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

StringerBell

He's just sending up the balloon to let them know the pardon is still on it's way, and laying the groundwork for that with the base same as with Arpaio, great guy, terrible treatment etc

Lithium93_

First time poster in the thread, long time lurker. I tumbled upon this on Twitter, and it is definitely of interest to the thread.

Per the New York Times, it turns out that Donald F. McGahn II, the White House Counsel has been co-operating with Robert Mueller's obstruction inquiry, unknown to Trump from the gist of the article

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/us/politics/don-mcgahn-mueller-investigation.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

WASHINGTON — The White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, has cooperated extensively in the special counsel investigation, sharing detailed accounts about the episodes at the heart of the inquiry into whether President Trump obstructed justice, including some that investigators would not have learned of otherwise, according to a dozen current and former White House officials and others briefed on the matter.

In at least three voluntary interviews with investigators that totaled 30 hours over the past nine months, Mr. McGahn described the president’s furor toward the Russia investigation and the ways in which he urged Mr. McGahn to respond to it. He provided the investigators examining whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice a clear view of the president’s most intimate moments with his lawyer.

Leroy42

I saw som eof the tweets about McGahn, but didn't look into them.

But on the surface, wouldn't that be totally illegal? If he is representing POTUS, how can he be giving intel against him?

Lithium93_

Leroy42 wrote: »

I saw som eof the tweets about McGahn, but didn't look into them.

But on the surface, wouldn't that be totally illegal? If he is representing POTUS, how can he be giving intel against him?

Would he be able to instruct his lawyer to speak to Mueller on his behalf? Actually forget that, I've just seen this in the article I've linked.

The president wrongly believed that Mr. McGahn would act as a personal lawyer would for clients and solely defend his interests to investigators, according to a person with knowledge of his thinking.

Hande hoche!

Understand the need to make breaking news sound important, still the McGahn developments seem a bit underwhelming. Three interviews over nine months isn't exactly ground breaking.

Should have the Manafort verdict this week anyway. Also the Papadopoulos sentencing in the first week of Spetember.

PropJoe10

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is amazing how little blow fact Trump has had to face in regards of the quite incredible action he took yesterday. He came out and stated that Manafort is a great guy and it terrible how he is being treated. This whilst a jury is deliberating the verdict?

Manaforts lawyer even came out to say it was great to have POTUS support!

Basically he is trying to influence a jury!

And for what? A man on trial for tax evasion? Why would any POTUS be getting involved in a tax fraud case. If anything he should be looking to more of them so that MAGA could push ahead.

Unfortunately, it seems that people are getting de-sensitised to his stupidity and inappropriate behaviour. It's not hugely surprising, due to the pure amount of stupid coming out of the White House. But it is worrying for sure.

pixelburp

Reading the NY Times article, what's interesting is that McGahn's justification for 30 hours of discussions was that he feared being made a scapegoat in a potential Obstruction of Justice charge against Trump.

Sound like there's no smoking guns here sure, but still a poor reflection of the Presidents abilities that the WH counsel (of all people) feels the need to get ahead of a potential obstruction charge, purely because he fears being thrown under the bus.

Truly a great leader that inspires such loyalty, dedication and trust.

I look forward to Trumps tweeting about crazy, unhinged McGahn in the morning ....

aloyisious

It'd be good to know how long the NYT were working on the story, weeks or months as it mentions up to a dozen WH present and former staffers knowing about the interviews between the lawyer and the investigation.

If they were only interviews of a probable witness and not interrogations of a person with knowledge, the difference is clear. How he did not advise Don of the interviews, or how no one else [WH staffers] didn't pass the info along the chain of command in the WH is, or isn't, surprising depending on how one look's at the staff there.

I'm surprised that the report indicates that Don was [EDIT] totally unaware of the extent to which the lawyer would co-operate with the investigation team but if the lawyer thought he was being set up by Don on a [my lawyer advised me] basis then he may have been obliged as a n officer of the court not to play along with any possible plan by Don to use him as a patsy. It'd be good to know what advisor gave Don the idea in the first place.

2 Scoops

Nobody on the other side cares, after what went in the election with the media acting as lapdogs and being another arm of the democratic party. It's all on Robert Mueller really... If Trump fires him then there will be hell to pay, and most republican senators have said the same. Let the truth come out.

That's the red line imo.

StringerBell

I agree, the other side is a lost cause. With what went on in the election and the media acting as lapdogs and being another arm of the Republican party and now acting as state tv just broadcasting the propaganda in a self perpetuated feedback loop.

What you would hope is that enough of the swing voters care about.

aloyisious

StringerBell wrote: »

I agree, the other side is a lost cause. With what went on in the election and the media acting as lapdogs and being another arm of the Republican party and now acting as state tv just broadcasting the propaganda in a self perpetuated feedback loop.

What you would hope is that enough of the swing voters care about.

That last is the all-important thing. The voters will have to get the parties to come up with decent candidates by telling them way in advance they'll walk/stay away from the booths if their demands are not met and when the candidates lists are produced, go to town on the parties at grass-roots level. Shout disgust at each and every pollster they see/meet and scare the bejasus out of the monoliths.

Water John

This is an interesting list of new wave candidates in the Mid Terms. It would certainly change the tone in Washington. Trump would for once be stumped for words and Pence would have a heart attack.
A real way of draining the swamp in both the DNC and GOP. A good shake up. I wish them well.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/19/women-candidates-changing-progressive-opposition-midterms

dr.fuzzenstein

Water John wrote: »

This is an interesting list of new wave candidates in the Mid Terms. It would certainly change the tone in Washington. Trump would for once be stumped for words and Pence would have a heart attack.
A real way of draining the swamp in both the DNC and GOP. A good shake up. I wish them well.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/19/women-candidates-changing-progressive-opposition-midterms

It is a bold move. IMO Trump got elected on a wave of resentment towards political correctness, equality for women and minorities, environmentalism and immigration.
So to field candidates that would be like so many red rags to a bull is bold to say the least.
If this strategy pays off, it would galvanise and spur on his most fervent and rabid supporters and with the climate of division and hatred in the US right now it is difficult to say what could happen.

Igotadose

Water John wrote: »

This is an interesting list of new wave candidates in the Mid Terms. It would certainly change the tone in Washington. Trump would for once be stumped for words and Pence would have a heart attack.
A real way of draining the swamp in both the DNC and GOP. A good shake up. I wish them well.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/19/women-candidates-changing-progressive-opposition-midterms

Still too early to call either way, I think. The CBS News pollster is saying maybe 15% of seats are in play in the house, based on what he learned in the 2016 race. https://deadline.com/2018/08/midterm-elections-blue-wave-looking-doubtful-says-cbs-news-head-pollster-1202448050/

Though, it can change in local elections and change fast. And the voter suppression machine of the GOP is going full bore in many places like this one: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/georgia-voter-suppression-brian-kemps-bid-for-governor-depends-on-erasing-the-black-vote-its-working.html

(note that the Slate article is about the governor's race in GA, but it's a good description of how the GOP goes about voter suppression. And turnout's turnout, so even if its about a governor's race, it'll affect the mid-terms.)

Captain Obvious

The GOP seem to be working hard on voter suppression. They've closed 7 out of 9 polling stations in a majority black area in Georgia. They're playing dirty and this strategy the DNC seem to have adopted to wait for the midterms seems doomed if the GOP can sabotage the actual elections.

Water John

These, what are diverse candidates, is not a strategy by the DNC. These are often being selected despite the Democratic Party structure.

everlast75

Spotted this this morning. The normalisation in advance is in full swing.


Anyone else now doubt that there is a tape?


https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1031118856734089216?s=19

amandstu

everlast75 wrote: »

Spotted this this morning. The normalisation in advance is in full swing.


Anyone else now doubt that there is a tape?


https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1031118856734089216?s=19

Protecting their backs as they think/can't be sure there may be evidence that they also use that word?

That video is absolutely amazing. The interviewer's face really says it all.

PropJoe10

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
The failing @nytimes wrote a Fake piece today implying that because White House Councel Don McGahn was giving hours of testimony to the Special Councel, he must be a John Dean type “RAT.” But I allowed him and all others to testify - I didn’t have to. I have nothing to hide......

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
....and have demanded transparency so that this Rigged and Disgusting Witch Hunt can come to a close. So many lives have been ruined over nothing - McCarthyism at its WORST! Yet Mueller & his gang of Dems refuse to look at the real crimes on the other side - Media is even worse!

@realDonaldTrump
1h1 hour ago
More
No Collusion and No Obstruction, except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats. All of the resignations and corruption, yet heavily conflicted Bob Mueller refuses to even look in that direction. What about the Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Strzok lies to Congress, or Crooked’s Emails!

He's on fire again today. I just really don't get why he doesn't shut the hell up and let it come to a conclusion, seeing as he has "nothing to hide".

pixelburp

There are a lot of folk in America - and beyond - who truly believe the country exists in a post-racial landscape, that because lynch mobs and cross burning is no more the USA is racism free. They'll usually point to Obama as proof positive that America couldn't possibly be racist if they elected a black man (parking of course the near constant hounding about the man's legitimacy, birthplace, religion and appearance of his wife). If nothing else this video might kickstart the conversation that, yes, racism is alive and well, propped up by institutional mental gymnastics on the part of its leaders.

I stopped watching Veep a couple of years back because the value of its satire became somewhat redundant, lessened by a reality as equally asinine, ludicrous but more depressing by dint of it being non-fiction.

BonnieSituation

everlast75 wrote: »

Spotted this this morning. The normalisation in advance is in full swing.


Anyone else now doubt that there is a tape?


https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1031118856734089216?s=19

Before I clicked on that I was all "No way".

Then I see he said this to a black presenter. Good god.

Manic Moran

Water John wrote: »

These, what are diverse candidates, is not a strategy by the DNC. These are often being selected despite the Democratic Party structure.

This is true on both sides of the equation, the Conor Lambs of the Democratic Party (who are on the opposite end of the Democratic spectrum) are no darlings of the DNC either. DNC and the current congressional D leadership seem to be trying to play for both wings of the party, and are winning few. Pelosi and Di Fi have been under fire from their normal supporters in California for not being progressive enough, whilst from Swing state candidates for being too progressive.

The fine details are in the article.
Compare the situations of Tlaib, who "all but assured to become the nation’s first Palestinian-American female representative to Congress", Haaland who is "Running in New Mexico’s heavily Democratic first district", or Ocasio-Cortez who is "in a liberal New York district that will almost certainly send her to Congress."

with those of

David in more conservative Kansas whose "platform is not as radical as many of the other candidates on the list" or Valdez in Texas who "faces extremely long odds in November".

Being 'diverse' is no guarantee of anything much in that list except appeal to the people who don't need to be appealed to in 2018 much.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/594096515/the-wave-of-female-candidates-is-set-for-a-wave-of-losses-come-november

An NPR analysis shows that the influx of women candidates, beyond being heavily Democratic, features a glut of Democratic women running in races currently considered to be easy Republican wins.

Compare this to the (much smaller) group of minority Republican candidates.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/04/politics/diverse-house-republican-candidates-midterms/index.html

Republicans are running candidates who would diversify their mostly white male House caucus. All the candidates are running in districts that Democrat Hillary Clinton won or came close to winning in 2016

Examples cited are a female Korean immigrant in Southern California, female hispanic in Florida, black male in New Jersey.

So with few exceptions, such as Hallquist (who, running against a popular Republican governor, is focusing, correctly, IMHO, her policies on local Vermont issues), it seems that the diverse democrats are where they can afford to be, whilst the diverse Republicans seem to be running where they need to be.

Again, the question is, what's the end game? Are they trying to win swing seats/states or not?

26000 Elephants

pixelburp wrote: »

I look forward to Trumps tweeting about crazy, unhinged McGahn in the morning ....

How can anyone still be in denial about this dysfunctional oaf of a president when his behaviour is so predictable and transparent?







h/t PropJoe10

oscarBravo

pixelburp wrote: »

They'll usually point to Obama as proof positive that America couldn't possibly be racist if they elected a black man...

It's the "one of my best presidents is black" defence. :pac:

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Water John wrote: »

These, what are diverse candidates, is not a strategy by the DNC. These are often being selected despite the Democratic Party structure.

This is true on both sides of the equation, the Conor Lambs of the Democratic Party (who are on the opposite end of the Democratic spectrum) are no darlings of the DNC either. DNC and the current congressional D leadership seem to be trying to play for both wings of the party, and are winning few. Pelosi and Di Fi have been under fire from their normal supporters in California for not being progressive enough, whilst from Swing state candidates for being too progressive.

The fine details are in the article.
Compare the situations of Tlaib, who "all but assured to become the nation’s first Palestinian-American female representative to Congress", Haaland who is "Running in New Mexico’s heavily Democratic first district", or Ocasio-Cortez who is "in a liberal New York district that will almost certainly send her to Congress."

with those of

David in more conservative Kansas whose "platform is not as radical as many of the other candidates on the list" or Valdez in Texas who "faces extremely long odds in November".

Being 'diverse' is no guarantee of anything much in that list except appeal to the people who don't need to be appealed to in 2018 much.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/594096515/the-wave-of-female-candidates-is-set-for-a-wave-of-losses-come-november

An NPR analysis shows that the influx of women candidates, beyond being heavily Democratic, features a glut of Democratic women running in races currently considered to be easy Republican wins.

Compare this to the (much smaller) group of minority Republican candidates.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/04/politics/diverse-house-republican-candidates-midterms/index.html

Republicans are running candidates who would diversify their mostly white male House caucus. All the candidates are running in districts that Democrat Hillary Clinton won or came close to winning in 2016

Examples cited are a female Korean immigrant in Southern California, female hispanic in Florida, black male in New Jersey.

So with few exceptions, such as Hallquist (who, running against a popular Republican governor, is focusing, correctly, IMHO, her policies on local Vermont issues), it seems that the diverse democrats are where they can afford to be, whilst the diverse Republicans seem to be running where they need to be.

Again, the question is, what's the end game? Are they trying to win swing seats/states or not?

These seems to be saying Democrats should not run diverse candidates in areas were Trump won. Why not if they are the best person for the job? Or do you feel that those areas might be predisposed to reject non white male candidates?

Manic Moran

Christy42 wrote: »

These seems to be saying Democrats should not run diverse candidates in areas were Trump won. Why not if they are the best person for the job? Or do you feel that those areas might be predisposed to reject non white male candidates?

A few, if not a good number, may be.

But they are in the articles not because they are the best person for the job, they are in the article because of their diversity. The reverse situation is true on the Republican side. Kim, for example, may or may not be more qualified than a competing white Republican male, but given the district she's running in is 1/3 Asian, it stands to reason she is going to attract more votes from that Asian community simply because she's one of them.

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

Spotted this this morning. The normalisation in advance is in full swing.


Anyone else now doubt that there is a tape?


https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1031118856734089216?s=19

And he covered his ass by the qualification "before he was president" so that if a tape shows up proving Don used the word while president he [the senator] can point out the qualification in his statement.

Don again re his personal lawyer "But I allowed him and all others to testify - I didn’t have to". He actually think's he can overturn the investigation request to others, and maybe even subpoenas to others as well, while there's discussion about him being subpoena'd by the investigation. More disinformation and lies from him.

Thepoet85

everlast75 wrote:

Spotted this this morning. The normalisation in advance is in full swing.

Mother of God, I actually can't believe what I just saw. Have they no shame?

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

These seems to be saying Democrats should not run diverse candidates in areas were Trump won. Why not if they are the best person for the job? Or do you feel that those areas might be predisposed to reject non white male candidates?

A few, if not a good number, may be.

But they are in the articles not because they are the best person for the job, they are in the article because of their diversity. The reverse situation is true on the Republican side. Kim, for example, may or may not be more qualified than a competing white Republican male, but given the district she's running in is 1/3 Asian, it stands to reason she is going to attract more votes from that Asian community simply because she's one of them.

They are in articles because it is unusual to have so many candidates who are not white males. It shows some change is happening. Hence why they felt it was worth reporting on.