Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Options
1…34689…319

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    JRant wrote: »

    And as another senator said nobody has ever been convicted of hoping anything either.

    While this is true, it's not clear that Trump was "hoping".

    Imagine for a moment a mobster popping into a shop and saying "Nice store you got there. I sure hope nothing happens to it". You could argue that the mobster was just hoping that nothing happens to the store if you didn't take the context into account. A mobster saying such a thing to a shop owner could be viewed as a threat. Because of the implication.

    Trump's expression of "hoping" is no more an aspiration than the mobster's above.


  • Options
    #153
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,742 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    While this is true, it's not clear that Trump was "hoping".

    Imagine for a moment a mobster popping into a shop and saying "Nice store you got there. I sure hope nothing happens to it". You could argue that the mobster was just hoping that nothing happens to the store if you didn't take the context into account. A mobster saying such a thing to a shop owner could be viewed as a threat. Because of the implication.

    Trump's expression of "hoping" is no more an aspiration than the mobster's above.

    Indeed and I think this ambiguity will probably save his bacon on the obstruction charge against him.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #154
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,484 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    So on the one hand Trump knows that the whole Russian thing is made up yet on the other he is actively trying to cut it off.

    If he just let it run it course he would come out smelling of roses and the DNC and MSM would have massive egg on their faces.

    Trump has a job to do, according to him USA is a disaster at the moment. But he is spending his time fighting an investigation he knows to be false and therefore pointless.

    Instead he hoped Comey would let Flynn go (btw why are we focused on the word hope, but the phrase 'let Flynn go' seems to be passed over. Let him go would suggest he has been caught)

    He instructed Sessions to not reveal any conversations they had had.


  • Options
    #155
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,133 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Trump has not instructed Sessions not to reveal conversations. That would be invoking Executive Privilige. He has declined to reveal those conversations, in order to allow Trump to invoke it in the future, if he wishes.
    It should have been black and white. If EP is not being invoked, answer the question, now. It was contempt for the Senate Committee. Rogers and Coats stand similarily accused.


  • Options
    #156
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    JRant wrote: »
    Indeed and I think this ambiguity will probably save his bacon on the obstruction charge against him.

    There is existing legal precedent in the US for 'I hope'-type statements being interpreted as threats/obstruction of justice, which I posted in the old thread:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103752481&postcount=9506

    Also Trump himself has used 'hope' as a obvious threat in this tweet:

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863007411132649473

    If he's hoping to avoid obstruction charges based on this line of argument, he's looking at a very tough fight.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Igotadose wrote: »
    Trump *can* fire the special prosecutor, though that rumor from last week appears to have been nixed by the WH.

    If trump fires Mueller the special prosecutor, then the investigations go back to the FBI, and the Treasury Department, etc. And all the leaks will start again.


  • Options
    #158
    NinjaKirby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 221 ✭✭NinjaKirby


    demfad wrote: »
    I agree with all bar the bolded bit: That was the Trump/Russia line. Trump constantly said how bad she was, how lucky he was to be up against such a bad candidate. When the external factors are eliminated ( eg media focusing 5 times more on Clinton email dumps than Trump crininality) she was actually a very progressive and good candidate. Thats my opinion, but if youre not basing you're opinion on Clinton on verifyable facts then youre most likely basing it on the propaganda of Trump, Robert Mercer and his backers.

    If you look at the Republican candidates though they should at least have been able to stop Trump or to figure out that having so many of them in the running gave him an advantage.

    So you had that pile of terrible candidates first.

    Then we had Clinton. I agree that she is a career politician and probably one of the best candidates for the role of President. Under normal circumstances this would be true.

    In hindsight the people in states that were blue in 2012 but changed to red in 2016 were probably looking for something different and were offered a choice between more of the same career politician and something totally different.

    It's not just propaganda. There was a failure within the DNC to really understand the mood of certain areas in the nation.

    Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes so it's clear that, in terms of numbers, she was the preferred candidate at the national level.

    Unfortunately you had specific parts of the country that were basically saying they are sick of getting the same bad deal all the time and were crying out for change.

    The Democrats went from having a 26 to 24 victory to a 20 to 30 defeat in 4 years.

    Something was going on in Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania that caused them to flip from Blue to Red between 2012 and 2016.

    The last time Pennsylvania and Michigan were red was back in 1988. Think about that.

    That's not nationwide propaganda at work, that's very localized changes.

    Looks like there was strong support for Sanders in 5 of those 6 states, not Florida, so Clinton already had less popularity in the key areas before Trump was even factored into the equation.

    Is it possible that the Clinton campaign neglected to address the needs of people in some or all those 6 states mentioned?


  • Options
    #159
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,238 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    demfad wrote: »
    I agree with all bar the bolded bit: That was the Trump/Russia line. Trump constantly said how bad she was, how lucky he was to be up against such a bad candidate. When the external factors are eliminated ( eg media focusing 5 times more on Clinton email dumps than Trump crininality) she was actually a very progressive and good candidate. Thats my opinion, but if youre not basing you're opinion on Clinton on verifyable facts then youre most likely basing it on the propaganda of Trump, Robert Mercer and his backers.
    I was more referring to the republican primaries where there were 15 or so candidates with the most moderate candidates eliminating each other early on with Trump winning by getting about 30% of the vote and getting an early lead while the GOP fell apart around him.

    In the GE, Trump was facing Clinton, a woman who was the second most unpopular candidate ever, only beaten by Trump himself. Clinton may well have been a good president, but her candidacy was tainted from before it started and in an election year where people were sick of the establishment, Clinton, another political Dynasty was the wrong person at the wrong time.

    The Russian hacking and the DNC shenanigans were the final straws that sunk her candidacy. I think a more populist candidate with a better track record of voting with the people's interests would have been the smart choice (cough Bernie Sanders cough)


  • Options
    #160
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    JRant wrote: »
    Indeed and I think this ambiguity will probably save his bacon on the obstruction charge against him.

    On it's own, it could be argued that it's ambiguous. The problem is that any investigation and subsequent charge isn't going to rest solely on what he meant by his statement.

    DNI Coates, DIRNSA Admiral Rogers and former deputy DIRNSA Richard Ledgett are to be interviewed by Mueller. It's been reported that Trump also pulled a similar stunt with Rogers and Coates and that Ledgett took a memo of a phonecall between Trump and Rogers.

    Rogers and Coates were very cagey in the public senate hearing but they expressed a desire to fully cooperate with the special counsel. If they confirm the reports, then Trump's statement to Comey needs to be seen in the context of a wider pattern of attempted obstruction.


  • Options
    #161
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,742 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    On it's own, it could be argued that it's ambiguous. The problem is that any investigation and subsequent charge isn't going to rest solely on what he meant by his statement.

    DNI Coates, DIRNSA Admiral Rogers and former deputy DIRNSA Richard Ledgett are to be interviewed by Mueller. It's been reported that Trump also pulled a similar stunt with Rogers and Coates and that Ledgett took a memo of a phonecall between Trump and Rogers.

    Rogers and Coates were very cagey in the public senate hearing but they expressed a desire to fully cooperate with the special counsel. If they confirm the reports, then Trump's statement to Comey needs to be seen in the context of a wider pattern of attempted obstruction.

    That's a perfectly reasonable stance to take and one that would be hard to argue against.

    The "reports" that I've seen about Coates and Rogers were far too vague and pretty much without substance to comment on. I don't think they were cagey, just given the nature of their positions may not have been comfortable disclosing possibly sensitive information in a public domain. They may have just erred on the side of caution and decided to hold station until the closed hearing.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    JRant wrote: »
    That's a perfectly reasonable stance to take and one that would be hard to argue against.

    The "reports" that I've seen about Coates and Rogers were far too vague and pretty much without substance to comment on. I don't think they were cagey, just given the nature of their positions may not have been comfortable disclosing possibly sensitive information in a public domain. They may have just erred on the side of caution and decided to hold station until the closed hearing.

    Apologies, "cagey" probably wasn't the best word here. They certainly weren't going to admit what happened in open session. I'd also understand if they were uncomfortable in a closed session - there are after all, Trumpers on the committee such as Cotton. They wouldn't want someone running back to Trump with their private testimony. This would explain why they were more inclined to talk to Mueller than the closed session.

    The reports, as you said, aren't the most detailed.
    Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told associates that President Donald Trump had asked him if he could intervene with then-FBI Director James Comey regarding the federal investigation into his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, the Washington Post reported Tuesday night.

    That said, this either happened or didn't and if it did, it doesn't look too good. This also allegedly happened in the presence of DIRCIA Pompeo which raises more questions which can be answered.

    The Ledgett aspect is also a nice route to go down. If true, it's closer to hard evidence than verbal testimony.
    A day or two after the March 22 meeting, Trump telephoned Coats and Rogers to separately ask them to issue public statements denying the existence of any evidence of coordination between his campaign and the Russian government.

    Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the president's requests, officials said.

    It is unclear whether Ledgett had direct contact with Trump or other top officials about the Russia probe, but he wrote an internal NSA memo documenting the president's phone call with Rogers, according to officials.

    If these reports are confirmed to Mueller, then the case for obstruction starts to look fairly solid.

    It's important to bare in mind that these are only reports at this stage so they need to be treated as such. There's a good chance that we won't know for some time whether these reports are true or not but the special counsel will know soon enough.


  • Options
    #163
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,742 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Apologies, "cagey" probably wasn't the best word here. They certainly weren't going to admit what happened in open session. I'd also understand if they were uncomfortable in a closed session - there are after all, Trumpers on the committee such as Cotton. They wouldn't want someone running back to Trump with their private testimony. This would explain why they were more inclined to talk to Mueller than the closed session.

    The reports, as you said, aren't the most detailed.



    That said, this either happened or didn't and if it did, it doesn't look too good. This also allegedly happened in the presence of DIRCIA Pompeo which raises more questions which can be answered.

    The Ledgett aspect is also a nice route to go down. If true, it's closer to hard evidence than verbal testimony.



    If these reports are confirmed to Mueller, then the case for obstruction starts to look fairly solid.

    It's important to bare in mind that these are only reports at this stage so they need to be treated as such. There's a good chance that we won't know for some time whether these reports are true or not but the special counsel will know soon enough.

    Absolutely it does.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #164
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,732 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    While this is true, it's not clear that Trump was "hoping".

    Imagine for a moment a mobster popping into a shop and saying "Nice store you got there. I sure hope nothing happens to it". You could argue that the mobster was just hoping that nothing happens to the store if you didn't take the context into account. A mobster saying such a thing to a shop owner could be viewed as a threat. Because of the implication.

    Trump's expression of "hoping" is no more an aspiration than the mobster's above.

    Which is pretty much what Chris Christie inadvertently argued,

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/christie-defends-trumps-comey-convos-as-normal-nyc-talk.html

    https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/872561055871795200?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fdaily%2Fintelligencer%2F2017%2F06%2Fchristie-defends-trumps-comey-convos-as-normal-nyc-talk.html


  • Options
    #165
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    It looks like Mr Sessions is having some memory problems.
    An American lobbyist for Russian interests who helped craft an important foreign policy speech for Donald Trump has confirmed that he attended two dinners hosted by Jeff Sessions during the 2016 campaign, apparently contradicting the attorney general’s sworn testimony given this week.

    McCain's questioning did seem a bit specific at the time...
    When John McCain, the Republican senator from Arizona who is a frequent critic of Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin, asked Sessions in a hearing this week before the Senate intelligence committee about whether the attorney general had ever had “any contacts with any representative, including any American lobbyist or agent of any Russian company” during the 2016 campaign, Sessions said he did not.

    “I don’t believe so,” Sessions said.

    Saying "I don't believe so" covers him somewhat. Saying "No" would be getting into perjury territory.

    Then again, maybe he didn't know that Burt was a lobbyinst for Russian interests.
    Several media reports published before Trump’s election in November noted that Burt advised then candidate Trump on his first major foreign policy speech, a role that brought him into contact with Sessions personally.

    Burt, who previously served on the advisory board of Alfa Capital Partners, a private equity fund where Russia’s Alfa Bank was an investor and last year was lobbying on behalf of a pipeline company that is now controlled by Gazprom, Russia’s state-controlled energy conglomerate, first told Politico in October that he had been invited to two dinners that were hosted by Sessions last summer, at the height of the presidential campaign.


  • Options
    #166
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,547 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    demfad wrote: »
    They would give the Sessions stonewall: I can't say anything about a conversation with the president because it might jeopardise his right to invoke executive privelege because he cant review the question to decide if he should invoke it or not.
    i.e everything is under blanket executive privilege until until the president says otherwise. Ofcourse Sessions could not quote a law that says this because its baloney. Didn't stop Yates or Comey etc.
    The point is they can (for now) dodge that question.

    It's my recall that Comey showed up for a W/H dinner appointment with Don thinking there would be others at it, met Don and the others in the room only to see Don signal/tell the others to leave the room, leaving him alone with Don, the guy with the power to fire him.

    I got to thinking that if there was some sort of brainstorming session, or even idle chat, between Don, Jeff Sessions and the son-in-law cum advisor in the room as to how to word what Don went on to say to Comey about dropping Flynn from the investigation [before Comey arrived] that if Sessions was present for it that would be an act of obstruction of justice by him, let alone Don. Not nice for Comey wondering if his immediate superior [the top legal person in the Admin] was in on the act.

    I reckon it's safe to posit [that as Sessions volunteered his presence before that particular committee] that there was a preparation study done by him before the hearing to dot the i's and cross the t's and avoiding walking Don into another "tweet" outburst. That might explain why Sessions was having such memory problems and fallback on the Presidential Privilege thingy at the hearing.

    The hearing was in public and if there weren't interested people in the W/H glued to the box, I'll eat my jocks. It'd be handy for them to have a basic code arranged between them and Sessions, like "I can't recall" for snaggy questions. That would save the watchers having fits "what'll he say in answer"? Most meetings like the hearings would likely involve a post-mortem meet afterwards to review the recorded hearing and plan for the future, just basic common sense.


  • Options
    #167
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,868 ✭✭✭Christy42


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    It looks like Mr Sessions is having some memory problems.



    McCain's questioning did seem a bit specific at the time...



    Saying "I don't believe so" covers him somewhat. Saying "No" would be getting into perjury territory.

    Then again, maybe he didn't know that Burt was a lobbyinst for Russian interests.

    There has to be some serious questions about Sessions ability for this job. He knew he was going to be asked these questions and yet did not think to look up his own diary before hand. Seems like a ridiculous slip up and I can only hope Sessions went to the doctor to get some tests run.

    (Obviously assuming he would never do something like intentionally mislead under oath)


  • Options
    #168
    Ipse dixit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 90 ✭✭Ipse dixit


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    If trump fires Mueller the special prosecutor, then the investigations go back to the FBI, and the Treasury Department, etc. And all the leaks will start again.

    Not necessarily. Trump can't fire Mueller anyway, it has to be Rod Rosenstein and he's already said that he can see no reason to fire him. I'd find it hard to believe that Trump would try and force Rosenstein to actually fire him.

    These rumours come from Christopher Ruddy anyway.


  • Options
    #169
    Ipse dixit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 90 ✭✭Ipse dixit


    Christy42 wrote: »
    There has to be some serious questions about Sessions ability for this job. He knew he was going to be asked these questions and yet did not think to look up his own diary before hand. Seems like a ridiculous slip up and I can only hope Sessions went to the doctor to get some tests run.

    (Obviously assuming he would never do something like intentionally mislead under oath)

    Have you never watched a congressional hearing before? One wrong word and you're accused of perjury.

    I'm not sure why people are exactly surprised about this.


  • Options
    #170
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Christy42 wrote: »
    There has to be some serious questions about Sessions ability for this job. He knew he was going to be asked these questions and yet did not think to look up his own diary before hand. Seems like a ridiculous slip up and I can only hope Sessions went to the doctor to get some tests run.

    (Obviously assuming he would never do something like intentionally mislead under oath)

    Exactly. Contrast his testimony with Comey's.


  • Options
    #171
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,547 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Anyone following Don on twitter? I not a tweeter. RTE's drive-time news programme and [I think] the stations US correspondent covering the W/Post story about the Special Counsel now including Don as a possible suspect in the collusion case talking of Don tweeting "some very misguided people out there" apparently in ref to the story, ending the tweet with MAGA [make america great again].

    I assume Chris Ruddy is on Don's twitter banned list.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Anyone following Don on twitter?

    This one was pretty funny.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/875305788708974592


  • Options
    #173
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,742 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    This one was pretty funny.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/875305788708974592

    In fairness that is pretty funny

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #174
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    What is funny about it?


  • Options
    #175
    StringerBell
    Registered Users Posts: 14,031 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Doesn't feel like him, if he replaced the Nice at the end with Sad! or Losers! it would fit his overall tone more. I'd give it a 2/10

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Options
    #176
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,443 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Ipse dixit wrote: »
    Not necessarily. Trump can't fire Mueller anyway, it has to be Rod Rosenstein and he's already said that he can see no reason to fire him. I'd find it hard to believe that Trump would try and force Rosenstein to actually fire him.

    These rumours come from Christopher Ruddy anyway.

    Well Nixon tried to force his AG to fire a special prosecutor so why is it that hard to believe ? And that worked out well if memory serves:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #177
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,742 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    What is funny about it?

    It's funny in an ironic sense.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #178
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,547 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Ref Jeff Sessions, it's worth keeping in mind that he was a senator and is well used to procedures there.


  • Options
    #179
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,133 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    And those that have experienced him know, that he's not the easy going southern gentleman, he tried to portray himself as.


  • Options
    #180
    Call me Al
    Registered Users Posts: 3,020 ✭✭✭Call me Al


    Water John wrote: »
    And those that have experienced him know, that he's not the easy going southern gentleman, he tried to portray himself as.

    Indeed! And who is far from the shrinking anxious violet of an Attorney General, he'd have had you believe he was, when he complained Kamala Harris was making him nervous.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,133 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    In another setting, it's Harris who would have been nervous.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement