Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think the one big lesson in all of this is the famed equal powers and "checks and balances" is a myth. They are easily overcome.

There are powers that POTUS has that are too easily manipulated for themselves. SCOTUS (although this is not primarily a Trump issues) needs to be taken away from Congress.

POTUS should be forced to deal with all media outlets the same (so a call to Fox News must be followed by equal time on other netwroks, there would be a listing to create levels).

Tax returns should be made public by law when running for POTUS. Divestment in company should be made law. POTUS should not be able to gain directly by any payments when in office (so foreign delegations staying in Trump hotel, POTUS staying in Trump golf course etc).

I've said this here before. Hopefully his ways will cause subsequent presidencies to be held to tighter standards.

Re SCOTUS, they should be a 20 year appointment and no more than that.

StringerBell

Water John wrote: »

I believe there is a risk of him mentally crashing. Besides saying how will we know the difference, are there any check systems? By this I mean, heads of security etc, basically taking the critical decision process, out of his hands.

Technically speaking they simply cannot do this, they are not elected by the people to make those decisions.

Now, given this WH, what happens in practise could be anything.

If they know he is not capable of performing the role they have to enact the part of the Constitution to remove him, then we get president Pence.

pixelburp

Leroy42 wrote: »

I agree with most of the premise but not the last part.

I think he is having a great time. If one is a narcisist, what better job that POTUS. Add to that he has a totally loyal support, totally accepting party, is shaping the tax laws to suit himself and his family, and is shaping the SCOTUS for a generation.

I think he's having a great time at his rallies, which, again let's remember, is not normal behaviour for a sitting President to continue with 'campaign' rallies (and is possibly another con, given he can claim back on 'campaign expenses'). Donald Trump craves the limelight, and surrounded by adoring crowds he can continue to enjoy the kind of support he enjoyed during the 2016 campaign - spreading shaggy dog stories about his booming, masculine success when the reality is he's completely out of his depth surrounded by career politicians and grifters.

From what is reported by aides, insiders and ex-employees however, Trump sounds to be vacillating between impotent rage and stubborn incompetence or despondency within the White House; steadfastly refusing to engage in the basic daily principles of the commander in chief, or even learning the Constitution, presumably having realised there are checks and boundaries installed to prevent him from running the administration like the Autocrat-CEO he'd prefer. I get the impression he has just given up trying to lead, except when the cameras might be in the room, whereupon he waffles and dissembles about his electoral college numbers.

The Trump Presidency should be a slam dunk: yes the new Supreme Court nomination is a looming threat, but any half-competent mannequin in a suit would be able to leverage a majority in both houses - yet instead Trump nearly sabotaged his own Healthcare bill among others. Again, from what was reported he raged at having to use some shoe leather to horse-trade, instead ranted at the Republicans for not immediately falling into step.

BabyCheeses

In the non CNN news we have some bad news for Don.

For the European Union as a whole, exports to the United States increased by 3.9 percent in the first half of 2018, while imports fell by 2.4, widening the EU’s trade surplus with its largest trading partner.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-europe-view-thursday/daily-briefing-in-italy-bridge-politics-heat-up-idUKKBN1L10OJ

Before I wouldn't have paid much attention to this but Don and his supporters have told me this is bad.

aloyisious

One of the core things that popped up when the Omarosa debacle became public was that it was a Trump Campaign official who spoke for Don when the media asked questions about Don's description of her, not some-one from within the White House system appointed to answer media questions.

Looking at Don, I reckon that he thought the presidency was a gig he could just walk away from when the going got tough, like his federal bankruptcy court hearings, that it was something he didn't realise he would be unable to duck, dive and evade responsibility for, that he would be held fully accountable for his activities there in full public view 24/7. He can't control the TV show he's on now, unlike the TV shows he ran in the past which he had thought were secure.

everlast75

Surely this is an admission akin to the one to Lester Holt in "that" interview?


https://twitter.com/DafnaLinzer/status/1029915717582376962?s=19

Leroy42

aloyisious wrote: »

Looking at Don, I reckon that he thought the presidency was a gig he could just walk away from when the going got tough, like his federal bankruptcy court hearings, that it was something he didn't realise he would be unable to duck, dive and evade responsibility for, that he would be held fully accountable for his activities there in full public view 24/7. He can't control the TV show he's on now, unlike the TV shows he ran in the past which he had thought were secure.

But so far he has been totally able to duck it. This move on Brennan, clearly simply to get rid of someone that disagrees with him, should see the entire political and media turn against him.

But they won't. You will have plenty of people on Fox calling out Brennan as a terrible person, a threat to the US. Without any actual evidence or even hint of evidence. Trump is systemically taken down all those that are a threat to him. It appears that he was advised not to fire Mueller, so instead he has sought to totally discredit him and the investigation. And that has been a major success in terms of his base and GOP supporters. Mueller is a lifelong GOP and a decorated military man, yet many Americans have been very happy to toss him aside.

StringerBell

everlast75 wrote: »

Surely this is an admission akin to the one to Lester Holt in "that" interview?


https://twitter.com/DafnaLinzer/status/1029915717582376962?s=19

Not even factually correct, shockingly.

Leroy42

everlast75 wrote: »

Surely this is an admission akin to the one to Lester Holt in "that" interview?


https://twitter.com/DafnaLinzer/status/1029915717582376962?s=19

Isn't he admitting that he is cutting off Brennan in order to stifle an investigation?

I know it is actually not correct, but the fact that he is trying to stop an investigation the wrong way is not the point.

How can anyone be sitting idly by and letting him away with this, and many more types, of obstruction?

It was only a few weeks ago that he publicly called in the AG to stop the investigation?

everlast75

StringerBell wrote: »

Not even factually correct, shockingly.

IIRC Brennan included the dossier in his briefings to Obama

StringerBell

everlast75 wrote: »

IIRC Brennan included the dossier in his briefings to Obama

The investigation started in the FBI, and has certainly not been led by a retired former chief of the CIA.

PropJoe10

everlast75 wrote: »

Surely this is an admission akin to the one to Lester Holt in "that" interview?


https://twitter.com/DafnaLinzer/status/1029915717582376962?s=19

He keeps giving more and more ammunition to Mueller. He's obviously either not listening to anyone trying to advise him, or, his advisors are even more incompetent than I thought.

StringerBell

PropJoe10 wrote: »

He keeps giving more and more ammunition to Mueller. He's obviously either not listening to anyone trying to advise him, or, his advisors are even more incompetent than I thought.

He isn't interested in the legal battle, he isn't going to be indicted. He is just fighting his PR war. That's what the focus is, Giuliani has admitted to this also tbf

circadian

Well, there is this tweet from a Russian oligarch from two days before Brennan et al got clearance revoked.

https://twitter.com/ARTEM_KLYUSHIN/status/1021714949473808387?s=19

"Former CIA directors John Brennan and Michael Hayden, former FBI director James Komi and his deputy Andrew McCabe, former director of the National Intelligence James Clapper, ex-adviser on Homeland Susan Rice are forgiven for access to classified materials. Welcome to the real world!"

Itssoeasy

Tape o mania IV I think from omerosa which involves Lara trump who is the wife of a Eric trump. She released it to back up a claim she made about the trump campaign paying her off to buy her silence.

looksee

are forgiven for access

'say goodbye to access to' (Google)

But, yes...

circadian

looksee wrote: »

'say goodbye to access to' (Google)

But, yes...

Yeah sorry I was on my phone, didn't catch that but yes, "say goodbye to access to"

pixelburp

I'd totally forgotten about Trumps demand for a military parade, and looks like it's still going ahead (4 days after the midterms) - though the cost has gone from an estimated 12 to 92 million. A lot of money being wasted on an ego stroking exercise, for a president who dodged the Vietnam draft over 'bone spurs'

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/16/trump-military-parade-expected-to-cost-80-million-more-than-estimated.html

Itssoeasy

I've spent the last half an hour watching videos about Obama and the previous first family and the behind the scenes clips of the Obama White house and christ it's easy to see why his staff all seemed to like working there. You compare it to the current mess. I'm not talking politics here, I mean from a human standpoint it seems like it was a good place to be.

dr.fuzzenstein

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I've spent the last half an hour watching videos about Obama and the previous first family and the behind the scenes clips of the Obama White house and christ it's easy to see why his staff all seemed to like working there. You compare it to the current mess. I'm not talking politics here, I mean from a human standpoint it seems like it was a good place to be.

Americans now associate a good working climate with bad business.
In The Apprentice Trump showed us how it's really done. Throw people into situations they have no clue about, with no time, money or expertise to adequately solve them, in the end get them to turn on each other and keep sacking people.
Thanks to this sh*tty show people now think this is how business works

everlast75

Jury have handed in a note in Manafort trial.

Could be a query.

Could be a verdict

Itssoeasy

everlast75 wrote: »

Jury have handed in a note in Manafort trial.

Could be a query.

Could be a verdict

Politco is saying it's not a verdict. It's 5:30 PM there though isn't it ?

Quin_Dub

everlast75 wrote: »

Jury have handed in a note in Manafort trial.

Could be a query.

Could be a verdict

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Politco is saying it's not a verdict. It's 5:30 PM there though isn't it ?

The Jury have asked the judge to redefine Reasonable doubt..

That's apparently one of four questions they've asked

Penn

everlast75 wrote: »

Jury have handed in a note in Manafort trial.

Could be a query.

Could be a verdict

Deliberations to continue tomorrow. Note seems to have been the jury asking a few questions.

Itssoeasy

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The Jury have asked the judge to redefine Reasonable doubt..

That's apparently one of four questions they've asked

Oh ? So we might get a verdict tonight which could be revealed tomorrow ? Can a judge redefine reasonable doubt ?

Quin_Dub

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Oh ? So we might get a verdict tonight which could be revealed tomorrow ? Can a judge redefine reasonable doubt ?

Apparently the defence used a chart a bit like the below to really "clear up" what reasonable doubt means

https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1030204085235011585

If that's a fair representation of what they were shown , no wonder they need clarification.

BonnieSituation

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Oh ? So we might get a verdict tonight which could be revealed tomorrow ? Can a judge redefine reasonable doubt ?

I'd say he meant "define".

Water John

Easy, agree with you, see OBama crying tonight on hearing Franklin sing.

aloyisious

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Apparently the defence used a chart a bit like the below to really "clear up" what reasonable doubt means

https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1030204085235011585

If that's a fair representation of what they were shown , no wonder they need clarification.

The jury question might refer to that chart, to see if it is a fair and legal representation of reasonable doubt or a defence "guidance" stunt to mislead the jury. The judge must be required to inform the jury of what is reasonable doubt, clear up legal ambiguity, same as here so the jury may be able to come back with a unanimous or majority verdict without much hassle.

Water John

Bernstein says some of those close to Trump say, he's running scared of the Mueller investigation.