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 VI

Quin_Dub

The continuing discussion of the Donald Trump Presidency.

Keep it civil and please note the charter before posting

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

PropJoe10

StringerBell wrote: »

Its actually even worse than that, McConnell has already come out and said Trump will not be removed under any circumstances. This should actually lead to his own impeachment for breaching his oath but obviously won't.

When you sit back and think about it, it's absolutely amazing really. Corruption in plain sight and no consequences whatsoever. The Republicans will be looked back on as an absolute disgrace - they're blindly following this man into the abyss.

Manic Moran

aloyisious wrote: »

He's argued in the past that it was better to let the public decide on Dons fate at the next election instead of making it a partisan impeachment issue in the congress and senate.

He would not be the first person to make the argument.

That's not to say previous impeachments haven't been partisan. I'm sure Republicans were overjoyed at the opportunity to impeach Clinton for partisan reasons, but there was at least a black-and-white issue at the core of it. There is a lot more room for interpretation as to the illegality of a "high crime and misdemeanour".

On other partisan matters, the military of Virginia has been forced to respond to a well-publicised suggestion by a Congressman (Donald McEachin - D VA) this week that the Governor mobilise the National Guard in order to enforce new gun control measures. A large number of areas, to include VA's third-largest city have declared themselves sanctuaries, who will refuse to co-operate. Map here. https://www.vcdl.org/resources/Pictures/Virginia%202nd%20Amendment%20Sanctuary%20Statue.jpg

The Military Department basically said "We're staying the hell out of this, stop talking to us and work with the legislators and the courts instead."
The optics of sending the military to go confiscate guns is basically mana to those who say that Democrats are lying when they say they're not coming after your guns (Witness Beto's fall), and I'm not sure that using the military as police is really something that Democrats as a whole want to be associated with.

derossi

I think most should take cues from the UK election. America is there by a lot. So if to a 'normal person' something is said, then it may not be normal to our extent. America is right now gonna elct Trump again so unless a proper alternative lands then good luck. I am a Bernie supporter, love his policies and love him but he has no chance. It needs to be a centriest person, Biden is closest. Thats all I will say about him. If they want to win the election then has to be in the middle. Buttieg and Warren great, Sanders is a disaster. Pick Biden and go for him, he can win, might not be the best but he can win.

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

He would not be the first person to make the argument.

That's not to say previous impeachments haven't been partisan. I'm sure Republicans were overjoyed at the opportunity to impeach Clinton for partisan reasons, but there was at least a black-and-white issue at the core of it. There is a lot more room for interpretation as to the illegality of a "high crime and misdemeanour

I would argue that obstruction of Congress *is* a black and white issue. Couldn't be clearer.

Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the president to account.

Regardless of whether Trump believes the grounds for investigation are unwarranted, he should comply with congressional subpoenas. He doesn't get to make that call. Why the **** have an impeachment process if the president can tell Congress to go **** themselves.

I would believe that if it was Democrat. It is not or should not be a partisan issue.

everlast75

With McConnell and Graham exposing the fact that the fix is in, I think they've overplayed their hand.

If the matter goes to the senate and trump is not convicted, then they will obviously use that as a call for 2020 - "Trump exonerated". However, the Dems can play the footage of McConnell and Graham and say that he wasn't because there was not a real hearing.

Secondly, Tribe mooted a censure rather than sending it to the Senate. He's modified that idea somewhat. He now suggests that the matter move forward for Trial in the Senate, but only to proceed when Pompeo, Bolton et al are compelled by Court to attend. It puts pressure on the Courts to decide sooner. If Trump complains about the delay in holding the hearing, then the Dems simply reply saying that if he allows witnesses to testify, it'll be over quicker. It also keeps it live, like a dagger over his head. I like it.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

He would not be the first person to make the argument.

That's not to say previous impeachments haven't been partisan. I'm sure Republicans were overjoyed at the opportunity to impeach Clinton for partisan reasons, but there was at least a black-and-white issue at the core of it.

On other partisan matters, the military of Virginia has been forced to respond to a well-publicised suggestion by a Congressman (Donald McEachin - D VA) this week that the Governor mobilise the National Guard in order to enforce new gun control measures.

The Military Department basically said "We're staying the hell out of this, stop talking to us and work with the legislators and the courts instead."

GOOD on the above response from the 1st line of reserve. Re C/man McEachin, I don't know who he'd be addressing with that gun control idea. I'd have to use a Yoda-type comment "in this one the weakness is strong" with reference to the idea of using military forces with their firepower to confiscate illegally held fire-arms. A silly season comment from McEachin.

With Van Drew, if he was against impeachment, he would best served by voting nay to both charges at the formal Congress meeting when they are put to an approval vote instead of, as the report said, going to Don at the White House for talks about changing parties for possible personal gain, keeping his seat safe. In that regard, I'd put him in the same boat as McConnell and Graham, where doubtless the last two will watch him like hawks.

Re the impeachment move in respect of Ukraine, Don obstructed both houses on the hill with his arms blockage and went against the US national interest in the way he went about it. He's the president with all the tools of Govt at his disposal, incl the DOJ to initiate inquiries with the Ukrainian Govt when it came
to allegations about US citizens being involved in alleged crookery with a Ukraine firm.

Don also had the obligation to uphold US law, as chief defender of the constitution by his oath of office, which he trashed and insulted by sending his unpaid personal lawyer to Ukraine to try subvert Ukraine's president and constitution with a bit of blackmail when President Zelensky was elected to office on the same issue that Don used to get the US presidency, draining the swamp [corruption], with one major difference: Zelensky is actually following true [pun] on his promise while his country is under military attack.

It's telling that L Graham is saying that its all partisan when he voiced his opposition to Don Trump being on the list of possible GOP candidates to run for office to replace President Trump. He knew back the that Don was not to be trustedin the office of US president and with what being brought forward presently against Don Trump, Lindsay now chooses to do another of his several U-turns in the past two months where Don is concerned.

everlast75

Schumer has written to McConnell on the issue

https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1206406169209851904?s=19

amandstu

everlast75 wrote: »

Schumer has written to McConnell on the issue

https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1206406169209851904?s=19

Yes that is a fair reaction to a seeming refusal to hold a fair (rather than a "non show" trial)

But the Dems may have to be mindful of detracting from their other messages at election time-and also how can they ensure that that election will be fair?

Can they hold the Rep's feet to the fire in that regard?

everlast75

Judiciary report out - and some spicy language included...

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1206528529518727168?s=19

peddlelies

This is an excellent article on the many mistruths spread by McCabe, Schiff and others on Fisa abuse concerning the Trump campaign. One point I want to highlight is how important the Steele dossier was in securing the warrant on Page, a point which was said by some to be "debunked".

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ig-nunes-and-schiff-11576022741

The Horowitz report says the FBI considered surveilling Mr. Page in August 2016 but decided it lacked probable cause. The bureau moved ahead with its FISA application after it received the Steele dossier on September 19, and the report says the dossier “played a central and essential role” in that decision. Mr. Horowitz says the part of the application detailing Mr. Page’s 2016 activities “relied entirely” on “information from Steele Reports.”

everlast75

peddlelies wrote: »

This is an excellent article on the many mistruths spread by McCabe, Schiff and others on Fisa abuse concerning the Trump campaign. One point I want to highlight is how important the Steele dossier was in securing the warrant on Page, a point which was said by some to be "debunked".

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ig-nunes-and-schiff-11576022741

The Horowitz report says the FBI considered surveilling Mr. Page in August 2016 but decided it lacked probable cause. The bureau moved ahead with its FISA application after it received the Steele dossier on September 19, and the report says the dossier “played a central and essential role” in that decision. Mr. Horowitz says the part of the application detailing Mr. Page’s 2016 activities “relied entirely” on “information from Steele Reports.”

that article appears to be behind a firewall, however it appears that the IG report is useful to both sides of the debate..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/11/guide-misleading-spin-ig-report/

Frankly, any and all discrepancies should be rectified. Absolutely no problem with that.

What I cannot take however is one side purely taking what suits them and discarding the rest (not aimed at you btw). It was the same for the Mueller report - no obstruction, no collusion, yet then go on to rubbish Mueller and the details of obstruction.

IG reports will always find issues. Humans are prone to errors. But let's be clear about it. I take a lot more from this report than I will from the upcoming one. Barr has already put his fingers on the scales, no doubt about it.

peddlelies

everlast75 wrote: »

that article appears to be behind a firewall, however it appears that the IG report is useful to both sides of the debate..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/11/guide-misleading-spin-ig-report/

IG reports will always find issues. Humans are prone to errors. But let's be clear about it. I take a lot more from this report than I will from the upcoming one. Barr has already put his fingers on the scales, no doubt about it.

Errors are one thing, purposely doctoring documents and the like is another. It's obvious Barr is there to try and shield Trump so I'll take what he comes up with, with a pinch of salt, unless there is some big revelation with documents et al to back it up.

everlast75

peddlelies wrote: »

Errors are one thing, purposely doctoring documents and the like is another. It's obvious Barr is there to try and shield Trump so I'll take what he comes up with, with a pinch of salt, unless there is some big revelation with documents et al to back it up.

My understanding of the report was that there was no purposeful doctoring of the report, nor any political bias against Trump and that the report was opened properly.

Carter Page appears to be entitled to a genuine grievance here, but my understanding is there were 4 sets of applications arising from Crossfire Hurricane and the other 3 had no issues. Trump's talking points about being tapped and other right wing conspiracies which he has belted out for years have been completely debunked.

peddlelies

everlast75 wrote: »

My understanding of the report was that there was no purposeful doctoring of the report, nor any political bias against Trump and that the report was opened properly.

Carter Page appears to be entitled to a genuine grievance here, but my understanding is there were 4 sets of applications arising from Crossfire Hurricane and the other 3 had no issues. Trump's talking points about being tapped and other right wing conspiracies which he has belted out for years have been completely debunked.

Someone in the FBI purposely doctored documents. Your application stat is off I think, IG said 17 problems spread over 4 applications.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/doj-watchdog-tell-senate-he-has-deep-concerns-about-fbi-n1099636

Under questioning from Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Horowitz discussed a litany of embarrassing slip-ups by the FBI, including the actions of a lawyer who the inspector general said "doctored" an email to make it seem like Page was not a CIA source, when in fact he was. That potentially exculpatory information was never shared with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approved the surveillance warrant.

TomOnBoard

peddlelies wrote: »

Errors are one thing, purposely doctoring documents and the like is another. It's obvious Barr is there to try and shield Trump so I'll take what he comes up with, with a pinch of salt, unless there is some big revelation with documents et al to back it up.

Clinesmith does have serious questions to answer in relation to his apparent portrayal of Carter Page's allegiances. I understand he is the subject of a criminal investigation into what he did or didn't do. If he subverted the FISA process to paint Page in a bad light, then he should be prosecuted. Also, Page ought to take a case against the FBI for breach of his constitutional rights. If he has adequate grounds, then he has the right to sue.

So, having said that, what else did the IG report say? Basically, the FBI did have sufficient grounds to open Crossfire Hurricane and was right to do so. There is no evidence that any political bias was in play on the part of CH investigators, and most if not all of Trump's deranged conspiracy theories have been debunked. That said, Congress members on both sides took part in a fast and loose back and forth on the facts that ranged from misleading to outright lies.

No matter what side of the political divide you happen to favour, this whole series of events would have to leave you struggling to find heroes rather than villians throughout the top echelons of a law enforcement agency that is supposed to be there for the good of society and it's people. The number of FBI staff who expressed deeply held and sometimes vitriolic animus for each of the candidates, using official messaging tools is mind-blowing. Everyone is entitled to hold personal political views, but those should not be propagated within a workplace setting, if only to avoid the appearance of loss of objectivity.

peddlelies

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Basically, the FBI did have sufficient grounds to open Crossfire Hurricane and was right to do so. There is no evidence that any political bias was in play on the part of CH investigators, and most if not all of Trump's deranged conspiracy theories have been debunked.

They did have lawful predicate to open the investigation, nobody disputes that. It's what went on after that which is the problem.

They continued surveilling Page omitting information to the courts, doctoring documents and so forth. They were told by direct sources that Steele wasn't credible and they knew Carter Page wasn't a Russian asset yet continued applying for warrants omitting all the countervailing facts. They never once contacted the campaign itself to warn them about foreign influences which is unheard of for a counter intelligence operation.

The whole thing reeks, and Horrowitz himself doesn't rule out bias during what happened after the initial opening of the investigation.

https://twitter.com/BlazeTV/status/1204818225780924418

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1205063213567508480

everlast75

Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI and then changed lawyers and his story, concocting all sorts of conspiracy theories.

The judge didn't buy it...

https://twitter.com/CarolLeonnig/status/1206661284126711808?s=19

StringerBell

peddlelies wrote: »

They did have lawful predicate to open the investigation, nobody disputes that. It's what went on after that which is the problem.

They continued surveilling Page omitting information to the courts, doctoring documents and so forth. They were told by direct sources that Steele wasn't credible and they knew Carter Page wasn't a Russian asset yet continued applying for warrants omitting all the countervailing facts. They never once contacted the campaign itself to warn them about foreign influences which is unheard of for a counter intelligence operation.

The whole thing reeks, and Horrowitz himself doesn't rule out bias during what happened after the initial opening of the investigation.

https://twitter.com/BlazeTV/status/1204818225780924418

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1205063213567508480

The omissions etc, fair enough. I can appreciate there could be plenty of very valid, or at least common reasons for how that could reasonably happen but still, shouldn't happen and wouldn't make a defence for it.

Point 2 is a bit ridiculous to include though, I mean how exactly can he say for definite one way or the other what was in another persons mind in this case? How can he either confirm, or deny bias as a potential reason?

He can't, and Graham knows he can't which is why he asked. Soundbites to create talking points that are utterly meaningless. You have made a lot of progress over the last few weeks/months, I think you know better than that by now.

StringerBell

everlast75 wrote: »

Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI and then changed lawyers and his story, concocting all sorts of conspiracy theories.

The judge didn't buy it...

https://twitter.com/CarolLeonnig/status/1206661284126711808?s=19

Good, with all his messing around and criminal behavour I hope he gets a good long sentence at this point. A cheerleader and main proponent of "lock her up"

Very fitting.

peddlelies

StringerBell wrote: »

Point 2 is a bit ridiculous to include though, I mean how exactly can he say for definite one way or the other what was in another persons mind in this case? How can he either confirm, or deny bias as a potential reason?

He ruled it out for the opening of the investigation, why does he state it gets very murky and is unable to answer concerning the actual FISA applications? I do get the point you're making but still he was able to differentiate between the FISA applications and the opening of the investigation itself.

The FISA applications were made in a very deceiving and one might say corrupt manner to the courts, it might not be political bias but they were done in such a way you have to question the intent of those making such situations. I doubt it was political bias more so just a bias in doing whatever it took to surveil Page and nail Trump. To me that's no better or worse than actual political bias, it's still bias. The guy who doctored the email tweets things out like "Viva la resistance" and "Trump supporters are dumb", how does someone like him get into that position of power in the first place.

StringerBell

He said he found no evidence of bias or any wrong doing in the opening of the investigation. He didn't rule it out.

If for example Graham had said to him can you definitively rule out bias in the opening of the investigation I'd be very surprised if you didn't hear him give a very similar answer.

Consequently if you had heard Graham ask, did you find any evidence of bias he would have likely confirmed that he did not.

It's a red herring, a distraction technique. It isn't even a new one though. I don't expect it will.gain much traction due to how blindingly obvious it is tbf.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/it-should-be-disturbing-for-every-american-to-read-horowitzs-report/2019/12/16/0ba461da-2021-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html?outputType=amp

That's a good opinion piece to read regarding the report imho. Highlighting the decades long issues with the US surveillance of their own citizens.

aloyisious

peddlelies wrote: »

He ruled it out for the opening of the investigation, why does he state it gets very murky and is unable to answer concerning the actual FISA applications? The guy who doctored the email tweets things out like "Viva la resistance" and "Trump supporters are dumb", how does someone like him get into that position of power in the first place.

Trump was NOT a political entity nor visible in that aspect until recently to most people who have a life. Ditto for the man who altered the wording in the warrant applications. It's to his personal loss that he and Don crossed paths in his professional career. He got assigned to the case and went from there expressing his growing personal anti-trump bias. Keep in mind the rubbish Trump was sprouting about the FBI, up to last weekend and you'll see how a person can get irritated and say "screw you": instead of waiting to use the ballot box: simple as.

Gwen Cooper

If you ever read the responses under Donald's tweets, you've most likely seen a response by CC (@ChatByCC). Trump recently retweeted her, and her account was suspended shortly after, which started an outrage among Trump supporters, saying that poor CC has been targeted by Deep State for speaking the truth.

Well, later it turned out that the account has been suspended after Jacob Wohl admitted on his Instagram that he's the one running this account. He also admitted that while he's sad to lose CC, he still has 80+ fake accounts.

Will this guy ever stop?

Quin_Dub

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

If you ever read the responses under Donald's tweets, you've most likely seen a response by CC (@ChatByCC). Trump recently retweeted her, and her account was suspended shortly after, which started an outrage among Trump supporters, saying that poor CC has been targeted by Deep State for speaking the truth.

Well, later it turned out that the account has been suspended after Jacob Wohl admitted on his Instagram that he's the one running this account. He also admitted that while he's sad to lose CC, he still has 80+ fake accounts.

Will this guy ever stop?

I don't get the motivation for this guy and people like him.

Are they simply zealots or are they monetizing this stuff somehow?

Gwen Cooper

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I don't get the motivation for this guy and people like him.

Are they simply zealots or are they monetizing this stuff somehow?

Some theories suggest that he's after a presidential pardon, since he's about to go to prison.

aloyisious

I'm looking again at the policy the Senate GOP team stated partisan plan to handle the impeachment hearing and wonder if there is method in the apparent madness of their plan. Mitch and Lindsay have stated that they have the upper hand when it comes to voting in the senate and most people agree or concede that to be a fact. Now there's a thing that has struck me; what if M & L don't have full belief in the line they are sprouting about the GOP senate body and are trying to keep it simple and partisan, what if M & L have a fear that Don might decide to walk into the hearing and starts hanging himself out of his own mouth before the jury of his peers and the Chief Justice. M & L cant very well have the security keep Don out of the hearing, given his position.

That fear is probably why they've been sprouting the line that the impeachment case is all about the Dems being unable to get over their candidate losing to Don in 2016. Attack and distract from the troubles Don has created for them.

hotmail.com

It's a pity for the media that this impeachment stuff isn't more interesting. The Clinton one had sex. This one has.. eh.. Ukraine.

Leroy42

hotmail.com wrote: »

It's a pity for the media that this impeachment stuff isn't more interesting. The Clinton one had sex. This one has.. eh.. Ukraine.

Yeah it's a real shame. It is why the Nixon one never really gained any traction with the public, and was quickly forgotten about!

[Deleted User]

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I don't get the motivation for this guy and people like him.

Are they simply zealots or are they monetizing this stuff somehow?

Wasn't he one of the people a certain poster on here, who also admitted to having multiple Twitter accounts, follows and regularly posts similar bs.

As for whol, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree as the saying goes.

serfboard

everlast75 wrote: »

Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI and then changed lawyers and his story, concocting all sorts of conspiracy theories.

The judge didn't buy it...

It was a mistake for Flynn and his lawyers to try and BS this judge:

The Washington Post wrote:

Sullivan ... has a nationwide reputation for championing defendants rights under the “Brady rule,” which established the government's obligation to turn over evidence that can be useful for the defense.

In Flynn’s case, however, Sullivan eviscerated defense claims that the government failed to meet its duties, writing that the court “concludes that Mr. Flynn has failed to establish a single Brady violation.”
...
“Arguably, you sold your country out,” Sullivan told Flynn during Flynn’s initially scheduled sentencing hearing

And Flynn's lawyer didn't get off lightly either:

The Washington Post wrote:

The judge also scolded Flynn attorney Sidney Powell for purportedly “lifting” whole cloth a piece of a Supreme Court decision in her brief, suggesting the lawyer had plagiarized in a potential violation of legal ethics rules.

So "the best people" are also surrounding themselves with "the best people" ...