Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

duploelabs

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

Problem is what Trump did even a crime? His office has huge powers to conduct foreign policy as he sees fit if the opposition don't like something he says or does then that's fine they can hammer him politically but impeachment is tricky as abuse of power is vague and can mean a lot of things to different people.

If Trump sat on his hole, did nothing but watch TV and eat cheetohs all day, he could be impeached. Although it is said that 'high crimes and misdemeanours' are the keystone to impeachement, what is not a crime in civilian life, could be an impeachible offence.

So if someone says 'no crime occurred', remember the above

listermint

Trump says he want an immediate impeachment trial. From RTE.


Of course he does he doesn't want this dragging into next year all in the minds of voters. His theft his treason his mafia like control over staff.

He'd love it all wrapped up this year gifted to him by a crooked senate .


The democrats are doing a sterling job here. As is evident by the increase in trump traffic here.


Excellent.

Stacksofwacks

listermint wrote: »

Trump says he want an immediate impeachment trial. From RTE.


Of course he does he doesn't want this dragging into next year all in the minds of voters. His theft his treason his mafia like control over staff.

He'd love it all wrapped up this year gifted to him by a crooked senate .


The democrats are doing a sterling job here. As is evident by the increase in trump traffic here.


Excellent.

Best thing democrats can do is is to send it to the senate pronto and get it out of the way soon as possible. Its been a disaster for them and only sitting on it indefinitely prolongs that disaster. Trump is better at controlling the message than they are and will only call them cowards for not having the courage to send it to the senate. Either way its a win-win for him

listermint

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

Best thing democrats can do is is to send it to the senate pronto and get it out of the way soon as possible. Its been a disaster for them and only sitting on it indefinitely prolongs that disaster. Trump is better at controlling the message than they are and will only call them cowards for not having the courage to send it to the senate. Either way its a win-win for him

Thanks for proving my point , excellent work!

Stacksofwacks

listermint wrote: »

Thanks for proving my point , excellent work!

I'm afraid I'm not with you, proved what point exactly?

everlast75

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

Problem is what Trump did even a crime? His office has huge powers to conduct foreign policy as he sees fit if the opposition don't like something he says or does then that's fine they can hammer him politically but impeachment is tricky as abuse of power is vague and can mean a lot of things to different people. Accountability should really come from within his own party if they weren't so subservient they would kick up a stink and force him to step down for his bad behaviour. Leaving the democrats to try and sort the mess out only leaves them being painted as partisan hacks so that isn't getting anywhere either. A terrible situation really.

At this point, I think we should make this a sticky.

everlast75 wrote: »

From Barb McQuade, a fantastic listing of the paltry excuses for Trump's behaviour and the facts that counter them


Defense 1: Trump did nothing wrong.

Response: Trump hit the trifecta of impeachable conduct by subverting an election, seeking foreign influence, and putting personal interest ahead of national interest. And he obstructed Congress by refusing to produce any witnesses or documents


Defense 2. No harm occurred because the military aid went through.

Response: The aid went through only after Trump was caught. In the meantime, months of delay cost Ukraine lives in its war with Russia. US credibility was harmed and moral authority to fight corruption was eroded.


Defense 3: Because aid went through, no misconduct was committed.

Response: Bribery occurs upon demand for a personal favor in exchange for performance of an official act. If you offer a cop $20 to get out of a traffic ticket, even if he declines, you have still committed bribery


Defense 4: Abuse of power is not even a crime.

Response: Impeachable conduct may be criminal conduct, but need not be. A president could be impeached if he watched TV all day and failed to fulfill his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.


Defense 5: There’s nothing wrong with asking for an investigation.

Response: If this were legitimate investigation, you wouldn’t need to send your personal lawyer and his henchmen to do it. Witnesses say Trump didn’t want investigation, just announcement of investigation.


Defense 6: There was no quid pro quo.

Response: Read the transcript! Trump’s request for a “favor” is strong evidence, corroborated by witness testimony, of months-long scheme to get Zelensky to “go to the mic” and announce Biden probe. Aid was leverage.


Defense 7: As VP, Biden held up aid as leverage to get rid of the Ukrainian public prosecutor.

Response: It is appropriate for a president or VP to take action to advance the interests of the nation. Trump was advancing his personal interests.


Defense 8: Teatimony is hearsay.

Response: Rules of Evidence don’t apply. Also, call summary, Sondland testimony are non-hearsay. Trump has barred direct witnesses. You can’t have it both ways. If they had information favorable to Trump, you can bet we would have heard from them.


Defense 9: It happens all the time. Get over it.

Response: Trump sought foreign influence in our election and harmed national security by delaying aid designed to fight Russia, our adversary. We don’t have to accept it. We deserve better.


Defense 10: Impeachment would un-do an election.

Response: All impeachments un-do elections. Constitution permits impeachment if president is unfit to serve. When rigging an election is involved, elections are ineffective for removal. Impeachment is not to punish but to protect.


Defense 11: Impeachment proceedings are moving too fast.

Response: This impeachment has moved slower than Bill Clinton’s and on pace with Richard Nixon’s. For a president who presents a clear and present danger to national security, removal is urgent and can’t come soon enough


Defense 12: We need to hear from the whistleblower.

Response: The whistleblower was a tipster, whose tip led to the investigation. Tipsters do not testify at trial, the witnesses do. We have a duty to protect whistleblowers to encourage them to use proper channels to report abuse

Stacksofwacks

To defence 1, yes it was clearly impeachable offences, hence the house has impeached him. That dosent mean the senate have to convict of course. Obstruction of congress is borderline imo, he has a right to not volunteer information like all defendants accused of something, the democrats could have gone through the courts if they wanted to get that badly enough. Defence 6 is subjective, whilst it sounded like at least an attempted bribe or extortion, its not categorical would need more supporting information(which dems could have gotten) to confirm the intent. It could either be a quid pro quo or Trump talking incoherent nonsense like he often does, looking at the transcript in isolation.

Igotadose

Nice tweet from Wolf Blitzer, an interview he did with Trump in 2008, where Trump castigates Pelosi (politely, after singing her praises), for not impeaching GWB for lying about the Iraq war.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1207375509698596867

marno21

Igotadose wrote: »

Nice tweet from Wolf Blitzer, an interview he did with Trump in 2008, where Trump castigates Pelosi (politely, after singing her praises), for not impeaching GWB for lying about the Iraq war.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1207375509698596867

Look at him there contrasted with today. Able to make a cogent argument and speaking coherently. A lot has changed since clearly with his mental abilities

Stacksofwacks

marno21 wrote: »

Look at him there contrasted with today. Able to make a cogent argument and speaking coherently. A lot has changed since clearly with his mental abilities

It shows that his vocabulary is a lot wider than he lets on, I often see him as President about to use a certain word only or phrase only to pause and use a simpler phrase. Part of his common man act methinks

everlast75

You said the Dems should have called witnesses. It was pointed out to you that they did.

You then ask "what crime" did Trump do.

That was explained to you.

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

To defence 1, yes it was clearly impeachable offences, hence the house has impeached him. That dosent mean the senate have to convict of course. Obstruction of congress is borderline imo, he has a right to not volunteer information like all defendants accused of something,

He is defying lawful congressional subpoenas. That is obstruction, plain and simple.

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

It could either be a quid pro quo or Trump talking incoherent nonsense like he often does, looking at the transcript in isolation.

The guy who contributed 1 million dollars to Trump's campaign (ergo could not be a "Never Trumper") said it was a quid pro quo. Mick Mulvaney, Acting Chief of Staff, appointed by Trump, said it was a quid pro quo. Bolton directed two of his staff to go to the Office of Legal Counsel over Trump's behaviour on that phone call.

Why is it not registering with you what is going on here?

Why are you not saying that the refusal of Trump to hand over documents or allow people to testify logically means he is hiding something.

I would suggest you apply some critical thinking and perhaps you might come to a different conclusion from the one you appear to have now.

seamus

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

It shows that his vocabulary is a lot wider than he lets on, I often see him as President about to use a certain word only or phrase only to pause and use a simpler phrase. Part of his common man act methinks

The fact that he gave a coherent political interview 11 years ago and yesterday gave a long rambling nonsensical speech about dishwashers and toilets, shows that he has significant age-related mental degradation. It's not just a slight touch of it as Reagan was often accused of, he's in the middle of it.

Ignoring everything else, Trump is not healthy enough to do another four years.

Oafley Jones

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

It shows that his vocabulary is a lot wider than he lets on, I often see him as President about to use a certain word only or phrase only to pause and use a simpler phrase. Part of his common man act methinks

That might make sense... if he was training a puppy.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

The fact that he gave a coherent political interview 11 years ago and yesterday gave a long rambling nonsensical speech about dishwashers and toilets, shows that he has significant age-related mental degradation. It's not just a slight touch of it as Reagan was often accused of, he's in the middle of it.

Ignoring everything else, Trump is not healthy enough to do another four years.

Unfortunately neither is Biden. Trump's got more energy though which can mask it a bit more. It's gonna be a long campaign.

aloyisious

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

Obstruction of congress is borderline imo, he has a right to not volunteer information like all defendants accused of something, the democrats could have gone through the courts if they wanted to get that badly enough. Defence 6 is subjective, whilst it sounded like at least an attempted bribe or extortion, its not categorical would need more supporting information(which dems could have gotten) to confirm the intent. It could either be a quid pro quo or Trump talking incoherent nonsense like he often does, looking at the transcript in isolation.

Part of the problem with obtaining those witnesses you believe the Dems could have got to testify is that they would have to be people with relevant information and not just speculation. Don ordered those in his admin with access to relevant information not to comply with the subpoenas issued to them, thus officially denying congress the chance to hear and see what they could provide evidence-wise to congress [Dem and GOP] and those in the senate watching the hearings.

Subpoenas don't require just spoken evidence from witnesses, but an alternative documental type as well. We'll probably never know what those who went along with Don's instructions to obstruct congress could have provided or even whether it would actually have being negative about Don's interactions with Rudy, with Ukraine. Don is clearly under the impression that anything those subpoenaed-witness refusals could have testified to would have damaged his "I did nothing wrong" line. Any other reason for Don to issue his order would have to be pure obstructionist, something clearly against the US constitution.

Those who support Don's attitude to ignoring the subpoenas are ignoring the obvious, that if Don thought the subpoenas were unlawful he has and had the USSC there to argue that the Constitution got it wrong where it came to giving powers to congress to rein in a power-abusive president. Don hasn't sent his AG to the USSC to argue that case.

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/1207788960560406528?s=19

Another possible chink in the armour...

Trump, as usual, is taking this well....


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1207997316424187905?s=20

pixelburp

Criticise Trump and you become the far-left eh? I'm getting great mirth about calling a Christian paper "far left", and you know most of his supporters won't get the lunacy of that comparison either. It's just a kneejerk reaction at this stage, and accidentally authoritarian. A hair trigger against any perceived criticism, I had heard in the boardroom he was equally thus, where a single slight against him put you in the doghouse.

Also, it's petty on my part & I know this, but there's something deeply irritating about Trump's constant insistence on describing his phonecall as "perfect". Who talks like that? How does one conduct a "perfect" phonecall? Were there high fives in the Oval Office once the receiver was put down, a celebration of such telecommunicative perfection?

spacecoyote

Its funny that the man who basically created state-subsidised farming in the US, thanks to his trade wars, can attempt to call anyone a lefty socialist

Gbear

spacecoyote wrote: »

Its funny that the man who basically created state-subsidised farming in the US, thanks to his trade wars, can attempt to call anyone a lefty socialist

Trump and his followers don't really understand the term. You only need to see how a party with no support from Jews, and the lions share of support from neo-nazis and their fellow travelers contrive to other the Nazi party by labeling them as socialists, despite both being on the fascist end of the political spectrum.

It's just tribalist name calling. There's no substance to almost any of their positions, and that includes on socialism.

hotmail.com

Carcharodon wrote: »

I honestly think the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot here, there is no chance he gets impeached, all they have done is riled up his base more and deepened the divide here, they have essentially made his path to a second term a lot easier.
Everyone knows Trump is a piece of crap and Democrats have been waiting anxiously for something to try and impeach him, he has probably broken many laws and he clearly only has self interests at heart but where was the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, a country was bombed to pieces and then rebuilt by the same people, Cheney was so corrupt it fathoms belief

Trump's crimes seem trivial when compared to the Bush and Cheney crimes.

Dems and Republicans hardly ever disagree on bombings.

hotmail.com

spacecoyote wrote: »

Its funny that the man who basically created state-subsidised farming in the US, thanks to his trade wars, can attempt to call anyone a lefty socialist

The Democrats themselves are anti socialist.

Leroy42

hotmail.com wrote: »

Trump's crimes seem trivial when compared to the Bush and Cheney crimes.

Dems and Republicans hardly ever disagree on bombings.

It is not the damage the crime did, it was the purpose.

Bush and Cheney can at least, at some basic level, claim that what they were doing was in the interests of the USA.

Do you think Trump should have been impeached for launching missiles into Syria a few years ago?

The issue with this for Trump is that clearly this is aimed squarely at a political rival and nothing to do with helping the USA, it was all about helping himself.

seamus

pixelburp wrote: »

Criticise Trump and you become the far-left eh? I'm getting great mirth about calling a Christian paper "far left", and you know most of his supporters won't get the lunacy of that comparison either. It's just a kneejerk reaction at this stage, and accidentally authoritarian. A hair trigger against any perceived criticism, I had heard in the boardroom he was equally thus, where a single slight against him put you in the doghouse.

I'm kind of loving his response really.

I'd often lament that the left does eat itself. But this is a rare example of the right eating itself. Two conservative cults attacking eachother for not being conservative enough.

I hope he keeps this one up, he'll shear off a significant proportion of his religious fundies' support who'll see this as attack on evangelicals.

ancapailldorcha

pixelburp wrote: »

Criticise Trump and you become the far-left eh? I'm getting great mirth about calling a Christian paper "far left", and you know most of his supporters won't get the lunacy of that comparison either. It's just a kneejerk reaction at this stage, and accidentally authoritarian. A hair trigger against any perceived criticism, I had heard in the boardroom he was equally thus, where a single slight against him put you in the doghouse.

This is the ultimate destination of extremist identity politics that Trump embodies and utilised so effectively in 2016. Fine when you're in opposition but now that you're in and in power the "Liberal elites" fantasy boogeyman becomes a lot less effective. Unless of course you can do what Fidesz does in Hungary or PiS in Poland do and start rigging the state in your favour but the US seems to have been well constructed in that it effectively constrains would be tyrants. Trump knows his end is coming. Perhaps he wins in 2020 but even if he does, at some point someone is going to break rank for whatever reason.

Billy Graham (well, his magazine) being on the left... I honestly think this might be the stupidest thing he's ever tweeted.

pixelburp wrote: »

Also, it's petty on my part & I know this, but there's something deeply irritating about Trump's constant insistence on describing his phonecall as "perfect". Who talks like that? How does one conduct a "perfect" phonecall? Were there high fives in the Oval Office once the receiver was put down, a celebration of such telecommunicative perfection?

I think he's unwell. Not as in being unfit to wield executive power but as in being dysfunctional as a human being. People who need to constantly validate themselves do not inspire confidence. I think he needs serious mental help but I suppose he's in the one country in the world where peddling a fantasy for long enough and well enough (which he can do) yields big rewards.

pixelburp

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is the ultimate destination of extremist identity politics that Trump embodies and utilised so effectively in 2016. Fine when you're in opposition but now that you're in and in power the "Liberal elites" fantasy boogeyman becomes a lot less effective. Unless of course you can do what Fidesz does in Hungary or PiS in Poland do and start rigging the state in your favour but the US seems to have been well constructed in that it effectively constrains would be tyrants. Trump knows his end is coming. Perhaps he wins in 2020 but even if he does, at some point someone is going to break rank for whatever reason.

Billy Graham (well, his magazine) being on the left... I honestly think this might be the stupidest thing he's ever tweeted.

His acolytes and supporters have been guilty of this sham tactic too; specifically, back in May when Ben Shapiro had a meltdown on-air and accused his interviewer - BBC's Andrew Neil of all people - of being a "lefty" when challenged on a question. I have little time for Neil but the manner in which he handled it was masterful, particularly his parting line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRF3r3zUGqk

Stacksofwacks

everlast75 wrote: »

You said the Dems should have called witnesses. It was pointed out to you that they did.

You then ask "what crime" did Trump do.

That was explained to you.




He is defying lawful congressional subpoenas. That is obstruction, plain and simple.



The guy who contributed 1 million dollars to Trump's campaign (ergo could not be a "Never Trumper") said it was a quid pro quo. Mick Mulvaney, Acting Chief of Staff, appointed by Trump, said it was a quid pro quo. Bolton directed two of his staff to go to the Office of Legal Counsel over Trump's behaviour on that phone call.

Why is it not registering with you what is going on here?

Why are you not saying that the refusal of Trump to hand over documents or allow people to testify logically means he is hiding something.

I would suggest you apply some critical thinking and perhaps you might come to a different conclusion from the one you appear to have now.

Sonland fair enough but its just one guy, Mulvaney making a throwaway comment at press conference hardly constitutes hard evidence, Bolton not on the record is hardly ideal either. Look Im playing devils advocate I don't for a second believe Trump is innocent, Im just trying to get a handle on the Trump defence and why its not compelling enough for the majority of polticians and voters to hound Trump from office.

Water John

Claiming that Trump can impede an investigation by Congress as a defendant is incorrect. The office of Potus is open, by the Constitution to this type of investigation, as part of the checks and balances on its institutions of Govn't. Thus Trump must provide Congress with all the help necessary and without delay to allow them to carry out their Constitutional responsibility.

Paleface

The end is coming for Trump and he knows it. The ever more orange face as evident by the head on him at his recent rally in Michigan alone not to mention his incessant babbling (toilets flushing, dishwashers spraying; pressing concerns for the CIC).

And now finally the Christians are turning on him. Who else is going to be left to support him apart from GOP sheeple who live in constant fear that their own government is a conspiracy? That’s not going to win an election.

26000 Elephants

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

Look Im playing devils advocate I don't for a second believe Trump is innocent,

Ok......

to hound Trump from office.

Oh dear.

aloyisious

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

Sonland fair enough but its just one guy, Mulvaney making a throwaway comment at press conference hardly constitutes hard evidence, Bolton not on the record is hardly ideal either. Look Im playing devils advocate I don't for a second believe Trump is innocent, Im just trying to get a handle on the Trump defence and why its not compelling enough for the majority of polticians and voters to hound Trump from office.

It depends on whether you have cause to ponder Mulvaney's statement at the press conference was a throwaway remark in exasperation, or just an admission forced from his lips by persistent questioning on the actual reality of what could be elicited from President Zelensky by Don with his "request" for a Ukraine investigation into Burisma and the Bidens in return for Don meeting him in the Oval Office.

Your second question on the Trump defence, as a two-parter: McConnell & Co tied themselves hand and foot to him in 2015 as their nominee for 2016 [and now again for 2020] and for it to dump him now could end up with a revolt against McConnell & the GOP seniors by the voters in next years senate elections, who are a different kettle of fish as they believe in him, what he and what he says. If the electorate, as distinct from the GOP, turn him out of office, it wont be hounding him out, it will be the vote by the people who elected him into office by free will, which he agrees to by putting himself as a candidate for public office.

Quite seriously, the odds of McConnell & the GOP seniors thinking the sun shines out of Don's you know where is slim, they just have to follow his star till it burns out.






,