Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

server down · 05-12-2017 06:49PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't see where it allows transition teams a get out.

Per the constitution POTUS remains in office till a certain point, and then the next one comes in. Trump, being the latest case, is a normal citizen until the time that he takes the oath of office. Only then does he gain any powers.

During the transition everyone knows that the old guy is leaving so they either rush to get things done before he leaves or simply wait it out until he is gone. Nowhere does it state that the incoming POTUS has any executive powers.

The idea that transition administrations do nothing and talk to nobody is clearly false though.

It’s historically what’s always happened. We just heard about the Logan act this year.

Leroy42 · 05-12-2017 06:55PM

server down wrote: »

The idea that transition administrations do nothing and talk to nobody is clearly false though.

It’s historically what’s always happened. We just heard about the Logan act this year.

There is a very big difference between talking and setting up contacts and trying to influence sanctions. Flynn called to discuss sanctions.

You only heard about the Logan act last week because up until last week Trump and the WH denied that there was any contact at all.

Now that contact is clearly establhished and not only that but illegal contact, they have turned to questioning whether the Logan act covers it or not.

You think if Flynn, Pence, Kushner or Trump thought that nothing was wrong that they would have lied? Why would Flynn lie to the FBI over nothing? Why would Trump et all be so adamant that no contact was ever makde. Sessions said it, KAC, Trump. They have all done it.

Noel82 · 05-12-2017 07:48PM

server down wrote: »

The idea that transition administrations do nothing and talk to nobody is clearly false though.

It’s historically what’s always happened. We just heard about the Logan act this year.

Because it's Trump and people will disregard logic and morals and exaggerate everything as long as it's damaging to him, even if totally unjust and unfair. Nobody in 218 years has ever been prosecuted under the logan act. It was cast into law in 1799 and has never convicted anyone. Jimmy Carter practically ran NK foreign Policy while Clinton was in office, Teddy Kennedy tried to work with the USSR to affect the 1984 election. Obama was conducting calls with other members of foreign government long before he took office in 2009.

The same people foaming at the mount for Flynn for lying to the FBI are the same ones who ignored how people like Heather Mills and Heather Samuelson were granted immunity and were allowed to have their laptops destroyed during last years FBI's investigation. Not surprising, the person who interviewed General Flynn with no legal aid present in informal terms was Peter Strzok, who has been fired by Mueller for sending anti Trump and pro Hillary text messages.

Strzok is the same person who changed James Comey’s early draft language about Hillary Clinton’s actions regarding her private email server from grossly negligent to extremely careless as careless isn't legal jargon for prosecution. He was deeply involved in the Russia probe against Trump along with the FBI vice director Andrew McCabe, who's wife during the campaign and during the Clinton investigation received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Clinton allies that made up something like 40% of her entire campaign donations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-special-counsel-needs-to-investigate-the-fbi-and-justice-department-now/2017/12/04/5ca1234c-d916-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.917307e1905d

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/peter-strzok-james-comey/index.html

"CNN has also learned that Strzok was the FBI official who signed the document officially opening an investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to sources familiar with the matter. As the No. 2 official in counterintelligence, Strzok was considered to be one of the bureau's top experts on Russia.
But the news of Strzok's direct role in the statement that ultimately cleared the former Democratic presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing, now combined with the fact that he was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team after exchanging private messages with an FBI lawyer that could be seen as favoring Clinton politically, may give ammunition to those seeking ways to discredit Mueller's Russia investigation."

Water John · 05-12-2017 08:10PM

Listening to Trump's friend on CNN. Laughable, saying Mueller going beyond his remit. 'What had Manafort, and DT's Bank transactions have to do with supposed Russian collusion?'

Leroy42 · 05-12-2017 08:12PM

Conyers has resigned with immediate effect from the Senate. Whilst Pelosi make a bags of it at the start it is clear that he came under sustained pressure to resign form the DNC.

Check this against the RNC which has just reentered the race for Alabama Senator by backing Moore and POTUS giving him his full support.

One hopes that after the females of America failure to state their disagreement with Trump at the last election they will now use this clear difference in the standing of each party to send out a message

mcmoustache · 05-12-2017 08:25PM

Noel82 wrote: »

Because it's Trump and people will disregard logic and morals and exaggerate everything as long as it's damaging to him, even if totally unjust and unfair. Nobody in 218 years has ever been prosecuted under the logan act. It was cast into law in 1799 and has never convicted anyone. Jimmy Carter practically ran NK foreign Policy while Clinton was in office, Teddy Kennedy tried to work with the USSR to affect the 1984 election. Obama was conducting calls with other members of foreign government long before he took office in 2009.

The same people foaming at the mount for Flynn for lying to the FBI are the same ones who ignored how people like Heather Mills and Heather Samuelson were granted immunity and were allowed to have their laptops destroyed during last years FBI's investigation. Not surprising, the person who interviewed General Flynn with no legal aid present in informal terms was Peter Strzok, who has been fired by Mueller for sending anti Trump and pro Hillary text messages.

Strzok is the same person who changed James Comey’s early draft language about Hillary Clinton’s actions regarding her private email server from grossly negligent to extremely careless as careless isn't legal jargon for prosecution. He was deeply involved in the Russia probe against Trump along with the FBI vice director Andrew McCabe, who's wife during the campaign and during the Clinton investigation received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Clinton allies that made up something like 40% of her entire campaign donations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-special-counsel-needs-to-investigate-the-fbi-and-justice-department-now/2017/12/04/5ca1234c-d916-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.917307e1905d

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/peter-strzok-james-comey/index.html

"CNN has also learned that Strzok was the FBI official who signed the document officially opening an investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to sources familiar with the matter. As the No. 2 official in counterintelligence, Strzok was considered to be one of the bureau's top experts on Russia.
But the news of Strzok's direct role in the statement that ultimately cleared the former Democratic presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing, now combined with the fact that he was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team after exchanging private messages with an FBI lawyer that could be seen as favoring Clinton politically, may give ammunition to those seeking ways to discredit Mueller's Russia investigation."

If they arrest Clinton, will you people shut up about her? This anger that you people have about Hillary is really something else. She lost, get over it.

None of this changes the fact that Mike Flynn pleaded guilty and is cooperating with Mueller.

And did you really think there wouldn't be a Democrat supporter on Mueller's team? You can hardly believe that only Republicans should be allowed investigate this Russia thing. Anyway, Mueller got rid of him once he found out about the public whiff of bias. What more could you want?

I don't know. You were dismissing the Russia thing as a nothing burger a year ago and now you think a Democrat being involved in the investigation calls it into question. Your sense of proportion is all over the place.

C14N · 05-12-2017 08:39PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Conyers has resigned with immediate effect from the Senate. Whilst Pelosi make a bags of it at the start it is clear that he came under sustained pressure to resign form the DNC.

Check this against the RNC which has just reentered the race for Alabama Senator by backing Moore and POTUS giving him his full support.

One hopes that after the females of America failure to state their disagreement with Trump at the last election they will now use this clear difference in the standing of each party to send out a message

Why? It's not like Roy Moore is really substantially worse than Trump overall. I can't imagine there's a huge group of people who are fine with sexual assault against adults, but for whom sexual assault against teenagers is too much.

StringerBell · 05-12-2017 08:43PM

server down wrote: »

So will the assumption be that if Trump got any money from Russia prove that Putin controls him, since Putin owns all the money in Russia.

I am sure they will find some shennaghins, like undeclared foreign earnings etc.

The first flourishes of a new narrative being created right there, bravo!

"So what if there is Russian money, so what if I said I don't have any dealings with Russia, don't own anything in Russia, don't have any debt in Russia"

"Just because I am in debt up to my eyeballs in Russia doesn't mean I am in debt up to my eyeballs with Putin, why don't you look at Clinton's finances?"

"Disgraceful made up figures, put out there by the Fake News Media"

"Collusion does not equal collusion"

Itssoeasy · 05-12-2017 09:15PM

Why does trumps personal lawyer think a US President can't commit obstruction of justice ? Bill Clinton was charged with obstruction of justice in 1998 and Richard Nixon would have been charged with obstruction of justice had he not resigned. For something that apparently a US president can't do it's been used as a charge against two of president who had the very charge brought against them.

Where does Trump get his legal people from ?

Itssoeasy · 05-12-2017 09:17PM

Water John wrote: »

Listening to Trump's friend on CNN. Laughable, saying Mueller going beyond his remit. 'What had Manafort, and DT's Bank transactions have to do with supposed Russian collusion?'

Well what did Paula jones, whitewater and Monica lewinsky have in common ? Nothing directly.

Leroy42 · 05-12-2017 09:44PM

C14N wrote: »

Why? It's not like Roy Moore is really substantially worse than Trump overall. I can't imagine there's a huge group of people who are fine with sexual assault against adults, but for whom sexual assault against teenagers is too much.

I guess I am hoping that the recent spate of allegations/resignations have brought a new awareness and a feeling that was accepted, if not condoned, for so long is no longer appropriate.

Doug Jones stated today"A serious question you need to ask yourself. Does the idea of Senator Roy Moore make it more or less likely that Toyota or anyone else would see Alabama's image in such a negative way that they would cross Alabama off their list and move on?."

Hyperbole yeah, but then it is being said during a election campaign. But at its heart it has a serious point. A what point do the people have to take responsibility for the people they choose to elect and do the people they elect reflect on them?

aloyisious · 05-12-2017 11:46PM

server down wrote: »

Sure, but not sure if that is impeachable ( although it is indictable when he leaves office).

A lot of business people in the US wouldn't survive a probe by the FBI. Probably the average worker wouldn't. There are thousands of laws, you are in violation of some of them.

I'm wondering what might happen if he lies to Congress about it before he leaves office, or if he's found to have fiddled his taxes and made a reply to the opposite
to a question from a member of congress about his tax status.

aloyisious · 05-12-2017 11:53PM

Tell me how wrote: »

I know the investigation is largely focusing on whether or not there was contact between the incoming administration and the Russians. We all are fairly confident that there was and the rest of the work is regarding the legality of this and possible culpability of key players.

I am curious as to why the Russians did this and what they have going on behind the scenes now to avail of "their man in Washington". It damn sure wouldn't have been a case of let's see what happens. I'm sure they had a 4 year plan with objectives and milestones which overlap the presidency term of Donald.

The end result could be sanctions for Russia which could impact on the wealth of their oligarchs so it probably wasn't something embarked on lightly.

So what is going on that we will read about in 5 or 10 years and realise, "Oh that's what they were at"?

I recognize this is probably a question for a different thread but if anyone has any immediate answers, I'd be interested in hearing them

RTE ! TV re-ran part 1 of a docu "Putin's Revenge" on Sunday Night which could help you understand his mindset. You'ld have to go to RTE's Player to get it and run it over the net.

froog · 05-12-2017 11:54PM

oh boy, absolutely huge news today. confirmation trump is firmly in mueller's crosshairs. the money trail will 100% implicate trump. russian banks bailed out trump in in the early 2000s when no one else would. he's basically been an employee of russia for years and it's all going to come out along with what we already know - clear obstruction of justice.

beautiful.

aloyisious · 06-12-2017 12:09AM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

CNN are reporting that Donald trump has told the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Mahmoud Abbas that the US Embassy in Israel will move to Jerusalem. This is according to a spokesman for Mr Abbas.

That's going to cause problems is it not ? By moving its embassy to Jerusalem aren't the US in effect saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel ?

It's a peculiar thing that that network has been reporting that Don is declaring Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel but he's only saying he's thinking of moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Govt of Israel has it as a fact that Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel. An embassy move could be seen as an official recognition of Israel's claim.

Tony EH · 06-12-2017 12:32AM

C14N wrote: »

Yes, but as the article notes:

The book has had a large influence within the Russian military, police, and foreign policy elites and it has been used as a textbook in the Academy of the General Staff of the Russian military.

That's an extremely vague quote.

An "influence" can mean many things. Positive, negative, cautionary, or informing.

spacecoyote · 06-12-2017 09:26AM

aloyisious wrote: »

It's a peculiar thing that that network has been reporting that Don is declaring Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel but he's only saying he's thinking of moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Govt of Israel has it as a fact that Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel. An embassy move could be seen as an official recognition of Israel's claim.

Yes, I was reading that there is not a single embassy for any country in the world in Jerusalem at the moment, so it would be a massive precedent.

I'm wondering, is he doing everything he can at the moment to provoke some sort of Muslim/Arab led terror event in the US given this Israel move & the videos last week on his twitter feed.

It would be the ultimate way to basically shut down the Russia investigation & give himself a ratings boost.

recedite · 06-12-2017 11:56AM

aloyisious wrote: »

It's a peculiar thing that that network has been reporting that Don is declaring Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel but he's only saying he's thinking of moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Govt of Israel has it as a fact that Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel. An embassy move could be seen as an official recognition of Israel's claim.

RTE news bulletins are stating that moving the US embassy could provoke violence throughout the region

I remember when reporters used to simply report the news, instead of issuing their own wild speculation and interpretation of it.
Of course RTE has been doing its best to attack The Donald for a long time now.

Zubeneschamali · 06-12-2017 11:58AM

recedite wrote: »

RTE news bulletins are stating that moving the US embassy could provoke violence throughout the region

Hilarious, I'm sure.

Tell me how · 06-12-2017 12:03PM

recedite wrote:

RTE news bulletins are stating that moving the US embassy could provoke violence throughout the region I remember when reporters used to simply report the news, instead of issuing their own wild speculation and interpretation of it. Of course RTE has been doing its best to attack The Donald for a long time now.

I'm sure if you listened/concentrated it would be clear that that is a common opinion and not a just the subjective view of reporter/station.

I'm sick of people who think news stations reporting likely negative impacts of actions by "The Donald" are doing so only because they want to attack him.

Would be like a convicted criminal suing a paper for slander because they reported on their court case.

Leroy42 · 06-12-2017 12:03PM

What is the thinking behind moving the embassy? I can seen the potential downsides but can't see what the upside is.

Any ideas?

Leroy42 · 06-12-2017 12:07PM

recedite wrote: »

RTE news bulletins are stating that moving the US embassy could provoke violence throughout the region
I remember when reporters used to simply report the news, instead of issuing their own wild speculation and interpretation of it.
Of course RTE has been doing its best to attack The Donald for a long time now.

If you had any understanding of the region you would understand that there are many things that could provoke violence. It is a powder keg over there and people spend a lot of time walking on eggshells to avoid setting something off unintentionally.

Therefore, is it really much of a speculation to think that such an move, which has already been cited by the likes of Palestine and Saudi Arabia as being inciting, could provoke violence?

Isn't it usual for people to think through the possible ramifications of their actions before taking them? Are you really saying that the potential for violence can be discounted? Because in an area that it so used to violence surely it would be strange for a journalist not to mention it.

Tell me how · 06-12-2017 12:08PM

Leroy42 wrote:

Any ideas?

Think there's an unwritten implication that where an embassy is located is seen as the capital if that country.

I think doing this is pandering to Israel interests to give them justification for claim over Jerusalem.

They can say that "even the USA sees this as the most important Israeli city".

Some might say he's doing it to distract from Mueller but I don't think he has the strategic thinking capacity for that. Maybe someone behind him pulling the strings does

weisses · 06-12-2017 12:11PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is the thinking behind moving the embassy? I can seen the potential downsides but can't see what the upside is.

Any ideas?

Just to piss off Muslims .... Which to some seem to be hilarious

Billy86 · 06-12-2017 12:11PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is the thinking behind moving the embassy? I can seen the potential downsides but can't see what the upside is.

Any ideas?

The upside, outside of a few potential vested interests, is a temporary distraction for the increasingly obvious collusion with Russia. That's pretty much the extent of it.

Leroy42 · 06-12-2017 12:14PM

All those reasons are pretty depressing from one reason or another.

ancapailldorcha · 06-12-2017 12:16PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is the thinking behind moving the embassy? I can seen the potential downsides but can't see what the upside is.

Any ideas?

It might show that he`s doing something and it might look good to those supporters of his who hate Muslims.

robinph · 06-12-2017 12:16PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Any ideas?

Because it's the opposite of what Obama did.

Tell me how · 06-12-2017 12:20PM

Leroy42 wrote:

All those reasons are pretty depressing from one reason or another.

That's the reality of it. People will probably die over this. They may be committing a crime while doing so or, unfortunately as is often the case, they may be an innocent bystander at a protest or citizen attacked in retaliation.

Somebody somewhere has probably given a figurehead of likely violence occurrences as a result of this and it was either ignored, or deemed acceptable. Either scenario is depressing. You are right about that.

If you are a parent of a young Israeli or Palestinian who has been killed because of the posturing of a president 7k miles away, how would you feel? How would your friends and relatives feel?

And so the cycle continues. Violence begets violence.

recedite · 06-12-2017 12:22PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

If you had any understanding of the region you would understand that there are many things that could provoke violence. It is a powder keg over there and people spend a lot of time walking on eggshells to avoid setting something off unintentionally.

Perhaps you are unaware that nearly every country in the region is already at war?
In the last week or so the ex president of Yemen was assasinated after trying to change sides in one war, and the PM of Lebanon was mysteriously detained in Saudi for some kind of re-education. The Israelis have bombed Syria, which has also been bombing itself. The Yemenis are starving and Quatar is under another blockade, but fortunately the Quataris are so rich they can fly in enough caviar to keep themselves going.

The only stable country is Jordan, and the king there has already signalled his displeasure at the embassy move with a yawn. He is a guy that survives by never getting involved.

The Palestinians living in Jerusalem are already under Israeli lockdown.

So who exactly is going to get upset over this?

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Comments