aggressive, combative and overly dramatic Trump supporter, but unlike Kellyanne Conway she never struck me as a liar. Am I wrong about that? I don't know what all else is in Omarosa's book, but if I were the media I'd start paying closer attention. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
James Corden is the Late Late Show host, and this video of his opening monologue is very fun, especially the second half:
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024