Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

aloyisious · 09-10-2019 12:26am

It seems the White House has issued a statement that it sees the impeachment inquiry committee hearings as unconstitutional. If it holds with that opinion, the choice is obvious: go to the USSC to seek a redress against the hearing being held. If it doesn't or fails to get verbal support from it's Senate GOP supporters over the statement, then it'll be a withdrawal by default, more of Don's distraction tactics, as it's issued in respect of him being President.

Edit. According to CNN, the GOP members of the Senate were "blindsided" by the White House statement that it would not co-operate with the committees holding the hearing in the House and requested that they be advised in advance by the White House of its plans.

aloyisious · 09-10-2019 12:32am

Water John wrote: »

What happens when the Turks invade North Syria, which may be happening already, and the GOP conservatives are very upset?

If no one else from outside Syria acts on the ground and let Don off the hook, it'll be up to the loyal GOP Americans in the senate to stand up for America's foreign interests and tell Don to get his **** in order. It'll be interesting to see if there are any quotes in the US media on the topic from recently retired top generals which do not agree with Don's assessment of military moves on the ground in Syria by it's neighbouring countries.

Russia will probably take its own steps to help its ally Assad in Syria unless Turkey has an accord with both that its actions will not be attacked by anti-armour rocket-fire from either party. I cant see Don risking US military involvement on the ground now given his statements. However his allies in the Senate were apparently as blindsided by his intent to pull out of the Syrian quarter which Turkey coincidentally intends to invade and have told him they want better co-ordination with him in Washington.

Outlaw Pete · 09-10-2019 3:11am

Great news re the Durham-Barr investigation of the investigators:

John Durham broadens scope of Russia origins inquiry

The federal prosecutor running the Justice Department's review of the origins of the Russia investigation has expanded the inquiry that critics have panned as an effort to discredit special counsel Robert Mueller's work.

The investigation of the investigators, led by Attorney General William Barr and Durham as his right-hand man, had targeted the beginning of the Trump-Russia counterintelligence investigation to the 2016 election. It has been elongated to include at least the spring of 2017, when former FBI Director Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel after former FBI Director James Comey was fired by Trump and leaked the contents of some of his memos to the media.

Barr testified to the Senate in April he believed “spying did occur” against the Trump campaign and said while he wasn’t “suggesting it wasn't adequately predicated,” it was his obligation to explore it. Barr promised he would “be reviewing both the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities” during the 2016 election, and Trump gave him “full and complete authority to declassify information pertaining to this investigation” the following month. Barr selected Durham lead the effort soon after.

Full article here.

Should mean that quite soon we get some real answers about what appears to have been an abhorrent level of corruption during the 2016 presidential election campaign by not just members of the Department of Justice, but also perhaps even members of the Obama administration itself. Seems to me some very powerful people went to great lengths to try and ensure that Donald Trump did not become president and after their efforts failed, they carried on and tried to do whatever they could to try and oust him from office from within. A coup of sorts I guess some might call it. If so, I certainly hope AG Barr and John Durham get to the bottom of it all.

FrostyJack · 09-10-2019 6:15am

Outlaw Pete wrote:

Should mean that quite soon we get some real answers about what appears to have been an abhorrent level of corruption during the 2016 presidential election campaign by not just members of the Department of Justice, but also perhaps even members of the Obama administration itself. Seems to me some very powerful people went to great lengths to try and ensure that Donald Trump did not become president and after their efforts failed, they carried on and tried to do whatever they could to try and oust him from office from within. A coup of sorts I guess some might call it. If so, I certainly hope AG Barr and John Durham get to the bottom of it all.

3 years later and not a shred of evidence been produced only Trump loyalists pushing conspiracies. Straw clutching, even if they did prove there was a conspiracy it doesn't discount all the crimes uncovered by the investigation. What is your opinion on Trump blocking the impeachment enquiry? Another proven case of obstruction of justice. I suppose Obama forced him to do it and something about Hillary's emails.

everlast75 · 09-10-2019 7:09am

FrostyJack wrote: »

3 years later and not a shred of evidence been produced only Trump loyalists pushing conspiracies. Straw clutching, even if they did prove there was a conspiracy it doesn't discount all the crimes uncovered by the investigation. What is your opinion on Trump blocking the impeachment enquiry? Another proven case of obstruction of justice. I suppose Obama forced him to do it and something about Hillary's emails.

Remember when Obama "wiretapped" him and it turned out to be complete bullsh1t?

Given that
1) Trump has made very clear what conclusion he wants the investigator to reach, and
2) he has fired everyone who displeases him it will be very hard for the investigator to be impartial. Add to that,
3) Trump's willingness to believe whatever he wants to believe, despite facts
4) how we know foreign countries will do what they have to do to ingratiate themselves.

The odds are stacked against a clean report, despite the well established facts.

It would be interesting to know if Trump supporters will accept the "findings", regardless of what they are.

Isn't it funny how Trump is only investigating this now, in the run up on the election?

everlast75 · 09-10-2019 7:13am

https://twitter.com/timkmak/status/1181613496536051717?s=19

So, the Senate Intelligence Committee also finds that Russia interfered in the election.

Another inconvenient truth for Trump and his supporters to ignore/slate as being biased...

blackwave · 09-10-2019 8:36am

Seems like Turkey and Russia are already moving in on the Kurds. Trump has caused a humanitarian crisis with this move and security issues as well with Isis prisoners also breaking free from Kurd detainments. History will not remember him kindly for this.

https://twitter.com/IgnatiusPost/status/1181724204233904128?s=09

Leroy42 · 09-10-2019 8:45am

blackwave wrote: »

Seems like Turkey and Russia are already moving in on the Kurds. Trump has caused a humanitarian crisis with this move and security issues as well with Isis prisoners also breaking free from Kurd detainments. History will not remember him kindly for this.

https://twitter.com/IgnatiusPost/status/1181724204233904128?s=09

And when they flee to Europe and Europe asks the US to take it share the US will say it has nothing at all to do with them!

FreudianSlippers · 09-10-2019 8:56am

aloyisious wrote: »

It seems the White House has issued a statement that it sees the impeachment inquiry committee hearings as unconstitutional. If it holds with that opinion, the choice is obvious: go to the USSC to seek a redress against the hearing being held. If it doesn't or fails to get verbal support from it's Senate GOP supporters over the statement, then it'll be a withdrawal by default, more of Don's distraction tactics, as it's issued in respect of him being President.

Edit. According to CNN, the GOP members of the Senate were "blindsided" by the White House statement that it would not co-operate with the committees holding the hearing in the House and requested that they be advised in advance by the White House of its plans.

The entire 8-page letter is legally nonsense and is grounded in no sense of reality or what the Constitution even remotely says.

pixelburp · 09-10-2019 8:57am

Leroy42 wrote: »

And when they flee to Europe and Europe asks the US to take it share the US will say it has nothing at all to do with them!

This is hugely relevant, and worth hammering home to those who might be glib & snarky about how the world "keeps turning" despite Trump. His actions DO affect us, and given the EU has a significant migrant problem in the Med., destabilising countries and regions like in Syria, will cause even more numbers to seek out the EU. Ditto climate change to be honest and the increasing destabilised planet will force folks to see more temperate climates, but that's a different story.

Maybe that's the point, maybe there's some Steve Bannon long game here to sour internal EU society & turn demographics against (mostly Muslim) migrants, but in reality this is just another unilateral decision by the US, spearheaded by a colossally ignorant man who causes governments to panic and clarify his fantasies.

Quin_Dub · 09-10-2019 9:53am

Overheal wrote: »

Turkey rejects Trump’s twitter threats about obliterating Turkey’s economy and says military strikes against US-allied Kurds are imminent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/turkey-rejectstrumps-threats-amid-conflicting-us-signals-over-syria-offensive/2019/10/08/a86d3096-e93a-11e9-a329-7378fbfa1b63_story.html

Why is he so interested in political suicide?

check_six wrote: »

I'd be wondering if he understands the implications of his actions at all. He's been prodded to take a particular policy position, but he doesn't have any interest in or understanding of the probable outcome. He's never had to face any consequences for his actions before so he pays it no mind. I'd doubt that he would link any previous action of his own to a bad outcome for himself. His mind will not countenance or recognise personal failure. He can't even process the idea.

He has repeatedly shown himself to be utterly incapable of seeing the implications of decisions he makes beyond the facile initial decision.

So , in the current example with the Kurds he sees a simple action - Removing US Troops from Syria.

So , Erdogan says "Take your troops out of North Syria , we've got this" and Trump thinks that's a good thing and in utter isolation it possibly is - What could be wrong about taking troops out of a combat zone and bringing them home to their families etc.? He promised to bring the troops home so Hurrah, job done.

The problem is that he doesn't see anything other than that simple "win" for him.

He is neither capable nor interested in investing time into thinking things through, he doesn't listen to advisors or experts of any kind.

He goes with his 1st thought all the time and for him , that tends to be wrong more often than not.

In his former life when he did that , he just lost money (repeatedly) or went bankrupt.

Now however when he does it , people die.

26000 Elephants · 09-10-2019 9:59am

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Great news re the Durham-Barr investigation of the investigators:

Good grief, is that it? Trumps idiotic foreign policy is creating a humanitarian crisis on the Syrian border, and you are back in 2016? Quoting the bloody Washington 'examiner'?

That horse is long dead, yet you waste your time looking for a new whip.

everlast75 · 09-10-2019 10:17am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The entire 8-page letter is legally nonsense and is grounded in no sense of reality or what the Constitution even remotely says.

So his argument goes....

The president cannot be indicted, because of the OLC memo.

The President cannot even be criminally investigated, because he cannot be indicted, because of the OLC memo.

The President cannot be impeached.

26000 Elephants · 09-10-2019 10:25am

everlast75 wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The entire 8-page letter is legally nonsense and is grounded in no sense of reality or what the Constitution even remotely says.

So his argument goes....

The president cannot be indicted, because of the OLC memo.

The President cannot even be criminally investigated, because he cannot be indicted, because of the OLC memo.

The President cannot be impeached.

Its just buying time. As we saw with the cases in Manhatten where the judge rounded on their notion of Trump being above the law, the whole process has taken months. They have immediately bounced it into the appeal court, where they will thread water for another few months.

He will face justice eventually, and will go to jail for the rest of his life, but for now it's simply a matter of how much damage he can cause before this happens.

ancapailldorcha · 09-10-2019 10:30am

pixelburp wrote: »

This is hugely relevant, and worth hammering home to those who might be glib & snarky about how the world "keeps turning" despite Trump. His actions DO affect us, and given the EU has a significant migrant problem in the Med., destabilising countries and regions like in Syria, will cause even more numbers to seek out the EU. Ditto climate change to be honest and the increasing destabilised planet will force folks to see more temperate climates, but that's a different story.

Maybe that's the point, maybe there's some Steve Bannon long game here to sour internal EU society & turn demographics against (mostly Muslim) migrants, but in reality this is just another unilateral decision by the US, spearheaded by a colossally ignorant man who causes governments to panic and clarify his fantasies.

It's a weird one alright. People who say that they are against large scale migration to Europe from the Middle East and Africa are also enthusiastic deniers of climate change and seem to be in favour of things like this which will trigger more migration.

I don't know if it's an aversion to long term thinking or just a desire to keep the source of anger that migration provides in place but either way it makes no logical sense.

09-10-2019 10:59am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a weird one alright. People who say that they are against large scale migration to Europe from the Middle East and Africa are also enthusiastic deniers of climate change and seem to be in favour of things like this which will trigger more migration.

I am? I didn't realise.

mad muffin · 09-10-2019 11:00am

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Great news re the Durham-Barr investigation of the investigators:

Full article here.

Should mean that quite soon we get some real answers about what appears to have been an abhorrent level of corruption during the 2016 presidential election campaign by not just members of the Department of Justice, but also perhaps even members of the Obama administration itself. Seems to me some very powerful people went to great lengths to try and ensure that Donald Trump did not become president and after their efforts failed, they carried on and tried to do whatever they could to try and oust him from office from within. A coup of sorts I guess some might call it. If so, I certainly hope AG Barr and John Durham get to the bottom of it all.

Yep. Mueller is now in hot water too. For lying about interviewing for the FBI job. We also have Rosenstein’s texts/emails about it.

Clapper also the other night dropped Obama in it on CNN.

”What the then Commander in Chief, President Obama, told us to do.

Which was to assemble all reporting that we could, that we had available to us… and put it in one report.

It’s a little disconcerting now, to be investigated for… you know, having done our duty, and done what we were told to do by the President.”

Like I said. The truth will out.

aloyisious · 09-10-2019 11:09am

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Great news re the Durham-Barr investigation of the investigators:

Full article here.

Should mean that quite soon we get some real answers about what appears to have been an abhorrent level of corruption during the 2016 presidential election campaign by not just members of the Department of Justice, but also perhaps even members of the Obama administration itself. Seems to me some very powerful people went to great lengths to try and ensure that Donald Trump did not become president and after their efforts failed, they carried on and tried to do whatever they could to try and oust him from office from within. A coup of sorts I guess some might call it. If so, I certainly hope AG Barr and John Durham get to the bottom of it all.

Do you think the list of very powerful people may include members of the present GOP Senate list?

ancapailldorcha · 09-10-2019 11:15am

Deleted User wrote: »

I am? I didn't realise.

Speaking generally based on comments I see on this site and elsewhere. I do not assiduously follow this thread so wasn't alluding to anyone in particular.

everlast75 · 09-10-2019 11:25am

mad muffin wrote: »

Like I said. The truth will out.

The question will be whether you recognise it when you see it.

duploelabs · 09-10-2019 11:28am

everlast75 wrote: »

The question will be whether you recognise it when you see it.

The truth will out, if it's the truth that they (and the orange one) wants

everlast75 · 09-10-2019 11:41am

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It has been elongated to include at least the spring of 2017, when former FBI Director Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel after former FBI Director James Comey was fired by Trump and leaked the contents of some of his memos to the media.

And why was Comey fired? Care to consider that for one bloody moment? Why don't you check out the Lester Holt video.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Barr testified to the Senate in April he believed “spying did occur” against the Trump campaign and said while he wasn’t “suggesting it wasn't adequately predicated,” it was his obligation to explore it.

Barr also said that the Mueller report completely exonerated the president, that there was no obstruction. That was a lie, wasn't it Pete?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

A coup of sorts I guess some might call it.

Yep - and we know who call it a coup. Those who are all in with Trump and too deep or stubborn to admit they bought a pup.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

they carried on and tried to do whatever they could to try and oust him from office from within

Regarding these investigations, according to you and Barr - the Mueller report exonerated him, so why are you still obsessed with disproving something that proves he is innocent? That makes no sense!

In case you missed it - Trump is currently being impeached for the phone call to the Ukraine President. That is what he is being pursued for. Did the "Deep State" make him do it? Oh, wait - wasn't it Rick Perry made him do it?

Trump is an utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt "business man" and he has carried that behaviour over into the White House. Shock horror - he is being held to account for such behaviour. How dare they!?

Your defence of this clown grows more desperate and obscure as the weeks and months go by. Seriously..

Igotadose · 09-10-2019 11:48am

In related news, Slate details the Trump/Erdogan collusion timeline. Abandoning the Kurds is just part of it, remember Michael Flynn? Well, when the outgoing administration wanted to approve arms sales to Kurds for their assistance with ISIS in 2016, they consulted Trump's NatSec nominee (prior to the inauguration.) Flynn nixed the deal - he'd already been paid like $600,000 by Turkey as a lobbyist.
But, Trump's been pals with Erdogan for awhile. Trump wanted to expel Fethuleh Gullen, who Erdogan wants eliminated as well. Up to his elbows in collusion here, as well as Ukraine, is the wise one.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/trump-colluding-turkey-erdogan-kurds-syria.html

Overheal · 09-10-2019 12:29pm

Don’t forget Trump owns property in Istanbul

Water John · 09-10-2019 12:34pm

The Barr investigation I would rate as equivalent to the Committee looking into the 3 Million fraud voters, in Trump's mind.

In real news Turkey are making moves on the Kurds with the blessing of Trump.
This will be a genocide blood on Trump's hands.

everlast75 · 09-10-2019 1:33pm

For those with their heads spinning with all the litigation, i follow a twitter handle @blakesmustache. He had the following series of tweets. There is a handle called @threadreaderapp which will print them out in text and provide a link - handy!
Anyway, here is what he had to say about the multiple cases;

Thread: It’s time to discuss SCOTUS

Since April, House Dems have been fighting in court to get documents and witness testimony related to their impeachment inquiry. Those court cases—and NY’s criminal case—are on a collision course with SCOTUS.

Let’s take a look at the issues.
Preliminary Note 1: House Dems do not technically need more evidence to impeach Trump. They have all they need to impeach him now for disloyalty in asking Ukraine for election interference. But House Dems want an ironclad case and, for that, they need more evidence from SCOTUS.
Preliminary Note 2: Trump has only appointed two of nine SCOTUS Justices. In many cases, Trump has no plausible legal argument and no real hope of victory. In those cases, his only goal is/was delay. Trump’s legal team knows they will lose those cases at SCOTUS.

Cases 1 and 2: Mazars and Deutsche Bank

These cases began in April with subpoenas served on Trump’s accountants (Mazars) and bankers (Deutsche Bank), asking for Trump’s tax/financial records. Mazars ended up in federal appellate court in DC and the DB case is in the 2nd Circuit.
Mazars/Deutsche Bank were filed before the impeachment inquiry was launched and both hinge on the same legal issue:

Does the House Intelligence Committee have a valid legislative purpose in determining whether Trump is compromised by money laundering for foreign nationals?
If the answer to that question is “yes” (and it clearly is) then House Dems will win. Their subpoenas were broad and might be narrowed some to exclude things that aren’t related to money laundering, but they will win. Trump has no legal argument here and is only hoping for delay.

Mazars was argued to the appellate court on 7/12 and Deutsche Bank was argued on 8/23. Both cases should be decided any day now. Trump will appeal both cases to SCOTUS. The legal issues are so clear here that SCOTUS may well deny cert (not take the cases).
If you think SCOTUS is out to help Trump, the worst you should expect is for them to take the cases and sit on them or send them back to the lower courts to clarify issues in order to manufacture more delay for Trump. That seems highly unlikely to me, but it’s not impossible.

Case 3: Manhattan DA’s Grand Jury Subpoena to Mazars

NY is trying to get Trump’s tax returns as part of a criminal case against him, his family, and his companies in NY. They have Cohen as a cooperating witness and they sent a subpoena to Mazars for Trump’s tax records.
Trump got the case kicked to federal court to resolve whether the Constitution makes Trump immune from investigation by NY. The Disctrict Court annihilated Trump’s legal arguments a few days ago and the case is already scheduled for oral argument in appellate court on 10/23.
This is another case Trump *knows* he can’t win. Even if it’s true that Trump can’t be indicted by NY, that doesn’t mean he can’t be investigated. If he were immune from investigation, that would allow the case to go cold while he’s in office and would shield his co-conspirators.
Appellate court will order Mazars to comply with the subpoena, probably by December. Trump will appeal to SCOTUS. Again, this case is so clearly impossible for Trump to win that SCOTUS *should* deny cert. Worst case, they take the case and give Trump the delay he wants.

Case 4: The Mueller Grand Jury Materials

House Dems filed this case in July *after* officially opening its impeachment inquiry. The issue here is whether the House has a right to see Mueller’s grand jury materials in the context of an impeachment inquiry. Um...duh, they do.
This case was argued in DC District Court before the Chief Judge on 10/8 (yesterday). Trump had two main arguments: (1) the House isn’t *really* in an impeachment inquiry and (2) grand jury materials are only available in *judicial* proceedings (not in an impeachment proceeding).
These arguments didn’t go over well with the judge. She’s going to rule against Trump and send the case to appellate court within weeks, where Trump also will quickly lose. Trump should be appealing this case to SCOTUS by January.

Look, this case is a slam dunk. SCOTUS is *NOT* going to say that Congress can’t see a Special Counsel’s grand jury materials in the context of an impeachment inquiry. They may allow some things to be redacted from what DOJ is ordered to turn over, but even that’s doubtful.

Case 5: The Tax Return Case

House Dems issued a subpoena to Treasury and filed a case to enforce the subpoena over the summer. This case landed in the lap of a Trump appointee and is a poster child for court-manufactured delay.

The tax return case is on a slow boat to nowhere. Trump has no legit legal defense, but hit the crackpot jackpot when the case was assigned. This case may not make it to SCOTUS until March unless House Dems file a writ of mandamus to speed it up, which I expect to happen.
These first five cases are all ones that Trump *knows* he will lose. He is *only* fighting for delay in these cases. There is *zero* chance that SCOTUS rules in Trump’s favor in *any* of these cases. If they did, they’d immediately lose all credibility and all legitimacy.
There is no way on Earth that John Roberts flushes the Supreme Court’s legitimacy down the toilet to protect Trump from any of these five cases. Trump already has the Senate on his side. Even if Roberts wanted Trump to skate, he’d consider that the Senate’s job, not his.

Case 6: The McGahn Case (Witness Testimony)

OK, this one is hairy. It’s going to take time to sort it out in the lower courts and there’s no telling what SCOTUS will do with it when it gets to them. So, if you want to wring your hands about SCOTUS, this is the one to do it on.
I’m not going to try to go through all the contours of the law of Executive Privilege or Trump’s claim of “Absolute Immunity.” Suffice it to say that the issues are complicated. Which is why House Dems have been methodically building their case and trapping witnesses into giving them the strongest case possible. For example, Lewandowski (and Hicks) helped the case tremendously.

I’m not making any predictions on when or how SCOTUS will rule on the McGahn case, but I think the timing is telling. House Dems know this won’t be sorted until March/April at the earliest, so they clearly seem to expect that their impeachment inquiry may go on for a while.

The witness testimony issue may get to SCOTUS faster if a key Ukraine witness refuses to testify and is held in contempt. A case like that could get to SCOTUS on a writ of mandamus within weeks. If you’re looking for fireworks at SCOTUS, this is the case for you!

peddlelies · 09-10-2019 2:10pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a weird one alright. People who say that they are against large scale migration to Europe from the Middle East and Africa are also enthusiastic deniers of climate change and seem to be in favour of things like this which will trigger more migration.

I don't know if it's an aversion to long term thinking or just a desire to keep the source of anger that migration provides in place but either way it makes no logical sense.

It's very easy to disingenuously twist two arguments together to try and dispel those singular opposing views as having no logical sense.

The biggest campaigners for human rights have no problem with large scale migration from the Middle East and Africa, countries where human and especially Women's rights are borderline existent. Here's another - The millions of women rights marchers in the US were led by Linda Sarsour, a know anti-semite and advocate for Sharia Law. It makes no logical sense!

Like I said, totally disingenuous argument but incredibly easy to pat yourself on the back and try to come off sounding clever.

Water John · 09-10-2019 2:29pm

Turks and Syrian forces have began attacking the PKK.

Professor Moriarty · 09-10-2019 2:43pm

Water John wrote: »

Turks and Syrian forces have began attacking the PKK.

Kurds stabbed in the back yet again. There will be grim footage across the media and that footage will be Trump's fault

weisses · 09-10-2019 3:21pm

peddlelies wrote: »

It's very easy to disingenuously twist two arguments together to try and dispel those singular opposing views as having no logical sense.

The biggest campaigners for human rights have no problem with large scale migration from the Middle East and Africa, countries where human and especially Women's rights are borderline existent. Here's another - The millions of women rights marchers in the US were led by Linda Sarsour, a know anti-semite and advocate for Sharia Law. It makes no logical sense!

Like I said, totally disingenuous argument but incredibly easy to pat yourself on the back and try to come off sounding clever.

yes ...what was stated was that

either way it makes no logical sense.

You are both right

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Comments