nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Quin_Dub

This thread is for the continuing discussion of Donald Trumps's presidency in the US and any related matters.

Please ensure that you are familiar with the charter before posting.

Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Cookie_Monster

Overheal wrote: »

I have yet to see any evidence that China broke WTO rules. Just saying.

Meanwhile South Korea is preparing to file against the USA to the WTO about the new tariffs.

I believe India is as well, I'm sure I saw that in the paper here yesterday.

In vaguely related news TPP is to be signed sans USA on March 8th

Billy Mays

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You are deliberately associating your self with a well known moniker of the extreme far right and self-avowed neo-nazis. I think that tells anyone all they need to know.

Might as well call himself Whitehoodok

aloyisious

Tomorrow's meeting between Don and other leaders at Davos should be interesting, with Angela making declarations today about trade agreements.

Timberrrrrrrr

aloyisious wrote: »

Tomorrow's meeting between Don and other leaders at Davos should be interesting, with Angela making declarations today about trade agreements.

Wonder which countries leader he will push out of the way for the photo shoot this time.

Army_of_One

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Wonder which countries leader he will push out of the way for the photo shoot this time.

He'll make a tit of himself and the US:)

Odhinn

Army_of_One wrote: »

He'll make a tit of himself and the US:)

An assured outcome. I'd say the dread in the Trump camp is strong.

Itssoeasy

So I see that trump is happy to talk to talk to Robert Mueller under oath ? This is the man that can't even tell the truth for 24 hours and he wants to talk to a former FBI director under oath ? This is going to be like Bernard Matthews and a turkey. His lawyers may want to tell him to stop.

Perjury is an impeachable offence as we saw from Bill and the BJ. So trump better think before he speaks.

Overheal

What Trump says and what he does are two very different things. He also challenged Bernie to a debate, and then backed out. He also said he would sign a bipartisan immigration deal more recently, and then changed his mind. Not to mention all of his pledges to charity that never materialize. His words are worth less than farts.

Leroy42

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So I see that trump is happy to talk to talk to Robert Mueller under oath ? This is the man that can't even tell the truth for 24 hours and he wants to talk to a former FBI director under oath ? This is going to be like Bernard Matthews and a turkey. His lawyers may want to tell him to stop.

Perjury is an impeachable offence as we saw from Bill and the BJ. So trump better think before he speaks.

Whilst the media is indeed stating this is fact, this is no different that his stated position of a number of months ago, and yet, strangely, he has not actually done it.

Trump is driven by ego, but at the end of the day he does understand perjury and there is no change that he will talk under oath. At best he will give hold a Q&A, without oath.

This continued reporting of anything Trump says as if it has any basis in fact, when all previous evidence shows that he has no credibility, only serves to help him.

I will believe it when I see the transcript

robinph

He says that he'll talk under oath. The media go "Huh, really? He's madder than we thought" and talk about it lots. He goes to meet with Muller but nothing even close to being under oath.

Meanwhile his supporters don't spot the difference and claim that he did what he said he would, what is all the fuss about.

Peregrinus

Other than symbolically, it makes little difference whether he is under oath or not. It's a federal offence in the US to lie to the FBI, whether or not you are under oath.

robinph

But isn't he former FBI? So potentially doesn't have the same risks for this investigation... In Trumps head.

Peregrinus

robinph wrote: »

But isn't he former FBI? So potentially doesn't have the same risks for this investigation... In Trumps head.

You're quite right. Mueller's not wearing his FBI hat here.

[Deleted User]

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So I see that trump is happy to talk to talk to Robert Mueller under oath ? This is the man that can't even tell the truth for 24 hours and he wants to talk to a former FBI director under oath ? This is going to be like Bernard Matthews and a turkey. His lawyers may want to tell him to stop.

Perjury is an impeachable offence as we saw from Bill and the BJ. So trump better think before he speaks.

The way this administration is operating i wouldn't be surprised if they pull a Father Ted on this if he does go under oath.

"My name is Donald"
"I'm president"
"That would be an ecumenical matter"

I mean even that could go wrong if he suddenly decided he's John bloody Barron again.

mcmoustache

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're quite right. Mueller's not wearing his FBI hat here.

I assumed that a being interviewed by Mueller actually meant being interviewed by the FBI and Mueller listening in. In other words, Trump would be interviewed by an FBI agent and not Mueller himself.

Water John

it would mean being interviewed by Special Counsel Mueller's staff, not FBI.

aloyisious

He's put provisos on any interview, lawyers present to advise him and pulled Hillary out of the hat again "Hillary was never questioned under oath". I hope the interviews are recorded on disc and camera and an original disc handed straight from the machine - and for by - to his lawyers so they and HSS can't roll out alternative facts to explain away any tweeting by Don "great/poor interview". Nothing like painting the lawyers into a corner.

spacecoyote

aloyisious wrote: »

He's put provisos on any interview, lawyers present to advise him and pulled Hillary out of the hat again "Hillary was never questioned under oath". I hope the interviews are recorded on disc and camera and an original disc handed straight from the machine - and for by - to his lawyers so they and HSS can't roll out alternative facts to explain away any tweeting by Don "great/poor interview". Nothing like painting the lawyers into a corner.

I really don't get why the reporters don't just shoot him straight down on the "but Hillary" crap when he starts throwing that out as an answer to a question it has no bearing on

demfad

spacecoyote wrote: »

I really don't get why the reporters don't just shoot him straight down on the "but Hillary" crap when he starts throwing that out as an answer to a question it has no bearing on

The 'but Hillary' stuff is for the media, his base and his Republican allies.
It ties in with the deep state in collusion with Democrats conspiracy stuff.
Hillary is the right focus for him because him and his allies succeeded in projecting all sorts of misdemeanors onto her before and during election.

BY implying Hillary didn't get asked to testify to the FBI under oath he is also implying impartial teratment by the (pro) Democrat deep state. He is conjoining Hillary to the investigation so his base see no difference between either (hate both) and also allowing his allies to scream conspiracy.

He gets away with it as all authoritarians do. The media are liars: only his word and his selected media speak truth.

Once the resistance start arguing about Hillary or red buses re. Brexit they have lost.

Igotadose

Nice piece in Slate describing the mess in the middle east as caused by the US et al, and how Trump's letting the generals run things, means they'll be there for awhile, shooting toys at the sand:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/trumps-generals-are-leading-him-into-hopeless-quagmires-in-afghanistan-and-syria.html

So much for less war with Trump. More endless war, but good for US business and that juicy boost to military spending he wants (without a budget, hard to say where that is.) Heck, maybe he'll even get to try a few nukes.

Professor Moriarty

demfad wrote: »

The 'but Hillary' stuff is for the media, his base and his Republican allies.
It ties in with the deep state in collusion with Democrats conspiracy stuff.
Hillary is the right focus for him because him and his allies succeeded in projecting all sorts of misdemeanors onto her before and during election.

BY implying Hillary didn't get asked to testify to the FBI under oath he is also implying impartial teratment by the (pro) Democrat deep state. He is conjoining Hillary to the investigation so his base see no difference between either (hate both) and also allowing his allies to scream conspiracy.

He gets away with it as all authoritarians do. The media are liars: only his word and his selected media speak truth.

Once the resistance start arguing about Hillary or red buses re. Brexit they have lost.

As GOP Senator Flake said in a speech recently, "When a figure in power reflexively calls any press that doesn’t suit him “fake news,” it is that person who should be the figure of suspicion, not the press."

Itssoeasy

It seems all is not well in the Trump marriage(if it ever was right). I say this as on the one year anniversary of Trump's inauguration the first lady posted a picture which didn't mention the president and the picture didn't have Donald Trump in it.

She was meant to travel with Trump to Davos but cancelled and has gone to Florida. I actually feel sorry for her as it seems she isn't comfortable being First Lady.

Stheno

Itssoeasy wrote: »

It seems all is not well in the Trump marriage(if it ever was right). I say this as on the one year anniversary of Trump's inauguration the first lady posted a picture which didn't mention the president and the picture didn't have Donald Trump in it.

She was meant to travel with Trump to Davos but cancelled and has gone to Florida. I actually feel sorry for her as it seems she isn't comfortable being First Lady.

Hardly surprising with everything that reported the past week or two claiming hed an affair with a porn star shortly after Melania gave birth to Barron

Said porn star has been touring America with her make America horny again campaign and giving interviews

B0jangles

Stheno wrote: »

Hardly surprising with everything that reported the past week or two claiming hed an affair with a porn star shortly after Melania gave birth to Bannon

Said porn star has been touring America with her make America horny again campaign and giving interviews

Typo of the year right there!

Stheno

B0jangles wrote: »

Typo of the year right there!

Lolol

Quin_Dub

Itssoeasy wrote: »

It seems all is not well in the Trump marriage(if it ever was right). I say this as on the one year anniversary of Trump's inauguration the first lady posted a picture which didn't mention the president and the picture didn't have Donald Trump in it.

She was meant to travel with Trump to Davos but cancelled and has gone to Florida. I actually feel sorry for her as it seems she isn't comfortable being First Lady.

It was also their 13th Wedding Anniversary this week (Monday I think) and it was noted that there was not a single public reference to it by either them or anyone else connected to the family..

Itssoeasy

B0jangles wrote: »

Typo of the year right there!

It's not even the end of January and that's the clubhouse leader early doors.

demfad

News that Don Jr's judicary testimony will be made public by Grassley, ranked Majority member. There is a few lies in there apparently.

Confirmed Sessions Mueller interview last week.

The news that Sessions reportedly pressured FBI director Wray (presumably on Trumps urging) is significant.

When Comey was pressured by Trump to drop Flynn he kept contemporaneous notes. He also told his vice McCabe and former FBI general counsel of the TRump pressure contemporaneously. Ergo in an Obstruction case McCabe backs Comey up.
Why wish to sack McCabe? He is retiring in 60 days?
Firing McCabe discredits him as an obstruction witness. Trump has and will start smearing him with the pro Hillary stuff. It allows Republicans who are judgeing whether to impeach him a way of letting him off. McCabe is unreliable: Its Trumps word against Comey's, call it a draw and move on.

Baker was moved out of his position as FBI GC. Some at the time thought it an aggressive move against him by Trump.
Apparently Wray is a very intelligent operator. He threatened to resign under the Trump/Sessions pressure which nipped it in the bud as Trump could not afford to lose another FBI head during the same FBI investigation.

Wray would also have been smart enough to realise that he might (would) be quickly in a situation similar to Comey. i.e having to take notes about being pressured by Trump et al. He would also know, as Comey did, to contemporaneously inform a witness as to these meetings. If Steve Baker had remained Wray could potentially be telling his GC that he was being pressured in an Obstruction case that Baker was already a key witness in (Comey had confided in him). So removing Baker was probably a good strategic move by Wray to plan for the not so unlikely scenario that he would have to confide in his GC as Comey did.
We can also assume that he has very good notes, the best notes, on any such encounters with Trump or Sessions.

Trump is happy to go along with the investigation. His tactics are just to thrash it at every possible opportunity. Once he can give a Republican congress some reason not to impeach he is confident they wont impeach.

That tells me he is also confident of a GOP victory in 2018......

In not (perhaps) unrelated news

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5311665/Antivirus-software-firm-controlled-Russian-spies.html

aloyisious

Not going into the psychology reading of a person's filmed movements or appearance I saw a clip of Don walking down a broad stairway at Davos on CNN news. Before Don appeared at the head of the stairs, a younger man there was signalled to and moved out of sight. Don held onto the stair-rail on the way down, walking on his own. With all the negative headlines he's getting, there has to be a strain on Don.

I remember images of Barak Obama during his term in office and how his hair turned a very paler shade as his term advanced.

Just on the interview with RM, CNN news has reported that Don's lawyer has stated that he - not Don - will decide if Don will be interviewed under oath. I assume HSS will clarify that to be the lawyer will ADVISE Don on whether being interviewed under oath is a good idea. Naturally Don suddenly declining to be interviewed under oath and backing away from his own statement of agreement on the matter should not be read as any form of admission. If Don has any notion that he's successfully playing mind-games with RM, he's playing a losing game with an experienced criminal investigator.

CNN also covered Don's statement about withdrawing cash from UNWRA support for the Palestinians and that HE took Jerusalem off the table in regard to the Israel/Palestinian peace-talks, I don't know how he can think the fate of Jerusalem can be taken off the table except bu agreement with both sides.

Noel82

Very reasonable proposal imo

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/25/white-house-proposal-extends-amnesty-for-1-8-million-illegals-in-exchange-for-25-billion-for-wall-end-of-chain-migration-visa-lottery/

"The White House revealed a proposal to extend legal status and a path for citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants brought to the country as children in exchange for $25 billion in funding for the wall, an end to chain migration across the board, and an end to the visa lottery program...

The path to citizenship would require a 10-12 year period where recipients would be required to demonstrate good behavior, work and education requirements, and good moral character."