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

Leroy42

I think people need to realise just how unusual it is for the FBI to go after a lawyers communications with their client. They are on very tricky ground, with very tight regulations, and the real possibility that if it goes wrong the whole case could be thrown out.

Lawyer/client privilege is very strong and taken very seriously. To go over that, you can be pretty certain (given that it passed through at least 3 senior law people) that this is justified. The fact that they hit 3 different locations, in a concerted effort, and with no knock powers! When dealing with a servant of the courts?

Cohen is really in some serious stuff at this point.

amandstu

Mumha wrote: »

Yes and both Rosenstein and Berman are Trump appointees ! Berman even donated to the Trump campaign and is a former law partner of Rudy Guiliani.

Also, to get a warrant is not a straightforward matter, they would have to have shown a high standard of proof that they Cohen wasn't complying, and even more so for a "no knock" warrant.

Are there limits to how deeply a sitting president can stack important offices with his or her own choices?

It seems like a very dangerous system if it gets out of hand.

Mumha

amandstu wrote: »

Are there limits to how deeply a sitting president can stack important offices with his or her own choices?

It seems like a very dangerous system if it gets out of hand.

When one party has the House, the Senate and the White House, there are few limits, which is why Trump is stacking the courts with as many ultra conservative judges as he can (a lot of lifetime appointments there too), other than some corruption/scandal is exposed, where the jobs have to be Senate approved. Even then the Republicans have been railroading them through.

I remember reading before that an incoming President's administration has to make something like 5,000 appointments, and many of those jobs are unfilled still.

Even if Trump and the Republicans gets kicked out, their court appointed judges could affect American society for decades to come, especially a devious nut job like Gorsuch.

ECO_Mental

Mumha wrote: »

Even if Trump and the Republicans gets kicked out, their court appointed judges could affect American society for decades to come, especially a devious nut job like Gorsuch.

This is the reason why the evangelicals support Trump and shamelessly Judas like turn a blind eye to him being a disgusting human being without any morals. He has given them at least one supreme court justice and packed a lot of the lower courts with real conservative judges that actually shape American law. The SC justice is the key because they rule on all constitutional case eg the gay baker case https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/us/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-cake.html

Mr.Micro

Mumha wrote: »

When one party has the House, the Senate and the White House, there are few limits, which is why Trump is stacking the courts with as many ultra conservative judges as he can (a lot of lifetime appointments there too), other than some corruption/scandal is exposed, where the jobs have to be Senate approved. Even then the Republicans have been railroading them through.

I remember reading before that an incoming President's administration has to make something like 5,000 appointments, and many of those jobs are unfilled still.

Even if Trump and the Republicans gets kicked out, their court appointed judges could affect American society for decades to come, especially a devious nut job like Gorsuch.

It's laughable, hypocritical and ironic that in a Democracy, judges and courts are independent of the Government, so that justice can be administered without fear, impediment or censure. That's the theory. The reality is many Judicial appointments are made by a Government, as you rightly state. Appointees who will do a Governments bidding, for as long as it takes, so where is the independence there?
I am completely opposed to Government appointed Judges and law officers. It breeds corruption and injustice.

Chips Lovell

Pepefrogok wrote: »

I know many hate trump but do yous really not see the deep state at work here? Announce an investigation into somthing very serious that they actually manufactured themselves (Russia collusion) then use that as a proxy to go through everything with a fine tooth comb to find anything they can use to get rid of the man none of them wanted, it's so obvious yet many will still cheer for it as it's their "team" winning even if democracy losses. Look at the real sinister stuff going on, look at the news today that bill Clinton meet with 'LL for a clandestine chat at an airfield but it was just chit chat and his wife who was being investigated at the time was not mentioned? It amazes me you guys have become so twisted, the media really can control thought.

This forum is for political discussion not conspiracy theories. Stick to the facts. There's a separate forum for conspiracy theory discussion.

Thanks

pixelburp

So today marks the 20th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement; there are a bunch of events going on, with various parties and individuals originally involved with the negotiations showing up - including Bill Clinton & George Mitchell.

I've read that Simon Coveney is up in NI at the moment anyway, but curious as to whether any other contemporary representatives are attending; specifically, I can't help but wonder if the current US Administration is even aware, or for that matter even cares, about this fairly noteworthy landmark it had a significant role in, Indeed, if it also knows of the current impasse caused by Brexit.

Dunno if GW Bush's Administration made any noises itself during the 10th anniversary, but this one feels particularly charged given the current climate; can't help but speculate that with any other group in the White House, they'd have have made some kind of intervention at this point of the 'honest broker' sort. Kinda feels like one of the (doubtlessly many) gaps in US influence across the world at the moment.

Quin_Dub

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We obviously don't know the specifics, but a few points on attorney/client privilege:
The privilege ony applies to communications made between the individual and the attorney;

The attorney must be actually acting as that individual's attorney at the time;

The privilege is waived in cases of commission of crime or tort

The really interesting thing about the final point is that the crime/tort must actually be committed for the privilege to be waived. Now, obviously that strengthens what Quin_Dub is saying - but theoretically, they could collect this evidence and then it may not be admissible in court due to the privilege (i.e. yes, I totally agree they would have had to clear a huge hurdle to obtain the warrant; but it doesn't mean that the privilege itself will be waived).

Another point on this that I saw later on today..

Did Trump and his inability to keep his mouth shut actually precipitate these events?

When Trump answered media questions on Air Force 1 the other day and stated that he knew absolutely nothing about the payment to Stormy Daniels etc. did that then remove (or at least significantly weaken) the Attorney/Client Privilege bond between him and Cohen in relation to all things Stormy??

everlast75

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Another point on this that I saw later on today..

Did Trump and his inability to keep his mouth shut actually precipitate these events?

When Trump answered media questions on Air Force 1 the other day and stated that he knew absolutely nothing about the payment to Stormy Daniels etc. did that then remove (or at least significantly weaken) the Attorney/Client Privilege bond between him and Cohen in relation to all things Stormy??

My view is that his statement further strengthened the argument against the NDA.

I read that the reason for this raid surrounds the reason for the loan and whether Cohen lied while making the application.

Of course, anything touching on that and legally obtained is fair game.

My opinion is that the Stormy issue will bring the whole house down on DJT. Cohen is in some serious serious trouble and the question is will he throw DJT under the bus in the same way that DJT did to him.

Quin_Dub

everlast75 wrote: »

My view is that his statement further strengthened the argument against the NDA.

I read that the reason for this raid surrounds the reason for the loan and whether Cohen lied while making the application.

Of course, anything touching on that and legally obtained is fair game.

My opinion is that the Stormy issue will bring the whole house down on DJT. Cohen is in some serious serious trouble and the question is will he throw DJT under the bus in the same way that DJT did to him.

I tend to agree..

I think it opens up the deep investigation into Cohen and his "work" for Trump over the years and I think that something far far more damaging than a dodgy pay-off to an alleged former conquest is going to be (or has already been) found.

notobtuse

This is just my opinion, but an opinion shared by a large majority here in the states.

So Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had numerous locations raided because he presumably made some shady payment to a porn star, and because Trump received $150,000 from the Ukrainians for a speech.

Okay.

But didn’t Bill Clinton receive a $500,000 speaking fee from Russia? Didn’t the Clinton Foundation receive hundreds of millions in the lead-up to her campaign for president, and didn't those 'donations' all but dry up after she lost? Didn’t Hillary pay for specious opposition research that was used as evidence to wire-tap the Trump organization? Didn’t Hillary and her team smash phones and computers to bits after the evidence therein was subpoenaed? Didn’t Hillary and her lawyer Cheryl Mills claim attorney-client privilege when Mills herself was under investigation for obstruction?

Why have we not seen any no-knock raids by the government against Hillary Clinton and her team?

The thing is... anyone here, if they were truthful with themselves, knows no Democrat would ever be subjected to the type of investigative circus we are seeing involving Trump. Currently, justice is not blind... it is a joke. Many outside of the media here see that a dangerous political game is now being played... And revolt may be in the near future.

Professor Moriarty

notobtuse wrote: »

This is just my opinion, but an opinion shared by a large majority here in the states.

So Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had numerous locations raided because he presumably made some shady payment to a porn star, and because Trump received $150,000 from the Ukrainians for a speech.

Okay.

But didn’t Bill Clinton receive a $500,000 speaking fee from Russia? Didn’t the Clinton Foundation receive hundreds of millions in the lead-up to her campaign for president, and didn't those 'donations' all but dry up after she lost? Didn’t Hillary pay for specious opposition research that was used as evidence to wire-tap the Trump organization? Didn’t Hillary and her team smash phones and computers to bits after the evidence therein was subpoenaed? Didn’t Hillary and her lawyer Cheryl Mills claim attorney-client privilege when Mills herself was under investigation for obstruction?

Why have we not seen any no-knock raids by the government against Hillary Clinton and her team?

The thing is... anyone here, if they were truthful with themselves, knows no Democrat would ever be subjected to the type of investigative circus we are seeing involving Trump. Currently, justice is not blind... it is a joke. Many outside of the media here see that a dangerous political game is now being played... And revolt may be in the near future.

Bill isn't POTUS. Hillary isn't POTUS.

Besides which, your logic is that The Donald can do whatever he likes because the Clintons were so 'bad'. There's a serious flaw in that logic.

josip

notobtuse wrote: »

This is just my opinion, but an opinion shared by a large majority here in the states.

So Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had numerous locations raided because he presumably made some shady payment to a porn star, and because Trump received $150,000 from the Ukrainians for a speech.

Okay.

But didn’t Bill Clinton receive a $500,000 speaking fee from Russia? Didn’t the Clinton Foundation receive hundreds of millions in the lead-up to her campaign for president, and didn't those 'donations' all but dry up after she lost? Didn’t Hillary pay for specious opposition research that was used as evidence to wire-tap the Trump organization? Didn’t Hillary and her team smash phones and computers to bits after the evidence therein was subpoenaed? Didn’t Hillary and her lawyer Cheryl Mills claim attorney-client privilege when Mills herself was under investigation for obstruction?

Why have we not seen any no-knock raids by the government against Hillary Clinton and her team?

The thing is... anyone here, if they were truthful with themselves, knows no Democrat would ever be subjected to the type of investigative circus we are seeing involving Trump. Currently, justice is not blind... it is a joke. Many outside of the media here see that a dangerous political game is now being played... And revolt may be in the near future.

I'm not very active in the politics forum, but would this post be a good example of what is referred to here as 'whataboutery'?

Leroy42

So let me get this straight. People aren't too concerned that the current POTUS may have got up to some serious stuff, but are more concerned that other people may have also done it and got away with it?

Its ironic that in a country so completely engrossed with its own security, be that with the massive spending on military or the near religious devotion to guns, that when faced with a possible immediate threat they resort to wondering about past and possible future ones whilst ignoring whats in front of them.

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

This is just my opinion, but an opinion shared by a large majority here in the states.

So Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had numerous locations raided because he presumably made some shady payment to a porn star, and because Trump received $150,000 from the Ukrainians for a speech.

Okay.

But didn’t Bill Clinton receive a $500,000 speaking fee from Russia? Didn’t the Clinton Foundation receive hundreds of millions in the lead-up to her campaign for president, and didn't those 'donations' all but dry up after she lost? Didn’t Hillary pay for specious opposition research that was used as evidence to wire-tap the Trump organization? Didn’t Hillary and her team smash phones and computers to bits after the evidence therein was subpoenaed? Didn’t Hillary and her lawyer Cheryl Mills claim attorney-client privilege when Mills herself was under investigation for obstruction?

Why have we not seen any no-knock raids by the government against Hillary Clinton and her team?

The thing is... anyone here, if they were truthful with themselves, knows no Democrat would ever be subjected to the type of investigative circus we are seeing involving Trump. Currently, justice is not blind... it is a joke. Many outside of the media here see that a dangerous political game is now being played... And revolt may be in the near future.

Simple question..

Who's in power? If these things are totally specious , then who is controlling the agenda , the Dems who control nothing right now?

The Republicans control all parts of government..Every one involved in the approval of the warrant for Cohen are Republicans and most are Trump appointees, so I'm not seeing the puppet master here.

Or is the suggestion that only Democrats would stoop so low as to shaft a political opponent and that the reason that the Clinton family and extended others are "getting off scot free" is because Republicans are such pillars of truth, justice and the American way that they would never attempt something so base?

Trent Houseboat

It took almost a whole day for the "but Hillary" line to be trotted out. That must be a record.

Also I'd like to see you support the claim that your opinion is shared by "a large majority" with any actual statistics.

[Deleted User]

notobtuse wrote: »

This is just my opinion, but an opinion shared by a large majority here in the states.

So Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had numerous locations raided because he presumably made some shady payment to a porn star, and because Trump received $150,000 from the Ukrainians for a speech.

Okay.

But didn’t Bill Clinton receive a $500,000 speaking fee from Russia? Didn’t the Clinton Foundation receive hundreds of millions in the lead-up to her campaign for president, and didn't those 'donations' all but dry up after she lost? Didn’t Hillary pay for specious opposition research that was used as evidence to wire-tap the Trump organization? Didn’t Hillary and her team smash phones and computers to bits after the evidence therein was subpoenaed? Didn’t Hillary and her lawyer Cheryl Mills claim attorney-client privilege when Mills herself was under investigation for obstruction?

Why have we not seen any no-knock raids by the government against Hillary Clinton and her team?

The thing is... anyone here, if they were truthful with themselves, knows no Democrat would ever be subjected to the type of investigative circus we are seeing involving Trump. Currently, justice is not blind... it is a joke. Many outside of the media here see that a dangerous political game is now being played... And revolt may be in the near future.

Any chance of references or sources for any of those claims?

mcmoustache

josip wrote: »

I'm not very active in the politics forum, but would this post be a good example of what is referred to here as 'whataboutery'?

It's pretty much a textbook example. It's like getting caught stealing a loaf of bread and saying "But what about hitler, look what he did" in your defence.

metaoblivia

notobtuse wrote: »

This is just my opinion, but an opinion shared by a large majority here in the states.

So Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had numerous locations raided because he presumably made some shady payment to a porn star, and because Trump received $150,000 from the Ukrainians for a speech.

Okay.

But didn’t Bill Clinton receive a $500,000 speaking fee from Russia? Didn’t the Clinton Foundation receive hundreds of millions in the lead-up to her campaign for president, and didn't those 'donations' all but dry up after she lost? Didn’t Hillary pay for specious opposition research that was used as evidence to wire-tap the Trump organization? Didn’t Hillary and her team smash phones and computers to bits after the evidence therein was subpoenaed? Didn’t Hillary and her lawyer Cheryl Mills claim attorney-client privilege when Mills herself was under investigation for obstruction?

Why have we not seen any no-knock raids by the government against Hillary Clinton and her team?

The thing is... anyone here, if they were truthful with themselves, knows no Democrat would ever be subjected to the type of investigative circus we are seeing involving Trump. Currently, justice is not blind... it is a joke. Many outside of the media here see that a dangerous political game is now being played... And revolt may be in the near future.

By no means is your opinion shared by a large majority in the US.

spacecoyote

notobtuse wrote: »

This is just my opinion, but an opinion shared by a large majority here in the states.

So Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had numerous locations raided because he presumably made some shady payment to a porn star, and because Trump received $150,000 from the Ukrainians for a speech.

Okay.

But didn’t Bill Clinton receive a $500,000 speaking fee from Russia? Didn’t the Clinton Foundation receive hundreds of millions in the lead-up to her campaign for president, and didn't those 'donations' all but dry up after she lost? Didn’t Hillary pay for specious opposition research that was used as evidence to wire-tap the Trump organization? Didn’t Hillary and her team smash phones and computers to bits after the evidence therein was subpoenaed? Didn’t Hillary and her lawyer Cheryl Mills claim attorney-client privilege when Mills herself was under investigation for obstruction?

Why have we not seen any no-knock raids by the government against Hillary Clinton and her team?

The thing is... anyone here, if they were truthful with themselves, knows no Democrat would ever be subjected to the type of investigative circus we are seeing involving Trump. Currently, justice is not blind... it is a joke. Many outside of the media here see that a dangerous political game is now being played... And revolt may be in the near future.

Didn't some reps push for a second special counsel to investigate Hilary? But the AG office determined that there wasn't sufficient evidence to merit the appointment?

I think you need to get off your high horse here. A lot of the Rep support seems to be highly hypocritical. When Bill was president, the Reps, in particular the Evangelical right, were raving about his lack of morals, etc... and that he couldn't do the job if he had an affair.

Now Donnie is in & the Evangelical right are suddenly saying that the lack of morals is OK, and we can forgive an affair (because, hey, nobodies perfect), as long as the conservative agenda is pushed.

oscarBravo

notobtuse wrote: »

The thing is... anyone here, if they were truthful with themselves, knows no Democrat would ever be subjected to the type of investigative circus we are seeing involving Trump.

I guess I hallucinated the years-long hysteria-fest over Benghazi, so - not to mention Ken Starr.

Quin_Dub

Christy42 wrote: »

Looking at it again it might be a little less to do with Russia. It seems Mueller found something not directly relevant and passed on the information to the FBI so I guess it is an entirely separate line of enquiry.

If Cohen gets taken out of action where does that leave Donald's legal team. They were struggling for members a few weeks back.

Although Cohen isn't on Trump legal team per se I think this has huge implications for Trump in terms of his legal defence.

If he thought it was hard to get Top Tier legal players to work on his defence team already , who the hell is going to touch him with a barge pole now given what's just happened to Cohen??

notobtuse

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

This is just my opinion, but an opinion shared by a large majority here in the states.

So Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had numerous locations raided because he presumably made some shady payment to a porn star, and because Trump received $150,000 from the Ukrainians for a speech.

Okay.

But didn’t Bill Clinton receive a $500,000 speaking fee from Russia? Didn’t the Clinton Foundation receive hundreds of millions in the lead-up to her campaign for president, and didn't those 'donations' all but dry up after she lost? Didn’t Hillary pay for specious opposition research that was used as evidence to wire-tap the Trump organization? Didn’t Hillary and her team smash phones and computers to bits after the evidence therein was subpoenaed? Didn’t Hillary and her lawyer Cheryl Mills claim attorney-client privilege when Mills herself was under investigation for obstruction?

Why have we not seen any no-knock raids by the government against Hillary Clinton and her team?

The thing is... anyone here, if they were truthful with themselves, knows no Democrat would ever be subjected to the type of investigative circus we are seeing involving Trump. Currently, justice is not blind... it is a joke. Many outside of the media here see that a dangerous political game is now being played... And revolt may be in the near future.

Bill isn't POTUS. Hillary isn't POTUS.

Besides which, your logic is that The Donald can do whatever he likes because the Clintons were so 'bad'. There's a serious flaw in that logic.

It’s about equal justice under law. The law shouldn’t care what political party you belong to, but in Washington it apparently does, IMO.

everlast75

notobtuse wrote: »

It’s about equal justice under law. The law shouldn’t care what political party you belong to, but in Washington it apparently does, IMO.

Okay.
In that case, are you happy to fully proceed against trump and then proceed against the clintons?

pixelburp

notobtuse wrote: »

It’s about equal justice under law. The law shouldn’t care what political party you belong to, but in Washington it apparently does, IMO.

The republicans hold a majority in every branch of government; Robert Mueller is a Republication; Rod Rosenstein is a Republican; every office they've had to get warrants or legal approval from has been a Republican held post. Donald Trump himself appointed many of these people.

Explain how the Mueller investigation is a political stitch up - which is what your angle appears to be.

notobtuse

Leroy42 wrote: »

So let me get this straight. People aren't too concerned that the current POTUS may have got up to some serious stuff, but are more concerned that other people may have also done it and got away with it?

Its ironic that in a country so completely engrossed with its own security, be that with the massive spending on military or the near religious devotion to guns, that when faced with a possible immediate threat they resort to wondering about past and possible future ones whilst ignoring whats in front of them.

If Trump is guilty of something, then so be it (although what it has to do with Russian collusion is beyond me). If others are guilty of the same or worse, the law shouldn’t be ignored simply because someone lost an election and is a member of a favored party. Knowing you can get away with illegalities only empowers others to do the same going forward, IMO.

Or perhaps we should only recruit potential candidates for POTUS from monasteries and nunneries going forward.

Leroy42

notobtuse wrote: »

It’s about equal justice under law. The law shouldn’t care what political party you belong to, but in Washington it apparently does, IMO.

But whose law? Sessions looked into reopening the investigation into HC and decided there wasn't enough evidence.

So are you calling the AG appointed by Trump a liar?

The problem you seem to have is that the law is exactly that, it doesn't seem to care. The FBI investigated HC and found nothing, Session relooked at it and decided against it.

Mueller has found evidence of lying and cover up and followed the law.

Mr.Micro

notobtuse wrote: »

If Trump is guilty of something, then so be it (although what it has to do with Russian collusion is beyond me). If others are guilty of the same or worse, the law shouldn’t be ignored simply because someone lost an election and is a member of a favored party. Knowing you can get away with illegalities only empowers others to do the same going forward, IMO.

Or perhaps we should only recruit potential candidates for POTUS from monasteries and nunneries going forward.

Such sources might be a whole lot better than the current melting pot....Bush, Trump, Clinton and Kennedy.

Leroy42

notobtuse wrote: »

If Trump is guilty of something, then so be it (although what it has to do with Russian collusion is beyond me). If others are guilty of the same or worse, the law shouldn’t be ignored simply because someone lost an election and is a member of a favored party. Knowing you can get away with illegalities only empowers others to do the same going forward, IMO.

Or perhaps we should only recruit potential candidates for POTUS from monasteries and nunneries going forward.

What are you talking about, favoured party? Why are the Dems the favoured party? Mueller was previously the head of the FBI, a GOP member. Bush senior was head of the CIA. Are you telling me they tried to protect the Democrats?

Bill was impeached. Hardly a sign of protection. HC had to give 10+ hours of testimony to the House about Bengazi. Again, hardly a protection.

You reel off this stuff as if its fact, but fail to provide anything to back it up. Did previous POTUS get away with stuff? Hell yeah, Reagan on the Iran Contra for a start. Was that just the deep state confusing which party he was with?

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

If Trump is guilty of something, then so be it (although what it has to do with Russian collusion is beyond me). If others are guilty of the same or worse, the law shouldn’t be ignored simply because someone lost an election and is a member of a favored party. Knowing you can get away with illegalities only empowers others to do the same going forward, IMO.

Or perhaps we should only recruit potential candidates for POTUS from monasteries and nunneries going forward.

Favoured by whom?

All the Republicans that set-up and are running the investigation ? , The GOP controlled Senate and House ?

The whole "Deep State Cabal" thing falls flat when this simple question is asked..

If they are so all powerful and commanding and can conjure up all this allegedly false information and indictments , why did they wait until AFTER Trump got elected to do it?

Why wasn't all this stuff the October surprise instead of the rehashed Clinton email thing?

It simply does not pass any kind of sniff test.