|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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: 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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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:
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Thank you - have not seen that in nearly half a century.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Good editorial in today's NYT: 'I Want to Hate...'
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024