Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Flaneur OBrien

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122064535#Comment_122064535

It's what happens when you choose a third of the people trying you. Corrupt as anything.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122064535#Comment_122064535

There is an argument to be made that certain "official" acts as President should have immunity clearly defined in law.

A President taking actions approved by the House/Senate should not be subject to personal litigation as a result for example.

But, in deciding that some acts by the President provide immunity from prosecution it gives Trump the "win" he wanted as it would mean that that list of those acts would need to be codified and documented in law. For Trump they would need to go to court and present arguments as to whether each thing that Trump is accused of is an "Official act" or not and with Trump appealing each decision it could literally take years to get the requisite clarity.

This is yet another example of those "unwritten but clearly understood" behaviours that have never been an issue before but now when faced with an utterly amoral self serving narcissist they are not fit for purpose to control him.

The failure of a Constitution written by "gentlemen" who assumed that honourable "gentlemanly" behaviour was always going to be a given and therefore didn't need to be explicitly codified.

aloyisious

One should, if one is an opponent of Trump, take note of his legal defence teams argument, on his behalf, of immunity and their apparent inclusion [as one of the immunity argument grounds] of assassination of a political rival being a legitimate action for a US president. I'm supposing they actually meant a foreign rival, not a US rival. Bumping off a foreign head of state is supposedly a "NO NO" action for a US president as it would be creating a precedent would could rebound on the initiator. The snag is in what one could see to be a rival, say DeSantis or one of the other 15 GOP candidates who ran against Trump, let alone the one chosen by the Democrats.

Trump does pick arguments with others at the drop of a hat so it could be reasonable for some-one who was a target of Trumps anger and media focus to have cause for concern should Trump be re-elected. One does not have to be a politician, as judges, lawyers and media hosts have gotten up Trumps nose since 2016. Trumps view of what can legally be seen as a legitimate official action worthy of presidential immunity must not be the measure by which those on the SCOTUS bench decide on the issue of PRESIDENTIAL immunity for all. To go down that road would rightly lay them open to ridicule.

eire4

Not sure how many people realize just how dangerous this case is. The US has been lurching further to the right for some time now but is still at least a partial democracy. This case could really accelerate the push towards outright authoritarianism in the US and that is a scary thought for not just Americans but for us all IMHO.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122068009#Comment_122068009

I'd be thinking of extremism on both ends of politics there, with a lot of ordinary thinkers in between keeping the gap in between wide. Freedom of expression is being used to damage the boundaries between common sense speech and waffle.

eire4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122069571#Comment_122069571

The authoritarian supporting right in the US is quite a large minority including making up a large chunk of the Republican party. The left in the US is minimal in size. It always cracks me up when I hear people in the US talking about left v right and socialism etc. The US is very much a right wing country in general. The Democratic Party itself is economically very much a center right party. There is no its 2 sides of the same coin or right v left as if its close its simply not.

Good loser

Because of their experiences with 'socialism' in middle and south America, especially Cuba and Venezuela, most Latinos hate that creed.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122071747#Comment_122071747

So the Trump statements about the Democrats and Biden being socialist etc etc are just "politics as usual" and not his actual personal belief.

Would that also apply to what seems to be the extreme section of the party politic on Trumps side of the house, as exampled by Marjorie, just playing politics as usual or do they have a different handbook of beliefs which Trump himself doesn't believe in?

eire4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122076196#Comment_122076196

I don't think comrade Trump has any actual " core beliefs" other then me me me. His behaviour in general does come over though as very much a demagogue and wannabe dictator.

Certainly the utterly risible jibe that Biden and Democrats in general are socialists is completely politics given Biden and the Democrats party are very much a center right party economically with only a small actual center left faction.

The Republican party however has a very large group of far right authoritarian leaning politicians. They are not a small minority of the Republican party. In fact when you look at how far right the Republican party is these days it is far to say it is no longer a party that believes in democracy even the limited form of Democracy they have in the US.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122078824#Comment_122078824

I have to admit that at times I liked one thing about Trump and that was his intent to keep his country out of foreign wars, while he was not president. However, when one is in the job, one has to look at things from a different perspective, as the CIC job needs it. He hadn't and hasn't got the bottle to do the job.

Trump's asking for direct assistance from Putin to win the election should have, IMO, put him outside the trust of the US voter across the board. It showed how venial he was and is, and also how scared he was and is of people who don't give him total loyalty.

The content of his speeches alone should have put minds into thinking gear, seeing as he made it clear how he was trying to steer people toward illegal actions while attempting to get "plausible deniability" into the background as a fallback. His mention about personally shooting people and not losing the voter is one classical example. It put that notion into other peoples minds with an inevitable result. He followed that up when he lost the election with his use of the "WE" when he spoke to the people at his peaceful protest event in Washington telling them he would walk with them to the Capitol before he left them for the White House. I don't know how much he learned of people-psychology while running TV game shows but he certainly knows what buttons to push when it comes to people control.

The excuses being rolled out on his behalf now that he doesn't actually mean what he said and says, that it was all about getting out the vote for him and should not have been taken verbatim as a call to action by US citizens from his fanbase is pitiful. He knew exactly what effect his speeches would have across the US and it was what he intended to happen. His legal team are using a variation of his "plausible deniability" excuse for his illegal actions with SCOTUS, asking it to rule that he had presidential immunity when he committed the criminal acts he's accused of to ensure he stayed in office.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122080445#Comment_122080445

But his plan for "keeping the US out of Foreign wars" was simply to allow the aggressors to do what they wanted without any fear of sanction or reprisal.

Listen to him now -

"Israel , just hurry up and finish the job , it looks bad that it's taking this long"

"Ukraine - Just give up and let Putin have what he wants , I mean you guys are all kinda Russian right??"

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122080844#Comment_122080844

Yeah. His "plan" seems to be "I don't really care" and "Somebody else can sort this out later".

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122080844#Comment_122080844

Yes. That is his mindset, while damning Biden into the bargain. Trump is always right, everyone else is wrong if they have an opinion or plan of their own [and that includes his Republican "allies"]. For him, it's the cheaper option and that has always been his modus operandi. It's why he wants the US out of NATO. He wants to avoid anything which will force him to bite the bullet, where he can no longer browbeat the opponent.

Israeli Govt operations are partly of his own making, quite literally, due to his moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, giving Netanyahu a clear signal that he was behind the Israeli Govt fronted by Netanyahu back then all the way. The situation there is a cleft stick situation for him now and may affect the vote at home for him. He's not the president so he can rabbit on with people on his staff prepared to say he should not be taken literally.

The excusers include Mitch McConnell who has said he will vote for Trump in the election while saying that Trump cannot be given presidential immunity for his Capitol criminality, and Barr saying he heard Trump was walking around in the White House talking about having his opponents executed, but that it was OK, it was only Trump talking [while president].

AMKC

IN Town today lol,

Flaneur OBrien

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122086338#Comment_122086338

Has anyone seen a certain "both sides" poster recently?

ancapailldorcha

I'm not sure if it is normal for former presidents to speak out but this is excellent from President Obama:

https://twitter.com/smaloney924/status/1771985644509651420

He goes through very elegantly his view of the role of POTUS, why it matters, and why Trump is utterly unfit for office.

Brian?

monthly reminder- if the election was held today Trump wins at a canter. The polls are shocking for Biden. Check 538

aloyisious

Putting it simply, Trump playing the victim-card is paying off for him. The fact that those who listen to him knowing at the same time that he is a liar through and through is stupefying; he has polarized politics between the base of both main parties in the US and made the GOP into a colander. The number of politicians in it following his example on how to get ahead in politics are legion. I'm no longer sure the GOP has any-one within its ranks who can burst his bubble and make him disappear as he deserves. As for the polls, I don't know if they can be trusted as the medium they rely on, the public; seem to be getting more polarized day by day. SCOTUS is a class example of how the wisest and soundest the US is supposed to rely on has allowed itself to be suborned and owned by him. God-damn the pusher-man.

aloyisious

Trumps defence team are asking Judge Cannon to throw out the classified documents case charges brought under the espionage act against him on the basis that Dr Birx and Mike Pence were not being prosecuted after they were found to have classified documents in their possession after they left office. His legal team claim he is being selectively and vindictively prosecuted and that Dr Birx was not even investigated by the special prosecutor. Clutching at straws comes to mind BUT it remains to be seen what Judge Canons response to Trumps request will be.

duploelabs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122093720#Comment_122093720

Those people weren't evasible and hid the documents when a search was implimented, trump did. That's the difference

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122093976#Comment_122093976

Exactly - The Crime isn't "having the documents" , the crime is "Not giving them back" and "Lying about having them and hiding them from investigators".

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122093976#Comment_122093976

Oh yes. I'm sure Trump and those people he uses to represent him on legal issues are well aware of how evasion can be a criminal offence in the U.S.

aloyisious

A RNC Lawyer, Charlie Spies, has resigned as chief counsel to the RNC just two months after being appointed to the job after the RNC was taken over by Trump loyalists. Reports indicate that senior Trump people in the RNC had gotten Trump's approval of the hiring but he later became aware that Mr Spies had criticized his claims that the last election was stolen from him. Mr Spies went to the RNC Chief of Staff Chris LaCivita about potential time and work commitments conflicts and it was decided he would part company with the RNC. One of the positions Mr Spies held in the past was as counsel to the chairman of the Federal Election Commission.

aloyisious

Going back to the Capitol Hill event day in 2021, there were claims published in the media last week by members of the GOP sitting on a congress committee that it was alleged in witness testimony that Trump had actually requested and given the go-ahead for the activation of National Guard Pers to support the civil police in Washington on the 06 Jan but that General-rank members of the Army and the Guard had taken steps to prevent this from happening, specifically by blocking the advance of paperwork needed for activation. Allegedly some witnesses appearing before the committee had testified to that effect. I understood from what the GOP people were claiming that they were unhappy with the army and guard generals alleged actions and were intent on following up on it.

I don't know the why's and where-for's for any such alleged actions on the day concerned or if the claims are mere disinformation from the GOP members but it was clear in the immediate aftermath of Trumps presidency that there was considerable discord and distrust between him and several senior ranking generals, not least of whom was General Milley, who might have had suspicions as to what Trump would try to have the Guard members deployed to do in aid of the civil power.

Looking at Trumps actions and use of Federal Agency Pers on the ground in Washington during his presidency, I would think at least one general might have had understandable reservations in putting uniformed boots on the ground - when there was a person with Trumps ability to misuse authority in a hands-on manner - while Trump was venting his personal upset at the people from both parties inside the Capitol building.

If I was one of the serving officers, I wouldn't have much hope of a career moving forward or upward if Trump were to be re-elected to the presidency. I suspect that similar feeling might be had in other branches of the Federal Govt. I certainly would not trust Trump with the control of federal forces in government under another Trump administration.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122113416#Comment_122113416

As I understand it ( perhaps @Manic Moran could clarify) the President has almost no ability to "unilaterally authorise the deployment of the National Guard" except under certain very specific circumstances , none of which applied in or around January 6th.

So from everything that I've read, these claims from Trump and various GOP are at best misleading and at worst outright lies.

Brian?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122114796#Comment_122114796

the commander in chief for each national guard is the governor of the state they are in. For Washington DC it’s the POTUS. So he could have deployed the Washington DC National guard at will.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122115347#Comment_122115347

This is correct. DC (and one or two other federal entities like Virgin Islands) are a bit odd in that context.

aloyisious

There is a mention in US media of an approach by a lawyer in New York to Judge Juan Merchan purely because he felt the judge needed advice on how to handle the Trump case he was to hear. The lawyer was not approached or contacted by Judge Merchan for any advice. I think it's great that lawyers do pro-bono work like that, especially when the lawyer then goes and lets the media know about his approaching and giving the judge the unsolicited advice on how to handle the Trump case.

aloyisious

House of Representatives Speaker Johnson attended at the Trump trial in New York and afterwards [according to The Independent media site] Johnson – a lawyer who is second in line for the presidency after vice-president Kamala Harris – called the court system “corrupt” and the case against Trump a “sham”, while alleging without proof that the special counsel who’s charged Trump in two separate cases has doctored evidence. He also attacked the credibility of Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and fixer who began his second day of testimony in the former president's hush money trial.

I don't know what effect Johnson's act in attacking the court justice system will have on it but it can be taken as read that he is solidly with Trump and his appearance at the court might be a return of a favour to Trump for the support he gave Johnson after Rep Greene failed to have him booted out of office [Trump having sounded his support for Johnson, chiding Greene in the process].

Hopefully the link below to The Independent woks….

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/world/speaker-s-attendance-at-trump-trial-marks-a-remarkable-moment-in-us-politics/ar-BB1mnyzU?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=LCTS&cvid=5299a779deca46dd9414b8aedd76c476&ei=22

MICKEYG

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122138610#Comment_122138610

To say someone doctored evidence is a serious accusation.

Could the special counsel launch a personal case against him?