|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
An article in today's Politico (It’s Now Likely Mueller Thinks Trump Obstructed Justice) reminds us of some Trump words that have been mentioned many times in the news, but never in this thread:
quote: Trump believed Sessions should "protect him" and "safeguard" him, something he apparently thought was typically performed for former presidents by their attorneys general. And maybe this is true. I'm losing my naivet late in life. Maybe there are really only two main types of people in the world: nice people and sleazebags. What else could explain the plentiful number of Republicans willing to do battle for this deeply flawed man who is, it seems so incredible to say, our president. The obvious question is that if Trump is innocent of any wrongdoing regarding Russian conspiracies (not collusion, which from a legal standpoint is apparently not illegal) regarding interference in the 2016 presidential election, then why does he need protection or safeguarding? Whatever the truth of Trump's guilt or innocence, it is clear that Trump views the presidency as his personal fiefdom where he can do whatever he wants, and that it's his lawyers' and legal department's (otherwise known as the Justice Department) job to provide him legal cover and shield his actions from public scrutiny. Trump is not a deal maker and he's not a successful business man. He's a sleazy real estate developer and a scoundrel. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Here's a link to the New York Times article: Trump Ordered Mueller Fired, but Backed Off When White House Counsel Threatened to Quit
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Percy writes: Trump believed Sessions should "protect him" and "safeguard" him, something he apparently thought was typically performed for former presidents by their attorneys general. And maybe this is true. I don't think it is true, or at least former presidents have been a bit more tactful about it. We could use Jim Comey, former head of the FBI, as an example. Trump asked him out to dinner and asked for a pledge of personal loyalty. Mind you, not loyalty to the government or the office, but to Trump personally. Comey was so shocked that a US President would do this that he made notes and told people about it. Comey also testified that he had not been asked for such a pledge from Obama or any other officials. It would make sense if Trump asked for loyalty from his chief of staff and other cabinet members, people within the White House that shape policy. However, when you demand personal loyalty from law enforcement officials you are crossing a massive red line.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Sorry, forgot to include a link to the article, I've added it to the bottom of Message 1767, along with a couple comments. Based on what you added, Trump's request is not unusual for a president. Viewed in that way, the museum's offer of a golden toilet seems like a gratuitous slam. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Is this campaign as toxic for Republicans as Roy Moore's campaign?
Perhaps it is even more disastrous than Moore's run. No indication that Arpaio has any hidden sleaze but that is not the issue. No question that Arpaio is a flat out racist who stands to erode away whatever Republicans can gain by working out a DACA deal. Further, unlike reliably red Alabama, most people think that it is only a matter of time before Arizona turns blue. So the margin of error in Arizona is surely much smaller for Republicans than was the case for Moore. It seems possible that there can be just enough support for a polarizing figure like Arpaio to win the primary only to be buried in a general election. Is there any way Trump can avoid endorsing him? No question that Arpaio is a hero to some folk. But others recognize that Joe cost Arizona an estimated 70 million of dollars because of all of the lawsuits that were lost over Joe's antics, and also understand that Arpaio is a pardoned criminal. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1044 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
I've mentioned here before that the Czech President is a fan of Donald Trump. The Czech Presidential election just finished, and the second round was between the incumbent, Milos Zeman, and Jiri Drahos, former President of the Czech Academy of Sciences. Drahos' campaign has been based strongly around foreign policy, the idea that human rights matter in international relations and the natural allies of the Czech Republic are countries like Germany and the UK; rather than Russia and China. He is a strong supporter of the European Union. He's also argued that the Presidency should be an office above and seperate from party politics (Drahos is not a member of any party), and that the selection of a government should be based around majority support in the Chamber of Deputies (like in most parliamentary democracies).
Zeman didn't run a campaign, but the 'Friends of Zeman' did. Their campaign was based around 'Stop Immigration'. That's not an exaggeration - 'stop immigration' and 'vote Zeman' were literally the extent of their public messages. It should be pointed out that Czech Republic has quite a low rate of immigration, and if not for immigration would have a declining population. The primary source countries for immigrants are Ukraine and Vietnam, and yet for some reason the media narrative is dominated by Muslims (12 Syrians requested asylum in Czech Republic last year). Zeman won the second round with 51.4%, Putin was the first foreign dignitary to call with congratulations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Before getting to the political ramifications, let me say that Trump is clearly not an employer anyone would want to work for. McCabe had claimed that Trump asked him who he voted for. Here is Trump's response:
quote: What kind of asshat denial is that?
quote: More shite:
quote: As for how McCabe voted, well according to election records, he voted in the Republican primary but did not cast a vote for President. There is no way to make the case that McCabe is a Hilary supporter. As for the political ramifications, well this stuff is all of a piece with Trump's apparent belief that the FBI and all of federal law enforcement are his personal bodyguards and lackeys who owe loyalty to him. Many in the Republican Party seems to understand the thin ice that Trump is skating on with respect to his attempts to fire Mueller. Trump claims that he has not interfered, but the truth is quite obviously something else entirely different from what Trump says. Little surprise there.
quote: Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Pretty amazing story - so amazing I can’t bring myself to entirely trust it.
Ars Technica According to the story, the Dutch Security services broke into the Russian hacker’s systems and even the video cameras watching them work. Known Russian intelligence agents were observed in the building. The observations included attacks on the U.S. State Department and the Democratic National Congress. And this is why the U.S. intelligence services are convinced that the Russians hacked the DNC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
First of all, Trump is a moron. Let me get that out of the way just in case somebody thinks I am objective on that issue. I have seen the evidence and I am no longer able to pretend that there is an equal probability that Trump is not an utter buffoon when it comes to science.
In defending his belief that AGW is a hoax, Trump retorted this gem: Trump Disputes Climate Change Data
quote: Here is how another news source described Trump's idiocy: Trump's Latest Climate Change Interview Was Absurd
quote: If you are someone who honestly disbelieves that AGW is real, you should be absolutely appalled at how stupid the president is making your position look. Fortunately, I don't have that issue to deal with. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
NoNukes writes: McCabe had claimed that Trump asked him who he voted for. At this point, I think I would be more shocked if Trump didn't ask him this question, or at least ask McCabe to swear personal fealty to the Donald.
As for how McCabe voted, well according to election records, he voted in the Republican primary but did not cast a vote for President. There is no way to make the case that McCabe is a Hilary supporter. Most of the ex-Gmen I have see on TV claim that the FBI is overwhelmingly Republican.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
At the New York Times editorial The Slut-Shaming of Nikki Haley I today posted this comment:
quote: My comment hasn't been approved yet, it won't be generally visible until it is. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
It's time to mention the latest development in Washington, yet another assault on our governmental institutions and on truth itself by Trump and his lapdogs, once known as the Republican Party.
David Nunes (R-CA), Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee that provides oversight of the intelligence agencies and that is currently investigating the FBI's conduct of the Russia investigation, has written a four page memo alleging abuses of power by officials at the FBI and the Justice Department. It was approved for public release by Republicans on the committee, then forwarded to Trump for his approval, which he quickly gave. The memo could be released any time within the next few days. Democrats have objected to release of the memo, characterizing it as an attempt to politicize the investigation and saying it cherry picks information to create misleading impressions. The FBI has objected to release of the memo in a brief statement:
quote: The last sentence is the important one: "We have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy." The Republicans will release the memo anyway. They for some reason want to protect this autocratic, lying, cheating disaster of a president from the Russia investigation by undermining it in any way they can, and if that means maliciously maligning the integrity of government institutions, so be it. There are also hints that Trump might fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller to head the Russia investigation and who provides oversight, so that he can replace him with someone more pliant who might damp down Mueller's investigation. The Democrats on the committee have drafted a memo of their own that describes the inaccuracies and missing information of the Nunes memo, but given the Republican majority on the committee it will never see the light of day. It should be obvious even to Trump's base that this is not the way truth comes out, but of course it's not. Their opinion is that if it helps Trump it's good and truth be damned, though in their minds truth is what their lying president says it is. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Percy writes: The Democrats on the committee have drafted a memo of their own that describes the inaccuracies and missing information of the Nunes memo, but given the Republican majority on the committee it will never see the light of day. I don't think I understand quite what's going on. Why do any of the memo's need to be "approved" before being released? Can't any politician tell their people what they think at any time?Can't any group of politicians (say 'the Republicans') put together a "memo-ish" type of collection-of-ideas and tell the public it represents what they think at any time? Can't any other group (say 'the Democrats') put together a rebuttal of any idea and tell the public what they think at any time? What's so special about the memo going through this approval process?Is that supposed to lend some sort of credibility to it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
I can only reply with my impressions of how committees work based upon news reports. I haven't actually read the committee's specific rules, nor the House rules for committees in general.
I don't think I understand quite what's going on. Why do any of the memo's need to be "approved" before being released? Members of the House Intelligence Committee become privy to confidential information. No member should release committee information without approval of the committee.
Can't any politician tell their people what they think at any time? As long as they don't reveal confidential information available only to the committee, sure.
Can't any group of politicians (say 'the Republicans') put together a "memo-ish" type of collection-of-ideas and tell the public it represents what they think at any time? Can't any other group (say 'the Democrats') put together a rebuttal of any idea and tell the public what they think at any time? If you mean a random group of politicians not associated with any particular committee, sure, as long as they don't make public any confidential information. But if you mean the House Intelligence Committee, this committee can't release any information to the public without committee approval. At this time the committee is extremely partisan with little common ground between Democrats and Republicans. Naturally since the committee has a majority of Republicans they can run roughshod over the concerns of Democrats, which is exactly what they're doing.
What's so special about the memo going through this approval process? They're just following the rules of the House of Representatives and of the House Intelligence Committee.
Is that supposed to lend some sort of credibility to it? I think the primary intention is to keep confidential information confidential. NoNukes has a pretty good sense of procedural and legal issues, maybe he'll comment. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Percy writes: But if you mean the House Intelligence Committee, this committee can't release any information to the public without committee approval. At this time the committee is extremely partisan with little common ground between Democrats and Republicans. Naturally since the committee has a majority of Republicans they can run roughshod over the concerns of Democrats, which is exactly what they're doing. Ah, this makes more sense. I think I was confused by who was putting out the memo. I thought it was from The Republican Party (in general).But it's actually from The House Intelligence Committee - who "just so happens" to have a bunch of republicans in it. Do I have that right? If that's right, then I understand that "level of credibility" they're hoping to gain from this memo stating whatever-it-says.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024