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

aloyisious

The Irish Times and various US media outlets [incl Fox News] have reported in the past few hours that Steve Bannon's lawyer sent the committee a letter on Saturday to the effect that Bannon will testify before it. This is after former president Trump said he would withdraw the executive privilege claim both claimed exists AFTER Trump fired Bannon BEFORE they consulted in the run-up to the attack on the Capitol, meaning Bannon was a private citizen as a result of said firing. Mr Trump sent a different letter for Bannon's attention [in the possession of Bannon's lawyer] containing a statement that he would waive that executive privilege claim because he was angered with the way the committee was presenting the hearings. Mr Trump, according to the reports, wrote in his letter to Bannon "If you reach an agreement on a time and place for your testimony, I will waive executive privilege for you, which allows for you to go in and testify truthfully and fairly, as per the request of the unselect committee of political thugs and hacks". The next committee hearings are planned for Tuesday [tomorrow] and Thursday. I suppose the crux of any testimony from Bannon will be what one defines as truthful and fair testimony.

duploelabs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119322371#Comment_119322371

They'll interview and record him beforehand, as they have with all witnesses, if he contradicts himself whilst giving testimony then he'll be charged with perjury

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119322371#Comment_119322371

This was posted in the CA Trump thread , but it would seem that those "letters" mentioned by Bannons lawyers don't actually exist and his lawyer lied...

Oh dear oh dear oh dear....

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1546358999938916352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1546358999938916352%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boards.ie%2Fdiscussion%2F2058151198%2Fwhat-does-the-future-hold-for-donald-trump-threadbans-in-op%2Fp419

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119322637#Comment_119322637

Is this "fake news" as usual from the extended Trump group - with a Bannon lawyer sending a letter to the committee containing a message from former president Trump to the effect that Trump will be withdrawing any executive privilege Trump claimed covered any conversation Trump had with Bannon? Embarrassing for the Bannon lawyers firm for it to turn out the Trump letter and other letters the Bannon lawyer claimed to have in possession on behalf of Bannon DO/DID NOT, IN FACT, EXIST.

Definitely "oh dear" for the lawyer to get caught out in disseminating false information which the law societies will be reading about in the papers.

aloyisious

Judge Carl Nichols has refused to delay Bannon's trial for contempt of Congress [which the DOJ is prosecuting] next Monday after Bannon's lawyers sought a weeks adjournment from that date to allow them prepare a defence. The judge also threw out Bannon's claim of executive privilege. The judge ruled that the prosecutors only needed to prove that Bannon acted "deliberately" and "intentionally" to defy the select committee - not that he knew it was wrong or illegal. That [IMO] lessens the burden of proof for the prosecutors.

Judge Nichols also ruled "Bannon cannot present evidence that he relied on internal DOJ opinions or assertions of executive privilege". I'm reading that to refer to opinions or assertions of former Trump era AG's, Deputy & Assistant AG's from within the DOJ about executive privilege covering things discussed between Trump and former staffers like Bannon.

Allegedly Bannon's lawyer made a statement asking "what's the point of going to trial" after the judge made his rulings.

aloyisious

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney has ordered Senator Lindsey Graham to obey the County's Special Criminal Grand Jury order to appear before it and testify on 02 August despite his claims of executive privilege, apparently covering his asking Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger to re-examine certain absentee ballots cast in Georgia to explore the possibility of a more favourable vote result for former president Trump there. It's fairly obvious that the Senator will try to get the judge's order overturned in some higher court.

aloyisious

The discussion between the CNN panel after the public transmission of todays committee hearing and testimony showings seems to indicate the intent of the hearings is to sway the voters of both parties towards a verdict on Trump [should he signal an intent to stand again] in the next election AND not a verdict of a trial jury. Let's say the hearings seek a de facto, not a de jure, estimate be made in the minds of the US electorate on whether it would be safe for the US to vote for him again, given his political platform and the kind of strange close confidants he keeps as personal campaign advisers, extra to the group inclusive of his campaign manager.

The inclusion of Senator Mitch McConnell shown on tape during the hearing declaring Joe Biden to be the newly elected President before the coup bid is clearly meant to be a guiding light for the regular voters in the next election.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119322637#Comment_119322637

Who is the Trump attorney who claimed Trump never gave Bannon executive privilege coverage over their conversations?

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119329536#Comment_119329536

Seems to be have been Justin Clark

Department of Justice prosecutors revealed that former President Trump’s lawyer Justin Clark was interviewed by FBI investigators on June 29. According to Politico, the DOJ revealed the interview had taken place early Monday through a court filing related to the criminal contempt case against former Trump advisor Steve Bannon.

According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda Vaughn, Clark has contradicted statements made by Bannon, who has long claimed that his correspondence with Clark allows Trump to invoke executive privilege over Bannon’s testimony.

Vaughn told Politico that Clark testified “that the former President never invoked executive privilege over any particular information or materials,” and “that [Bannon’s] attorney misrepresented to the Committee what the former President’s counsel had told” him. Clark allegedly went on to say that “the former President’s counsel made clear to [Bannon’s] attorney that the letter provided no basis for total noncompliance.”

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119330400#Comment_119330400

Umm, so it's either down to A: two lawyers and their two clients muddying the pre-appearance waters or B: me giving Mr Clark the benefit of the doubt in respect of him doing his honest duty as a lawyer and not giving the same benefit to Mr Trump, Mr Bannon and MR Bannon's lawyer. I won't do much head scratching on my choice.

RavenBea17b

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119322371#Comment_119322371

A silly question perhaps, but if you are no longer in a role, such as President, how can a former President withdraw a Presidential executive privilege. surely only a current President can do such a thing? I am just wondering. Truly not a clue about the processes in the US.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119331339#Comment_119331339

In the case of Trump , he still thinks he's President and also thinks that being President is the same as being Emperor such that whatever he says is the law.

However like almost everything Trump says or does , he is wrong.

As a former President you do have some degree of ability to request/apply privilege but that is superceded by the sitting President.

I believe the flow is that the former person is asked their opinion and given some time to provide the reasons behind why they agree/disagree but the current person can decide to overrule them - This has already happened regarding some of the information around January 6th where Biden revoked privilege for various records.

Ultimately any final decision resides with the current President , but they do have to be careful about setting precedent even if they really want to release info from a previous administration.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119331339#Comment_119331339

It's probable that Trump think's, as he made the offer, he's the only one who can withdraw it and definitely not the one who "stole" the elected office from him.

On the issue of theft of elected public office, given what he tried to do on the 06th, the offence of attempted theft could be laid at his door.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119335784#Comment_119335784

Or just a calculation that by pretending to exercise presidential prerogatives it will keep his followers believing the rest of his arsical pronouncements (pun intended and a cure for such now patented)

pixelburp

The follow-up to Roe v. Wade keep coming; the latest? In Missouri, pregnant women can't file for divorce: because Missouri now says the unborn child is a person, a divorce proceeding must wait until birth when custody can officially take place. Obviously this may only effect a very small percentage of women but that is hardly the point. I'm reading an increasingly hostile dogmatism that's refusing to allow any exceptions - the most disgusting being the recent refusal to acknowledge rape victims as valid exceptions - even 10 year old ones.

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/pregnant-women-cant-get-divorced-in-missouri-38092512

Meanwhile, some IVF patients are moving their embryos across state lines; why? Cos of a legitimate worry that if anti-abortion really kicks into high gear, even embryos will be considered "human" - at which point IVF providers enter the fray given they will be the ones storing - and destroying - those embryos. Kentucky are apparently trying to push for a law to do just this; recognising anything post-fertilisation as a person. Effectively shuttering IVF clinics there. It's madness unravelling in real-time.

https://19thnews.org/2022/07/ivf-patients-moving-embryos-abortion-bans/

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119352976#Comment_119352976

One might assume there is a whiff of "ethics" from the thought processes of those coming up with these law changes. It sounds a bit unfair if one partner in a marriage on the rocks cannot divorce because of an unborn person but the other partner may be in an effort to avoid child support etc. Re IVF and embryos, I hadn't even give a thought about that, let alone surrogacy.

As for the actuality of the rape case, it seems there is a degree of opportunism behind what are basically crude statements from three sources. It would serve justice well if the doctor's legal agents make the A.G concerned pay dearly for his misspoken words and intent, whatever could be done about the media troll.

The moving across state lines seems to be a thing of the here and now, with the USSC decision destroying privacy thereby allowing state agencies to attempt to pursue people across state lines, possibly using mobile phone data to find out what locations the people visited/were in while out of state. The Ads offering free camping/tourist accommodation with good intent to out-of-state visitors seem likely to multiply, though I've no doubt the "ethical" people will try to use that idea to engage with pregnant women and girls to ensure abortion time limits will elapse before abortion services can be used.

aloyisious

Melania Trump said in an interview with Fox News earlier today that she was not aware of the violence at the Capitol on the 06th Jan as she was performing her 1st Lady duties in the White House, as other 1st ladies did before her time, taking archive photos of the house interior with a photo crew following works on the house. She said her COS, Stephanie Grisham, was not in the White House on January 6, and her behavior in her role as Chief of Staff ultimately amounts to dereliction of duty. "In fact, Ms. Grisham failed to provide insight and information into the events surrounding January 6 as she had abandoned her post in Washington, D.C.". "Shamefully, this behavior has only partially become public knowledge; yet was consistent for Ms. Grisham."

She added: "It is evident that Grisham’s recent betrayals are a last-ditch attempt to resuscitate her ruined career and reputation."

An accusation by a Trump that the COS was guilty of dereliction of duty on the 06th while the Capitol insurgency was ongoing is refreshing to hear.

Rats attacking each other.

However not actually doing her job is something Grisham is well known for.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119370296#Comment_119370296

Did Fox ask her about the text messages?

https://twitter.com/OMGrisham/status/1541854511203241984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1541854511203241984%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fstephanie-grisham-shares-melania-trump-capitol-riot-texts-2022-6

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119371163#Comment_119371163

Apparently she denied what Stephanie testified to the committee what was in the text messages. I'll have to go looking to see if Melania used one of the versions of the 4-letter word to indicate there was a degree of untruth in what Stephanie testified to but my immediate memory has it that the former 1st lady did make it clear in the Fox interview that that was so. Hopefully this link will work and make things clearer. EDIT: One part of Melania's statement making reference to Stephania underlining the point Melania accused Stephanie of trying to maintain relevancy looks similar in nature to the comment Don made about the staffer who testified last week before the committee about Don and the Secret Service altercation in the SUV "she asked me for a job on my staff in Florida and I said no" with more said by him to indicate she wasn't any good.

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8d552172324a1cc0JmltdHM9MTY1ODQ4MTQ4MCZpZ3VpZD0xNjY1NjM0Yy01ZDkwLTRlYjYtYTBkMC0yMTgwNmE5NjE3M2QmaW5zaWQ9NTE1Mw&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=2e601cbf-099f-11ed-8561-d586917e6aee&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZm94bmV3cy5jb20vcG9saXRpY3MvbWVsYW5pYS10cnVtcC1zYXlzLWZ1bGZpbGxpbmctb2ZmaWNpYWwtZHV0aWVzLWZpcnN0LWxhZHktamFuLTYtYWx3YXlzLWNvbmRlbW4tdmlvbGVuY2U&ntb=1

pixelburp

The stalking horses commence: 2015s SCOTUS decision legalising same-sex marriage is next, if alleged human Ted Cruz is to be believed....

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/17/politics/ted-cruz-same-sex-marriage-supreme-court/index.html

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119377635#Comment_119377635

Time for other religions and beliefs, and others, who believe the USSC Obergefell V Hodges decision on same-sex marriages was and is correct legally where equality on civil marriage in the US constitution is concerned to join forces again against those who don't agree with civil equality under that constitution and get them where it hurts. Wipe away the strain of their uncivil hypocrisy.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119377986#Comment_119377986

Problem is, these arguments are being hidden with the faux reasonability of "oh, let the states decide". Cruz never wanted same-sex marriage anyway but there are those who hide under the cloak of that persistent belief these things be leaved to the States.

Sam Russell

Wan't the civil war about what should be left to the states and what should be federal?

[Namely, slavery!]

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119379511#Comment_119379511

The kicker is that some of the states are now enacting new laws to specifically interrupt what the laws in other states have made available legal medically for female persons on the basis that the USSC decision to overturn Rowe V Wade has caused that to be ok now. What's the odds of the USSC having a hindsight look at the side effects of it's decision and issuing a second ruling that one or more states cannot make laws that are specifically designed to disrupt and interfere with the lawful provisions another state allows in it's territory? I couldn't see Trump, or the USSC, standing by DeSantis if he brought in a law whereby divorced persons would not be allowed in state as divorce offends against God's word on marriage.

looksee

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119381760#Comment_119381760

Wouldn't that work that states that wish to not permit abortion would be unable to legislate because other states do, and vice versa? Stand off, no-one can make laws about abortion one way or the other.

Brian?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119379749#Comment_119379749

Absolutely not. That’s a lie that’s been repeated so many times people believe it. The leaders of the confederacy themselves clearly stated they seceded from the union in order to preserve the right to own slaves. The right to slave ownership was written into the constitution of the confederacy.

Don’t be taken in by the lies.

Nody

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119381948#Comment_119381948

It would end up with you can legalise about abortion in state, but not ban a person to travel to another state to have an abortion (which is what many states are now doing). As it then would become an multi state issue it would be up to the SC to clarify the ruling basically. However; taking into account the SC is bending over backwards to get it's rulings (contradicting it's own claims on what to use in constitution and historical relevance etc. depending on how they 5 wish to rule, see gun rules for NY and the R v W) chances are they would simply chicken out and not clarify it at all.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119381948#Comment_119381948

No. If one state wished to enact anti-abortion laws banning abortions inside it's state boundaries, that is allowed for now and is in practice now. It's when that state [or it's state AG] tries to make its anti-abortion law applicable OUTSIDE its borders and WITHIN the borders of another state which DOES allow for the provision of abortion services within it's state laws and borders that problems arise. That might force the return of the abortion issue to the USSC, should an offended-against state choose to state a case before the USSC that another state was directly infringing on it's RIGHT to ENACT state laws applicable within its borders alone. That right is what the USSC decision [as I understand it] to overturn the previous ruling on Roe V Wade seems to have been about: individual states rights to have the freedom to have laws in operation WITHIN its own borders and WITHIN the wording of the US constitution. .

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119382025#Comment_119382025

Following the USA Civil War, slavery was abolished and former slaves were granted civil rights.

The Confederacy lost the war, so their attitude towards slaves, and slave ownership became moot.