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

Mumha

jooksavage wrote: »

I just heard the latest one - Tim O'Brien (yes that Tim O'Brien) was downplaying the importance of the Cohen raid, basically saying MC wasnt really involved in the day-to-day stuff in the Trump orgsnisation and that Trump himself might not be that exposed.

He did point out a few areas though where he thinks Trump is in real danger. One of those is NY DA Eric Schneidermans often forgotten investigation into Manafort. Even if Trump pardons Manafort on the federal charges, theres SFA he can do to help him out on state charges. And although President Trump cant be charged by state prosecutors, those charges could be waiting for him when he completes his term.

Also he's certain Trump will try to fire Mueller but says its too late as Meuller has been sharing information through cooperation agreements with state prosecutors offices so the investigation is never going away, even if Meuller is.

Rachel Maddow had two worrying takes on Mueller->Rosenstein and SDNY.

Those corruptible bozos, Devin Nunes and Trey Gowdy have written Rosenstein demanding to see the un-redacted Comey memos, which is currently evidence in an on-going investigation. Rosenstein has asked for more time to decide whether he will release it or not....he has an extra few days. The fear is that Rosenstein, correctly, won't release it, giving Nunes/Gowdy/Trump/Fox an excuse to spin it that Rosenstein is hiding "the truth" and use that to fire him. That would then open the door to get at Mueller. It's even more worrying that McConnell has refused to allow the protection of Mueller to proceed.

The other issue is that we know Geoffrey Berman recused himself from the SDNY's investigation of Michael Cohen, but he is only a temporary DA, which is up in early May. Trump could choose not to put his name forward for Senate approval, and appoint someone more amenable.

everlast75

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, I have seen several commentators say that the worst case scenario is not that Mueller is fired, it is that Mueller delivers a damning report and nobody does anything about it. The Republicans in Congress yell "Fake News!" and bin the report.

Then what do you do?

You wait for the dems to take the majority and then revisit. Unless stormy gets to Trump first of course

everlast75

Peregrinus wrote: »

Trump asserts that he has the power to dismiss (or bring about the dismissal of) Mueller, but most commentators say no, he hasn't. One of the reasons, probably, why Trump hasn't yet tried to dismiss him is that he has been persuaded that the courts will strike down his attempts, or at least that his attempts will be mired in the courts for months and will do him more damage than good.

At the moment, yes. But as Court ruling after Court ruling goes against him, he will become more and more inclined to risk it all.. ie fire Mueller. I believe this as he has laid out the groundwork for months

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's also quite likely that if Trump did succeed in firing Mueller, the House of Representatives would appoint their own special counsel to make the same investigation - if not immediately, then after the mid-term elections. And Trump, of course, can't fire a congressional appointee.

The republican party have to be compromosed, given their reluctance to protect Mueller now. I don't believe they will do it later either

Zubeneschamali

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

No need to fire anyone when you control the media

Yes, I have seen several commentators say that the worst case scenario is not that Mueller is fired, it is that Mueller delivers a damning report and nobody does anything about it. The Republicans in Congress yell "Fake News!" and bin the report.

Then what do you do?

Trent Houseboat

Peregrinus wrote:

It's also quite likely that if Trump did succeed in firing Mueller, the House of Representatives would appoint their own special counsel to make the same investigation - if not immediately, then after the mid-term elections. And Trump, of course, can't fire a congressional appointee.

And the gormless consumers of Hannity/Sinclair/Alex Jones who already think that Mueller is a Democrat stooge and everything he does is in pursuit of a Clintonist witch hunt are likely to believe in the impartiality of a an investigation appointed by Democrats?

If Democrats took the house and such an investigation turned up video evidence of Trump taking part in (randomly generated crime) pizza restaurant child sex murder cult, they'd simply dismiss it as false flag, crisis actors in league with Hollywood librul elites and da Derp State.

No need to fire anyone when you control the media(or controllers of that media sees you as a useful idiot) of the echo chamber you demographic inhabits.

Peregrinus

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I would guess all the evidence is there. Mueller would be wise to make sure it has been shared and even leaked if things go pear shaped for him. I have said before it is truly bizarre that an individual being investigated can contol or stop any such investigations. The Americans really need to look at the power vested in POTUS, especially when he turns out to be bad and dangerous.

Trump asserts that he has the power to dismiss (or bring about the dismissal of) Mueller, but most commentators say no, he hasn't. One of the reasons, probably, why Trump hasn't yet tried to dismiss him is that he has been persuaded that the courts will strike down his attempts, or at least that his attempts will be mired in the courts for months and will do him more damage than good.

It's also quite likely that if Trump did succeed in firing Mueller, the House of Representatives would appoint their own special counsel to make the same investigation - if not immediately, then after the mid-term elections. And Trump, of course, can't fire a congressional appointee.

Mr.Micro

Water John wrote: »

Absolutely no doubt, Mueller has taken out, 'insurance'.

I would guess all the evidence is there. Mueller would be wise to make sure it has been shared and even leaked if things go pear shaped for him. I have said before it is truly bizarre that an individual being investigated can contol or stop any such investigations. The Americans really need to look at the power vested in POTUS, especially when he turns out to be bad and dangerous.

amandstu

Leroy42 wrote: »

As Trump never knew about that how can he be so sure that Cohen didn't go further?

Seems a good point.

Leroy42

It does look really similar, but then young white man is hardly difficult to find a resemblance.

I di think it is odd that a POTUS would be using his communication to the American people (and the world) to defend a lawyer on a charge to which he knows nothing about. He has stated he knew nothing of the payment and the affair never happened, so he can't really then claim that he knows that this never happened as he knew nothing about it.

As Cohen lawyer has said, just because it wasn't true doesn't mean it can't be damaging, so even if the affair never happened, Cohen felt it necessary to pay off Stormy so knew the potential damage. As Trump never knew about that how can he be so sure that Cohen didn't go further?

amandstu

mcmoustache wrote: »

Here's Trump's tweet.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/986547093610299392

There are a lot of rumblings that this is a member of Trump's security.

From seeing what Avenatti has been doing, I wouldn't be surprised if they already knew who this person was before the sketch.

But it could (also or just ) be psyops.

Works for ratings anyway:)

Hmm photo is interesting

mcmoustache

everlast75 wrote: »

Finally - Trump has tweeted regarding Ms. Clifford's case!

Avenatti is playing a storm(y). Has Trump walked himself into a civil case, which can be taken while he is sitting. Avenatti says he has..

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/986553722846285824?s=19

Here's Trump's tweet.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/986547093610299392

There are a lot of rumblings that this is a member of Trump's security.

From seeing what Avenatti has been doing, I wouldn't be surprised if they already knew who this person was before the sketch.

everlast75

Finally - Trump has tweeted regarding Ms. Clifford's case!

Avenatti is playing a storm(y). Has Trump walked himself into a civil case, which can be taken while he is sitting. Avenatti says he has..

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/986553722846285824?s=19

VinLieger

amandstu wrote: »

Did Trump back down from a face to face interview with him(because he was terrified**)?

*I think he would intimidate me even if I had nothing to hide.

I don't think trump can be intimidated in that way like a normal person, he's too much of a sociopath and a narcissist. If he does feel fear he doesn't understand it and probably rationalises it into being some kind of unfair attack on him.

I think his team and lawyers somehow made him understand how screwed he would be by a Mueller interview as after 1 minute of talking he would go off on a tangent and lie about something without realising it as he truly believes whatever he says is true and Mueller would have him dead to rights.

Leroy42

I think that the thing that his really unsettling Trump is that Mueller seems to be doing this out a sense of doing his job. He doesn't seem to be concerned with publicity, doesn't seem to take the bait that Trump and others have thrown at him, and doesn't seem to react to events. He just continues on, relentless almost. He continues to surprise with ech announcement and continues to show that despite the constant refrain that the investigation is nearly over, every few weeks/months a totally new aspect comes out.

Trump has no idea how to handle him. He can't pay him off, he can't intimidate him. He doesn't appear to have any issues to drag him down. The fact that Trump is calling him out over his conflict of interest (apparently he is a closest DNC!) shows how little Trump has to attack him with.

So I don't know if he is scared/intimidate or what, I really think that Trump has not comes across this type of person before. Even dealing with DA's etc, they have a political career to think off, Mueller has none of that. It would appear, at least from this remove, that Mueller is actually driven by a sense of right and wrong (in terms of procedure) rather than money or prestige and Trump simply cannot understand that.

amandstu

jooksavage wrote: »

As O'Brien puts it, Mueller is playing 3D chess. The Trump team are playing bingo.

Is it just an impression or is Mueller really scary and competent in a way that Comey wasn't?

Is it just that we never hear from him and just see his moves?

Did Trump back down from a face to face interview with him(because he was terrified**)?

*I think he would intimidate me even if I had nothing to hide.

jooksavage

Water John wrote: »

Absolutely no doubt, Mueller has taken out, 'insurance'.

As O'Brien puts it, Mueller is playing 3D chess. The Trump team are playing bingo.

Water John

Absolutely no doubt, Mueller has taken out, 'insurance'.

jooksavage

everlast75 wrote: »

Btw there is an excellent podcast this week on Trumpcast regarding Cohen and Mueller's strategy with Trump

I just heard the latest one - Tim O'Brien (yes that Tim O'Brien) was downplaying the importance of the Cohen raid, basically saying MC wasnt really involved in the day-to-day stuff in the Trump orgsnisation and that Trump himself might not be that exposed.

He did point out a few areas though where he thinks Trump is in real danger. One of those is NY DA Eric Schneidermans often forgotten investigation into Manafort. Even if Trump pardons Manafort on the federal charges, theres SFA he can do to help him out on state charges. And although President Trump cant be charged by state prosecutors, those charges could be waiting for him when he completes his term.

Also he's certain Trump will try to fire Mueller but says its too late as Meuller has been sharing information through cooperation agreements with state prosecutors offices so the investigation is never going away, even if Meuller is.

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, that was my reading of the report as well. There is no doubt that McCabe is in big trouble but from the report (or at least my reading of it) it seems that he released info detrimental to HC (whether it actually had a negative impact is harder to judge but it was not meant as a positive).

Also, we need to recall that Trump is very much in favour of leaks. HE asked the Russians to hack into and leak the 33k HC e-mails. He called Wikileaks "amazing" during the campaign.

So, it is hard to imagine that Trump fired McCabe over these leaks, since he was originally in favour of them. It gives him a convenient cover but it doesn't make sense. McCabe must feel pretty hard done by that he fought so hard to get Trump elected (or at least not HC) and then get fired soon after.

But to claim that this report gives any credibility to Trump or the claims that there is a deep state conspiracy against him.

Very good point re hypocrisy of Trump abd criticism of leaks.

Btw there is an excellent podcast this week on Trumpcast regarding Cohen and Mueller's strategy with Trump

Leroy42

Blowfish wrote: »

If you are going to call for someone to be prosecuted based on a report, you should at least have the decency to read it first. What you've said in bold is complete nonsense and absolutely not what the report says. If anything, it's the complete opposite, the leak would have harmed Clinton as it revealed the existence of the investigation into the Clinton Foundation, which wasn't publicly known about at the time.

Of course that wouldn't fit the 'MAGA DEEP STATE CONSPIRE AGAINST TRUMP' nonsense narrative though so it'll be ignored.

Yes, that was my reading of the report as well. There is no doubt that McCabe is in big trouble but from the report (or at least my reading of it) it seems that he released info detrimental to HC (whether it actually had a negative impact is harder to judge but it was not meant as a positive).

Also, we need to recall that Trump is very much in favour of leaks. HE asked the Russians to hack into and leak the 33k HC e-mails. He called Wikileaks "amazing" during the campaign.

So, it is hard to imagine that Trump fired McCabe over these leaks, since he was originally in favour of them. It gives him a convenient cover but it doesn't make sense. McCabe must feel pretty hard done by that he fought so hard to get Trump elected (or at least not HC) and then get fired soon after.

But to claim that this report gives any credibility to Trump or the claims that there is a deep state conspiracy against him.

[Deleted User]

jooksavage wrote: »

That's the thing - how much worse is it going to get over the next 2-3 years? We can all look forward to the mid-terms with hope but the chances are, Trump will still finish out his term.

I've wondered for a while if comments like the Megyn Kelly thing, and the worse stuff that came later ("Grab em' by the...", impression of Serge Kovaleski, his defaming of the Kahns) have actually been something of a scandal vaccine for Trump - each new scandal is like a booster shot, making his base ever more immune, and the rest of the world ever more numb to further outrages.

Siege mentality. As I keep saying, he only needs about 30% of the population to vote for him to keep him in. If the economy stays good that'll add some don't-rock-the-boat votes (especially around the lakes) and he has a clear path.

jooksavage

That's the thing - how much worse is it going to get over the next 2-3 years? We can all look forward to the mid-terms with hope but the chances are, Trump will still finish out his term.

I've wondered for a while if comments like the Megyn Kelly thing, and the worse stuff that came later ("Grab em' by the...", impression of Serge Kovaleski, his defaming of the Kahns) have actually been something of a scandal vaccine for Trump - each new scandal is like a booster shot, making his base ever more immune, and the rest of the world ever more numb to further outrages.

Blowfish

notobtuse wrote: »

Yes, there should be sympathy for Trump. The Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz just issued report on Andrew McCabe, the disgraced former deputy director of the FBI regarding his part in the 2016 election.

https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/us/politics/20180413a-doj-oig-mccabe-report.pdf

Bottom line… Andrew McCabe leaked information to the media about an ongoing investigation because he wanted to help Hillary Clinton and harm Donald Trump. He then lied repeatedly about his behavior both under oath and in unsworn conversation with superiors.

He should be prosecuted.

If you are going to call for someone to be prosecuted based on a report, you should at least have the decency to read it first. What you've said in bold is complete nonsense and absolutely not what the report says. If anything, it's the complete opposite, the leak would have harmed Clinton as it revealed the existence of the investigation into the Clinton Foundation, which wasn't publicly known about at the time.

Of course that wouldn't fit the 'MAGA DEEP STATE CONSPIRE AGAINST TRUMP' nonsense narrative though so it'll be ignored.

pixelburp

Man that feels like a long, long time ago. Must feel double that for US citizens stuck with that administration. So insane to think that Trump talking about Kelly "bleeding out of her whatever" wasn't the scummiest thing he'd come out with during that campaign either. You wouldn't get that talk even in the comments section of thejournal.

jooksavage

robinph wrote: »

Unless it's a "quiet family funeral" then I'd expect all former presidents and first ladies would be in attendance as well as the current one. It's only one step down from the funeral of the head of state level event

I recall Barbara Bush having some choice words about Trump two years ago. She was disgusted by his comments about Megyn Kelly: "I don't know how women can vote for someone who said what he said". Im sure she'd be thrilled by the prospect of him attending her funeral.

robinph

aloyisious wrote: »

RIP Barbara Bush.... It's probably too soon to mention this in relation to the lady's funeral but I'm expecting there to be a chance that Don will be on the invite list for protocol reasons. It might be a chance for Don & the GOP leadership to talk about their differences face to face, maybe arrange future meetings behind the scenes.

Unless it's a "quiet family funeral" then I'd expect all former presidents and first ladies would be in attendance as well as the current one. It's only one step down from the funeral of the head of state level event

LeinsterDub

jobbridge4life wrote: »

First of all... wikipedia.

Wikipedia is actually quite reliable.

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

RIP Barbara Bush.... It's probably too soon to mention this in relation to the lady's funeral but I'm expecting there to be a chance that Don will be on the invite list for protocol reasons. It might be a chance for Don & the GOP leadership to talk about their differences face to face, maybe arrange future meetings behind the scenes.

The White House (with a Republican President) and the Congressional Republican leadership would normally be in touch multiple times at multiple levels every day. They don't have to wait to run into one another at a funeral in Texas to arrange any level of contact that they might want.

aloyisious

RIP Barbara Bush.... It's probably too soon to mention this in relation to the lady's funeral but I'm expecting there to be a chance that Don will be on the invite list for protocol reasons. It might be a chance for Don & the GOP leadership to talk about their differences face to face, maybe arrange future meetings behind the scenes.

aloyisious

The Washington Post is running two stories, 1st is a behind the scenes story that Mike Pompeo, Dir CIA, flew to N/Korea over Easter W/end for sceret meeting with Kim as part of effort for a meeting between Don and Kim about N/K's nuclear weapons programme, the 2nd is that Justice Gorsuch is joining with SC liberal justices in declaring that part of the Admin's immigration law is too vague and that might limt the Admin's plan to deport those with criminal records.

The 1st is good news that Don [presumably] allowed Mike take a "Henry Kissinger has a cold" weekend trip paving the way to talks. the 2nd: I can't see Don being happy with Neil & the liberal justices, that he can't throw out the bad hombres.

I'm outside the WaPo paywall so any links I could copy & paste here wouldn't work.

Edit: I can't help but feel that there is a connection between the trip and Kim's recent train visit to China, and that some-one [maybe even Don himself] used Don's tweeting on issues [esp Mueller] to distract attention. I reckon that China and the Admin have been in talks about a meeting since the Kim V Don quietness blanket came down. The very recent sanctions tweeting on China by Don, esp the seeming flip-flopping, may have been a cover to hide the actual diplomatic-friendly sitiuation.