Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Leroy42

So to racap on the last 24 or so hours.

We have Trump lawyer admitting that Trump did know of the payment to Daniels and had reimbursed Cohen. This is against the statements of both Trump himself Cohen.

We had the WH Press Sec SHS admit that anything she tells the press is simply what she has been told to that point and may or may not be true. In effect, nothing she says should be taken as anything other than propaganda unless it can be independently verified. We basically had the sight of the WHPS distancing herself from the remarks she makes. Nothing to do with me, I'm just telling you want I was told to say!

We have news that the lawyer of the POTUS, Cohen, is having his communications logged by the FBI.

We had Giuliani, in the space of one interview on Fox 7 Friends, deny that the payment was political before explaining the damage such a story would have done politically so close to the election.

Mueller files 35 blank subpoenas in regard to the upcoming Manafort case.

That's one day!

In one day we have been given direct proof that the POTUS is a liar, his personal attorney is a liar, his personal attorney is under direct surveillance by the FBI, that SHS is distancing herself from POTUS.

Leroy42

Christy42 wrote: »

That would be the best solution in my view.

It would mean there are more than a few relevant states which is a flaw with both the current system and the popular vote.

I think a few states do this already (well sort of) but if only a few do it it reduces them to complete irrelevancy. It is hard to go and cause a big swing in such a state so why bother when you can try and tip all the votes in Florida? It has to be every state doing this for it to work.

But why should a vote in Ohia (or Michigan) count more than a vote in California. Surely one person one vote is the perfect way to do it.

I don't understand why the popular vote isn't used.

Igotadose

Leroy42 wrote: »

But why should a vote in Ohia (or Michigan) count more than a vote in California. Surely one person one vote is the perfect way to do it.

I don't understand why the popular vote isn't used.

Then the politicans would only campaign in the high-density states (along the coasts). But the electoral college thing is really kind of crazy, each state gets some leeway in the electors, some states they don't have to vote like they were elected to vote (that came up after the election, hoping that there'd be enough electors to not vote in Trump, I think maybe 1 or two nationwide switched their votes).

Personally would like to see popular vote weigh more - why *should* a voter in Iowa's vote count more than one from California. Maybe allocate the votes based on percentage of popular vote rather than winner-take-all, so the popular vote will matter, across all the states. And, allocate electoral votes based on population (which I *think* is kind of how it's done today, though that's tied to # of representatives, so good old gerrymandering makes a difference here).

spacecoyote

Christy42 wrote: »

That would be the best solution in my view.

It would mean there are more than a few relevant states which is a flaw with both the current system and the popular vote.

I think a few states do this already (well sort of) but if only a few do it it reduces them to complete irrelevancy. It is hard to go and cause a big swing in such a state so why bother when you can try and tip all the votes in Florida? It has to be every state doing this for it to work.

Looks like maybe Maine & Nebraska have some sort of Congressional district breakdown, not sure on anywhere else.

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

So to racap on the last 24 or so hours.

We have Trump lawyer admitting that Trump did know of the payment to Daniels and had reimbursed Cohen. This is against the statements of both Trump himself Cohen.

We had the WH Press Sec SHS admit that anything she tells the press is simply what she has been told to that point and may or may not be true. In effect, nothing she says should be taken as anything other than propaganda unless it can be independently verified. We basically had the sight of the WHPS distancing herself from the remarks she makes. Nothing to do with me, I'm just telling you want I was told to say!

We have news that the lawyer of the POTUS, Cohen, is having his communications logged by the FBI.

We had Giuliani, in the space of one interview on Fox 7 Friends, deny that the payment was political before explaining the damage such a story would have done politically so close to the election.

Mueller files 35 blank subpoenas in regard to the upcoming Manafort case.

That's one day!

In one day we have been given direct proof that the POTUS is a liar, his personal attorney is a liar, his personal attorney is under direct surveillance by the FBI, that SHS is distancing herself from POTUS.

A point made by Maddow;

Thanks to Gulliani, Trump's own lawyer -

Trump has proven himself to be a liar and proved Clifford and her lawyer to be telling the truth as to the fact that he was aware of the payment and was a party to the issues

Trump has proven himself to be a liar and proved Comey to be telling the truth in that he fired Comey because he wouldn't say he wasn't a target

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't understand why the popular vote isn't used.

Today, it would make sense. Even Trump has said he thinks so. But historically, the small states were afraid of being swamped by larger ones in the Union.

Think of the EU - even the smallest country has a veto on some matters. 99% of the population of the EU could be in favour of some measure, but if 51% of people in Luxembourg are against, their government can veto it.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

So to racap on the last 24 or so hours.

We have Trump lawyer admitting that Trump did know of the payment to Daniels and had reimbursed Cohen. This is against the statements of both Trump himself Cohen.

We had the WH Press Sec SHS admit that anything she tells the press is simply what she has been told to that point and may or may not be true. In effect, nothing she says should be taken as anything other than propaganda unless it can be independently verified. We basically had the sight of the WHPS distancing herself from the remarks she makes. Nothing to do with me, I'm just telling you want I was told to say!

We have news that the lawyer of the POTUS, Cohen, is having his communications logged by the FBI.

We had Giuliani, in the space of one interview on Fox 7 Friends, deny that the payment was political before explaining the damage such a story would have done politically so close to the election.

Mueller files 35 blank subpoenas in regard to the upcoming Manafort case.

That's one day!

In one day we have been given direct proof that the POTUS is a liar, his personal attorney is a liar, his personal attorney is under direct surveillance by the FBI, that SHS is distancing herself from POTUS.

But it's all a nothing burger and a witch hunt according to some people. I honestly can't fathom how people continue to support him.

Leroy42

everlast75 wrote: »

A point made by Maddow;

Thanks to Gulliani, Trump's own lawyer -

Trump has proven himself to be a liar and proved Clifford and her lawyer to be telling the truth as to the fact that he was aware of the payment and was a party to the issues

Trump has proven himself to be a liar and proved Comey to be telling the truth in that he fired Comey because he wouldn't say he wasn't a target

Jebus, I totally forgot about the statement about Comey. They doubled down on the fact that Trump fired him because of the Russia investigation.

To add to that, SHS stated again that Trump fired him because he was a leaker and a liar. When asked to provide any examples of that prior to his firing she was unable to provide any.

So on top of the other stuff, we have Trump lawyer admitting that his client fired an investigator for non publicly stated that he was clear, which was untrue.

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Today, it would make sense. Even Trump has said he thinks so. But historically, the small states were afraid of being swamped by larger ones in the Union.

Think of the EU - even the smallest country has a veto on some matters. 99% of the population of the EU could be in favour of some measure, but if 51% of people in Luxembourg are against, their government can veto it.

Yes, but what yo have in effect is that no conservative votes count in places such as Califiornia, of Democratic votes in Texas.

Each state already gets its share of reps in the house and Senate, its like a ref where the people of Donegal each get two votes and people in Dublin get half.

Christy42

Igotadose wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

But why should a vote in Ohia (or Michigan) count more than a vote in California. Surely one person one vote is the perfect way to do it.

I don't understand why the popular vote isn't used.

Then the politicans would only campaign in the high-density states (along the coasts). But the electoral college thing is really kind of crazy, each state gets some leeway in the electors, some states they don't have to vote like they were elected to vote (that came up after the election, hoping that there'd be enough electors to not vote in Trump, I think maybe 1 or two nationwide switched their votes).

Personally would like to see popular vote weigh more - why *should* a voter in Iowa's vote count more than one from California. Maybe allocate the votes based on percentage of popular vote rather than winner-take-all, so the popular vote will matter, across all the states. And, allocate electoral votes based on population (which I *think* is kind of how it's done today, though that's tied to # of representatives, so good old gerrymandering makes a difference here).

Why would you campaign based on jobs in Wyoming if it was popular vote (or other issues that affect individual minor states). You need some way of promoting geographic issues. You could argue the senate does this and you could have the President done on popular vote. That would work if you want to go down that route. If it is on popular vote then you only need to deal with issues in the largest population centers.

It is the same reason that Ireland is over represented in Europe. Irish issues are different to other countries and we want to have a serious voice at the European council.

But yeah right now the system means that unless you are in a swing state your vote does not count (I remember watching 5 years ago and CNN called states before a single vote had been counted- while obviously the votes were counted no one disagreed with them or really thought they might be wrong).

aloyisious

I watched Stormy's lawyer, Michael Avanti, last night on TV on CNN being interviewed by Anderson Cooper. He mentioned that there were three types of communication intercepted in the W/H & Cohen chat. I think he said that he had knowledge of the contents, if memory is right. I don't know if he has actual possession of material from the intercepts [plural] or if he was trying to un-nerve the Trump & Cohen partnership more than it seem's to be now.

Leroy42

aloyisious wrote: »

I watched Stormy's lawyer, Michael Avanti, last night on TV on CNN being interviewed by Anderson Cooper. He mentioned that there were three types of communication intercepted in the W/H & Cohen chat. I think he said that he had knowledge of the contents, if memory is right. I don't know if he has actual possession of material from the intercepts [plural] or if he was trying to un-nerve the Trump & Cohen partnership more than it seem's to be now.

My understanding is that the original wiretap story has been corrected to now be that the log of the calls were kept, ie who is was calling/called, when, duration etc and not that they actually listened in.

Of course this will itself cause problems. If Trump is known to have been in contact with Cohen through the logs then the FBI will want to know what the calls were about. It will be hard to argue to client related as the timing would be so suspect (although I expect them to use it).

What it also shows is who else he was in contact with. Did any of Trump legal team contact Cohen, again why (and not covered by privilege I would suspect) and other non connected people. Are their others, like Hannity, that aren't yet known about that could be dragged in a what will they have to say.

It is actually difficult to underestimate just how big a story this all is. Trump is under serious investigation at this point.

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

Jebus, I totally forgot about the statement about Comey. They doubled down on the fact that Trump fired him because of the Russia investigation.

To add to that, SHS stated again that Trump fired him because he was a leaker and a liar. When asked to provide any examples of that prior to his firing she was unable to provide any.

So on top of the other stuff, we have Trump lawyer admitting that his client fired an investigator for non publicly stated that he was clear, which was untrue.

Furthermore, Guilliani also commented about the timing of the payoff and how if the story had of broke a couple of weeks before the election, thereby confirming that it can be classed as a campaign contribution given the timing.

Look at this timeline. Imagine now if Clifford's story had of broke around the 15th or so. Combine that then with what would have happened if it was made public around the Access Hollywood tape... it prob would have finished him off

aloyisious

Leroy42 wrote: »

My understanding is that the original wiretap story has been corrected to now be that the log of the calls were kept, ie who is was calling/called, when, duration etc and not that they actually listened in.

Of course this will itself cause problems. If Trump is known to have been in contact with Cohen through the logs then the FBI will want to know what the calls were about. It will be hard to argue to client related as the timing would be so suspect (although I expect them to use it).

What it also shows is who else he was in contact with. Did any of Trump legal team contact Cohen, again why (and not covered by privilege I would suspect) and other non connected people. Are their others, like Hannity, that aren't yet known about that could be dragged in a what will they have to say.

It is actually difficult to underestimate just how big a story this all is. Trump is under serious investigation at this point.

Plus the chance that other staffers [not lawyerly representing Don] may have been involved in the chats. They won't have lawyer/client privilege rights.

It might explain why SHS is admitting, by default, that she is outside the loop or giving that impression anyway to avoid contamination.

On the friends side of the Fox & Don deal, Neil Cavuto has said he can't understand Don's tweets, etc and feel's he can't rely on them. After Fox & Friends themselves actually ending a chat with POTUS before he did, I'm lft with the impression that Fox & Co are taking safetly steps to avoid harm to itself.

Washington Post headlines over it's piece about Neil Cavuto's show commnts: Fox’s Cavuto to Trump: ‘That’s your stink. Mr. President, that’s your swamp.’

Speaking directly to the president on his show, “Your World with Neil Cavuto,” he questioned why Trump lambastes the news media for “fake news” when his own statements are often contradictory.
“Now, I’m not saying you’re a liar,” Cavuto said. “You’re the president. You’re busy. I’m just having a devil of a time figuring out which news is fake. Let’s just say your own words on lots of stuff give me, shall I say, lots of pause.”

The article, which can be seen online in today's W/Post, contains a lot more of the comments and thoughts from Neil Cavuto on POTUS.

Related media-connected occurrences may have woken up Fox News head-office as to how it could be affected by it's hand-in-glove relationship with Don. Cambridge Analytics closure/step-back to avoid it's corporate goodies being victim to any legal actions by the investigation would be a case for Fox to consider. I'm ignoring the reported reason for C/A's closure as a probable smokescreen.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Each state already gets its share of reps in the house and Senate, its like a ref where the people of Donegal each get two votes and people in Dublin get half.

Yes, and a voter in Luxembourg has much more veto power than a voter in Germany. Same deal.

everlast75

Another one of Fox has had enough to stick his head above the parapet...

Worth 4 mins of watching;

https://twitter.com/TeamCavuto/status/992147250934702080


Sounds like more on an Intervention to me....

Mumha

Rudy's bizarre appearances might not be having the desired effect....Donnie Deutsch was on Morning Joe this morning and said

“The Giuliani thing is interesting,” Deutsch said. “We forget how during the campaign, Giuliani was unhinged. I mean if you showed clips of him during the campaign, there was a reason he didn’t get hired for all the jobs that he wanted to.”

“I spoke with Michael Cohen yesterday, and his remark about Giuliani, was that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” Deutsch said. “He also said look, there are two people that know exactly what happened. And that’s myself and the president. And you’ll be hearing my side of the story.”

“And he was obviously very frustrated with what had come out yesterday,” Deutsch added.

Deutsch has known Trump and Cohen for a couple of decades, and is still friendly with Cohen.

Dohnjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

But it's all a nothing burger and a witch hunt according to some people. I honestly can't fathom how people continue to support him.

everlast75

Interesting tweet line of words from DJT following Rudi's performance.

I would like to say that he explains in detail "his" explanation on twitter, but colour me surprised when he doesn't.

Instead, he throws Rudi under the bus in record time....


https://twitter.com/mj_lee/status/992406802649231360?s=19

https://twitter.com/mj_lee/status/992406912372281345

https://twitter.com/mj_lee/status/992407138948517888

https://twitter.com/mj_lee/status/992407551206674432

https://twitter.com/mj_lee/status/992407906929795072

oscarBravo

everlast75 wrote: »

Another one of Fox has had enough to stick his head above the parapet...

Worth 4 mins of watching;

https://twitter.com/TeamCavuto/status/992147250934702080


Sounds like more on an Intervention to me....

Cavuto doesn't yet seem to have realised that Trump is psychologically incapable of changing his behaviour. He acts the way he does because that's who he is.

FatherTed

everlast75 wrote: »

Interesting tweet line of words from DJT following Rudi's performance.

I would like to say that he explains in detail "his" explanation on twitter, but colour me surprised when he doesn't.

Instead, he throws Rudi under the bus in record time....


https://twitter.com/mj_lee/status/992406802649231360?s=19

https://twitter.com/mj_lee/status/992406912372281345

https://twitter.com/mj_lee/status/992407138948517888

https://twitter.com/mj_lee/status/992407551206674432

https://twitter.com/mj_lee/status/992407906929795072

Actually I think they know Mueller has proof of the payments now so they send out Rudi to start the new narrative that yes, money was repaid to Cohen but that it's actually all perfectly legal and honest, nothing to see here. But in actual fact, they now have basically admitted at the very least violating campaign finance laws and a conspiracy to do the same. There's a pretty good chance there is some bank fraud going on as well (Cohen's home equity loan). And if Trump's payments to Cohen were structured in a way that dodged reporting requirements, well, that's what Dennis Hastert went to prison for.

jooksavage

FatherTed wrote: »

Actually I think they know Mueller has proof of the payments now so they send out Rudi to start the new narrative that yes, money was repaid to Cohen but that it's actually all perfectly legal and honest, nothing to see here. But in actual fact, they now have basically admitted at the very least violating campaign finance laws and a conspiracy to do the same. There's a pretty good chance there is some bank fraud going on as well (Cohen's home equity loan). And if Trump's payments to Cohen were structured in a way that dodged reporting requirements, well, that's what Dennis Hastert went to prison for.

Yeah its seems like the potential bank fraud is a bigger concern than campaign finance rules. No doubt this will come out in the wash as Cohen's case chugs along.

The repayment is interesting - I've seen it reported that Trump started repaying 35K a month after the election. If that's the case he's probably in the clear on that front. As I understand it, if the repayments were made in chunks less than 10K they wouldn't have to be reported to the Treaury Dept. This is called structuring when it's done to conceal payments and it carries some very stiff penalties. Surprisingly, it looks like Trump might actually have encountered a rule and not breached it for once.

Leroy42

So it seems that Trump is trying to muddy the waters around what Giuliani said.

The media shouldn't let him play that game, a game is always plays.

They will now run the story that trump has said this, rather than simply saying that Trump has failed to deny what Giuliani said.

When Trump comes out with nonsense like he did today, the WH should at least need to provide the evidence and context to what he is actually saying.

aloyisious

Leroy42 wrote: »

When Trump comes out with nonsense like he did today, the WH should at least need to provide the evidence and context to what he is actually saying.

C'est impossible....

aloyisious

After reading the NYT, I expect Don to tweet that he's MAGA. The jobless figure is down again, unemployment rate down to 3.9%, lowest since 2000, another 164,000 new jobs.

Inquitus

Trump goes back on what Guiliani said:

Trump says Rudy Giuliani will 'get his facts straight'
Rudy Giuliani had offered a new version of what the president knew and when about 'hush money' paid to porn actress Stormy Daniels.

Trump had appeared to confirm that it in a series of tweets on Wednesday. But on Thursday morning he denied there had been a change of story, without clarifying what he says Mr Giuliani had got wrong.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-43980480/trump-says-rudy-giuliani-will-get-his-facts-straight

briany

aloyisious wrote: »

After reading the NYT, I expect Don to tweet that he's MAGA. The jobless figure is down again, unemployment rate down to 3.9%, lowest since 2000, another 164,000 new jobs.

Does Trump say that there's all these new jobs since he took office, or all these new jobs because of policies that he and his party enacted? The former is correlation and the latter is causation, and it's a pretty important difference. I'd expect Trump to really push the latter idea since it would be fairly critical to his reelection chances in 2020.

And are these jobs well-paid manufacturing jobs with all the trimmings like Trump promised, or zero-hour/minimum wage mcjobs that inflate the employment stats, but don't necessarily help people out of poverty and/or into financial independence?

everlast75

The public humiliation continues...


https://twitter.com/goldengateblond/status/992465617922879488?s=19

Itssoeasy

This whole thing with trumps legal team makes Lionel Hutz look a competent legal mind. Also, I heard it described on I think Lawrence O' Donnell as being like My Cousin Vinny without Marisa Tomei being the brains of the outfit.

Mumha

everlast75 wrote: »

The public humiliation continues...


https://twitter.com/goldengateblond/status/992465617922879488?s=19

What a 36 hours !

And we're only 3 months into Season 2 !

As Ana Navarro put it (forgetting about the Alabama Paedo)

https://twitter.com/ananavarro/status/992420976750145536