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

prawnsambo

everlast75 wrote: »

This is incredible.

It is patently clear that Trump is either incapable, incompetent, delusional or compromised.

We have heard from Russia about plans which agreed for Syria, details of which his staff know nothing about.

Trump did not outright refuse to consider handing over a former Ambassador and 11 other individuals to Trump. In fact, he called it a great deal.

We have no idea what he agreed to.

We have no idea what was said.

It is imperative that we find out. To that end, the Dems tried to get the interpreter to attend before them.

Here is what happened;

https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1019931697968766976

To be fair, that would have massive consequences if it were carried. No president could ever have a private discussion with any foreign leader again.

I'm all for transparency, but carried to the end, it would just result in dysfunctional behaviour.

Any kind of agreement with those kinds of ramifications would soon become apparent anyway.

everlast75

This is incredible.

It is patently clear that Trump is either incapable, incompetent, delusional or compromised.

We have heard from Russia about plans which agreed for Syria, details of which his staff know nothing about.

Trump did not outright refuse to consider handing over a former Ambassador and 11 other individuals to Trump. In fact, he called it a great deal.

We have no idea what he agreed to.

We have no idea what was said.

It is imperative that we find out. To that end, the Dems tried to get the interpreter to attend before them.

Here is what happened;

https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1019931697968766976

Professor Moriarty

26000 Elephants wrote: »

The "key judgements" make this assertion, but they are not backed by the actual material in the document itself.

Its littered with "probably", "possibly", "chances are" and downright speculation:
"We have little specific information [...] but he probably has [up to] 500 tonnes { in CW stockpiles]

Any decision to go to war based on this document would have been willfully negligent.

Yeah, but it categorically states that the CIA believes that there is a high probability that Iraq has WMDs. That would have been enough ammunition for Powell and Bush. Also, there may have been more concrete evidence in the redacted texts.

Leroy42

But even the, correctly IMO, view that the CIA etc lied to help drive W Bush war with Irag, I fail to see how this is relevant to Trump. All it does is show that the security services can be used by the administration to do their bidding.

Trump supporters seem to be of the opinion that those very same agencies that lied so that the Republican president can go to war, are lying now in order to overthrow another republican president, whilst the GOP hold all the main offices.

That takes quite a leap and there is simply nothing to suggest it is true.

26000 Elephants

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I read that document - or the bits that were left after it was heavily redacted. It certainly states categorically that the CIA believed that Iraq possessed a variety of WMDs. Where did the document come from?

The "key judgements" make this assertion, but they are not backed by the actual material in the document itself.

Its littered with "probably", "possibly", "chances are" and downright speculation:
"We have little specific information [...] but he probably has [up to] 500 tonnes { in CW stockpiles]

Any decision to go to war based on this document would have been willfully negligent.

StringerBell

I think collusion, whether it happened at the highest level or not is very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not something I would get my hopes up for.

Obstruction of Justice sure, but collusion would be tough, plaudible deniability will play a big part you would imagine and that would be tried in the court of public opinion more so than court. This is why he doesn't bother focusing on expanding the tent and trying to be a president for all Americans, he is a president for his base. Everything he does is planned through how it will play with the base. Keeping them angry, keeping them fighting for him etc

The only realistic way of checking his madness until he is gone is by the Democrats getting their vote out for once and over time take back Congress starting with the house. They need to look at what the Republicans did and model themselves on that, focusing on local elections, state legislators etc and build a movement again.

This all starts with them energising their base and getting them out to vote, as we know there are more Democrats than Republicans in the US but one side is much better at getting it's vote out

irishash

everlast75 wrote: »

What I find amazing is the way the Trump supporters' view on collusion evolves.

1) There was no collusion
2) Anyway, even if there was - collusion is not a crime
3) Okay - if there was collusion, Trump knew nothing about it
4) Okay, he may have known about it, but didn't believe it
5) Anyway - every Country interferes in other Country's elections
6) Okay, there was collusion, and he knew about it, but it did not materially affect the results
7) If they collude to help our guy win, then is that such a bad thing?

The reason Trump will never admit to interference or collusion is because his ego cant stand the idea that some outside factor may have contributed to his election win. It must be that he and he alone had the nous and skill to defeat Hillary and claim the office of President.

As regards collusion, only an idiot would believe that the likes of Don Jr, Kushner, Manafort, et all, acted alone or together and never once said anything to Trump. Take the trump tower meeting. Between the time that Don Jr agreed to the meeting and it having taken place, he never once mentioned to his Dad that he had an avenue to some dirt on his rival? Is that really believable?

Is unwilling (read ignorance) collusion the same as intentional collusion? I would always say ignorance is never an excuse and so he should be held accountable should it be proved.

prawnsambo

everlast75 wrote: »

What I find amazing is the way the Trump supporters' view on collusion evolves.

1) There was no collusion
2) Anyway, even if there was - collusion is not a crime
3) Okay - if there was collusion, Trump knew nothing about it
4) Okay, he may have known about it, but didn't believe it
5) Anyway - every Country interferes in other Country's elections
6) Okay, there was collusion, and he knew about it, but it did not materially affect the results
7) If they collude to help our guy win, then is that such a bad thing?

Collusion is a useful red herring. As long as Trump and his supporters can keep sayiing "no collusion", nobody looks at the actual fact of Russian interference. And so the two have been conflated into the one which has a higher bar of detection and will take a lot longer (if ever) to prove.

everlast75

What I find amazing is the way the Trump supporters' view on collusion evolves.

1) There was no collusion
2) Anyway, even if there was - collusion is not a crime
3) Okay - if there was collusion, Trump knew nothing about it
4) Okay, he may have known about it, but didn't believe it
5) Anyway - every Country interferes in other Country's elections
6) Okay, there was collusion, and he knew about it, but it did not materially affect the results
7) If they collude to help our guy win, then is that such a bad thing?

everlast75

here is an interesting article.

Weeks before his inauguration, Trump was shown a lot of classified information regarding Putin's interference and the sources.

Within 9 months, 9 prominent dissidents were dead.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/24/europe/dead-russians/index.html

amandstu

Water John wrote: »

Absolutely amazing that this Russian redhead is swanning around in NRA and GOP circles and it occurs to nobody to go, WTF?
A spy hiding in plain sight.

Who is "nobody"? Fellow members? **If I was one it would not necessarily occur to me to be suspicious.

The intelligence services need feedback from the public and if she did not rouse suspicions in her immediate circle it is going to be harder to ferret her out.

**even in the GOP though what her "business" there was I don't actually know.

Water John

Absolutely amazing that this Russian redhead is swanning around in NRA and GOP circles and it occurs to nobody to go, WTF?
A spy hiding in plain sight.

smurgen

jooksavage wrote: »

Unprecedented as it would be, there needs to be a full disclosure of what was discussed in that private meeting with Putin. I would think it extremely likely that Putin was recording every word. If Trump (or the translator) doesn't provide a blow-by-blow account of what was discussed, it's just more kompromat to hold over him.

The very notion that Putin suggested Trump serve up McFaul (a former ambassador, no less) and Browder (who's not even a US citizen) and wasn't immediately told to f*** off is just outrageous. SHS didn't even rule it out at yesterday's press briefing. Trump is failing his country. If a private citizen conducted themselves in this fashion with Russia, they'd find themselves hauled into an FBI interrogation room.

The fact that the americans even have to worry about what the president said to his counterpart for fear of giving away privaledge secrets either intentionally our unintentionally should point to him being unsuitable for the job.if it's that risky he should be removed.

everlast75

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, we'll see.

I have zero faith in the much talked about "checks and balances" of the US system. If they worked, Trump would be gone already. It seems they exist but can be arbitrarily ignored or voted down when a party has sufficient votes. Which means they're worthless.

I strongly suspect that some senior republicans are compromised by virtue of their funding, through the NRA. That's just a suspicion at the moment, lest someone jump down my neck for being a conspiracy theorist.

People did not see a turning point coming with Nixon either, until it just happened.

But I do agree - the press in the WH and the republicans are very slow to act, but there are small but significant signs of it happening now.

seamus

everlast75 wrote: »

There are legal and procedural avenues open. All we need is for those that can take legal and appropriate action, do so.

Yeah, we'll see.

I have zero faith in the much talked about "checks and balances" of the US system. If they worked, Trump would be gone already. It seems they exist but can be arbitrarily ignored or voted down when a party has sufficient votes. Which means they're worthless.

everlast75

What seems to be suggested here is some sort of a coup.

That's not necessary.

The Legislature have it within their power to hold his feet to the fire.

Mueller has immense resources which will no doubt yield results.

We have Manafort and Cohen as real liabilities.

There are legal and procedural avenues open. All we need is for those that can take legal and appropriate action, do so.

Wanderer78

kilns wrote:

He is literally a threat to their national security and I am sure there is a plan in place

Of course there's a plan in place, from multiple agencies and groups, but that's probably the same for most if not all presidents.

kilns

I would not be surprised if plans are afoot to oust him by those intelligency agencies, even if he didnt imagine what we could have told Putin in that one on one meeting, and that would be too much for those agencies to take as they will continue long after Trump is gone.

He is literally a threat to their national security and I am sure there is a plan in place

seamus

Water John wrote: »

Basically Trump was interrogated, without anyone except an interpreter present, by a trained former KGB officer.
American Intelligence services and those of any other country cooperating with them, must be s***less.

One thing that's been notably absent in the last 12 months is any more instances of Trump blurting out privileged information about US security or their Allies' security.

This isn't because he's gotten better at keeping schtum, it's because agencies and politicians have become more tight-lipped around him.

I expect the US intelligence agencies have found themselves left in the dark by other countries' agencies more frequently now than ever before.

The problem for the US as a country is the massive divide between the government and their security forces. And this only grows by the day with Trump in charge. If he was to continue throwing them under the bus and/or compromising himself, you have this rare and terrifying circumstance where the security forces have to consider him completely compromised and orchestrate his replacement.

Water John

Basically Trump was interrogated, without anyone except an interpreter present, by a trained former KGB officer.
American Intelligence services and those of any other country cooperating with them, must be s***less.

StringerBell

robinph wrote: »

Wouldn't give him any credit for that as it's just a twist of fate that a bunch of judges happen to retire or die during his term. Trump hasn’t done anything to make it happen, at least I hope not.

It's not an achievement to fill some job vacancies.

You know what your right in many ways, and it is in fact Mitch mconnels achievement even more than the president but it is just the way of things, the sitting president will get the credit for that.

His picks are very appealing to the conservatives and that is a win for him and his administration. An undeniable one. In the long game they will help create favourable legislation for them and that is important.

I don't like Mitch Mconnell or how he essentially stole a pick but he has done a great job for his team you do have to acknowledge that.

Quin_Dub

humberklog wrote: »

Would someone here know?

I'd have presumed (obviously wrongly) that a meeting such as Trump-Putin would've been officially recorded. The recordings not being for public perusal but for guidance to the civil services as to what is being committed to by the leaders of their countries.

I recall a story recently about WH staff whose job it was was to collect up all paper notes written by the president and log and file them. The reason it was in the news was because of the trouble they had with Trump as he had a habit of ripping up his notes.

Is it not required that notes or recordings or even simply a 2nd person as witness (excluding interpreters) to be there when going into such a high profile and important meeting?

Typically yes , but looks like that behaviour has fallen out of favour under Trump.

There have been a series of interviews in the last week or so from a former White House Stenographer that had worked there for the last 7/8 years who recently left.

Basically her input was that historically , a stenographer was a permanent fixture in all meetings documenting everything , but that under Trump they have been excluded more and more and that he was having increasing numbers of "off the record" undocumented meetings.

Article here

everlast75

humberklog wrote: »

Would someone here know?

I'd have presumed (obviously wrongly) that a meeting such as Trump-Putin would've been officially recorded. The recordings not being for public perusal but for guidance to the civil services as to what is being committed to by the leaders of their countries.

I recall a story recently about WH staff whose job it was was to collect up all paper notes written by the president and log and file them. The reason it was in the news was because of the trouble they had with Trump as he had a habit of ripping up his notes.

Is it not required that notes or recordings or even simply a 2nd person as witness (excluding interpreters) to be there when going into such a high profile and important meeting?

The problem with Trump is that there were standard practices before he came along, release of tax records etc. When he landed, not only did he break those practices, he broke a shed load of rules too.

So, to answer your question (as best I can), it doesn't matter if it was a practice or a rule that records were to be kept. Trump doesn't give two *****.

What congress should do, is compel the interpreter to attend before them to explain what was said.

humberklog

Would someone here know?

I'd have presumed (obviously wrongly) that a meeting such as Trump-Putin would've been officially recorded. The recordings not being for public perusal but for guidance to the civil services as to what is being committed to by the leaders of their countries.

I recall a story recently about WH staff whose job it was was to collect up all paper notes written by the president and log and file them. The reason it was in the news was because of the trouble they had with Trump as he had a habit of ripping up his notes.

Is it not required that notes or recordings or even simply a 2nd person as witness (excluding interpreters) to be there when going into such a high profile and important meeting?

kilns

circadian wrote: »

everlast75 wrote: »

Montenegro is part of NATO, voted in overwhelmingly.

You might recall at the last NATO meeting, the Pres of Montenegro was the one Trump pushed out of the way and then stuck or his chest.

Montenegro is currently in Afghanistan aiding US efforts after 9/11.

You can bet Montenegro was discussed at the meeting.

You can bet Montenegro is and has been a target for Putin for some time.

You can guess that Trump has a problem with that country, not only because Putin told him to, but probably because it has the word Negro in it.

What would Putin's beef with Montenegro be though? They peacefully seceeded from Serbia about a decade ago, I can't see any other reason unless it's a geographical strategy?

Montenergo have a vast supply of natural resources, already Russian companies are in there exploring

jooksavage

I heard Browder himself speak on Slates podcast yesterday. He's always worth a listen. Im halfway through his book Red Notice for the last 6 months - its not a reflection upon his writing: I'm just a terrible reader! Yesterday he was discussing some of the countries he would feel safe traveling to. He was arrested on a Russian Interpol warrant in Spain last month but released within 2 hours. Says he would feel safe travelling to most countries in Europe except those with Russian borders as its not unheard of for Russia to stage kidnappings in places like Estonia. Also said he'd be reluctant to visit Italy for fear of their new Putin-friendly leadership.

I have to wonder how safe he'd feel visiting the US these days.

jooksavage

Unprecedented as it would be, there needs to be a full disclosure of what was discussed in that private meeting with Putin. I would think it extremely likely that Putin was recording every word. If Trump (or the translator) doesn't provide a blow-by-blow account of what was discussed, it's just more kompromat to hold over him.

The very notion that Putin suggested Trump serve up McFaul (a former ambassador, no less) and Browder (who's not even a US citizen) and wasn't immediately told to f*** off is just outrageous. SHS didn't even rule it out at yesterday's press briefing. Trump is failing his country. If a private citizen conducted themselves in this fashion with Russia, they'd find themselves hauled into an FBI interrogation room.

aloyisious

Re the "NO" answer Don gave to the question, and SHS's straightening out what he meant to the media, can posters use SHS, not Sanders, when referring to her please. I hadn't heard the two news item videos and thought it was Bernie Sanders doing the explaining to the media.

Captain Obvious

jooksavage wrote: »

Appeals court has ruled against Trumps ban on transgender people in the military. Just a hopeful reminder that the system is, for now at least, robust enough to survive Trump.

Many people are worried about the legacy he will leave on the Supreme Court by stacking it far right. But it's worth pointing out that the number of judges on the SC is set by legislation and it's already considered to be very understaffed, having only increased it's numbers by three in over 200 years. If the dems were in power it could be unstacked very easily.

ELM327 wrote: »

That's the question.

Yes, it is the question I asked you.

circadian wrote: »

What would Putin's beef with Montenegro be though? They peacefully seceeded from Serbia about a decade ago, I can't see any other reason unless it's a geographical strategy?

A port in the Adriatic/Mediterranean.

Leroy42

ELM327 wrote: »

Does anyone know?
Does anyone believe that it was an honest mis spoken word?

No. Even you don't believe that..

But you are the one defending him and telling us that someone told him to say that would meant wouldn't.

So you have all the details we do know. And you decided that that didn't fit so you made up another alternative but have absolutely nothing to back it up.

Maybe he is an alien. Maybe its actually HC in disguise. Maybe it's Putin, or Jesus. You are very determined to make up a theory to try to defend it when even the man himself has not tried it.

The only conclusion, based on the facts we know, is that Trump doesn't believe it, didn't bring it up with Putin and is only trying to backtrack because of the backlash he got (and mainly from the likes of Fox News as he would have dismissed CNN etc).

But even in the backtrack he couldn't help himself to throw it in that it could be anybody (again Coates has said it was Russia, not mentioned anyone else), that that line shows that he doesn't believe they are totally right.