The Trump Presidency VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
"He was very unfairly treated by the law he decided to break despite being fully aware of the consequences and pleading guilty. Sad."
 
phiwum said:
The Washington Post has, I think, a pretty clear anti-Trump editorial position, which can also be seen in much of its investigative journalism. I like the paper, by and large, but I think that much is clear.
Click to expand...

It’d make more sense that negative editorial opinion stems from facts and investigative reporting put him in a negative light. I know it’s become relatively common to see op-ed ignore the facts or try to circulate alternative facts, but this isn’t how it’s supposed to work.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
trump tweets

"Will be giving a Full Pardon to Dinesh D’Souza today. He was treated very unfairly by our government!"


So that's the go ahead to all the potential crooked donors.
Click to expand...

Captain_Swoop said:
"He was very unfairly treated by the law he decided to break despite being fully aware of the consequences and pleading guilty. Sad."
Click to expand...

Campaign finance (and other Earthly) laws don't apply to the GOP because they're doing God's work. ;) :rolleyes:
 
Fast Eddie B said:
That tweet has been edited down.

Now just “Will be giving a Full Pardon to Dinesh D’Souza today. He was treated very unfairly by our government!”
Click to expand...

I'm still not sure how he was treated unfairly by any objective measure. He broke campaign finance law, he knew in advance that he was doing so, and he plead guilty so as to minimise the punishment.

I suppose the rule of law no longer applies any more in the US if you're a friend of the current President :confused:

Yes, I know that there have been controversial pardonings by Democratic Party Presidents and other GOP Presidents but IMO this seems to be sending a clear message to anyone caught up in the Mueller investigation.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
That tweet has been edited down.

Now just “Will be giving a Full Pardon to Dinesh D’Souza today. He was treated very unfairly by our government!”
Click to expand...
Didn't really know that much about Dinesh D'Souza so I looked up his Wikipeda page.

So, this guy:
- Plead guilty to making illegal campaign contributions (which kind of limits the chance to argue "I'm innocent"
- His "penalty" was 1) a fine that was less than the amount of the contribution, 2) a few months in a halfway house (not even what people would consider "hard time") and probation. So, he didn't even really serve 'hard time'

Lets take a look at some of his other "actions"...

- Spoke out against same sex marriage (hey, didn't Trump make the claim that he supported gay people?)
- Believes in Intelligent Design
- Blamed Abu Gharib on the "sexual immodesty of Liberal America"
- Mocked survivors of the Stonebridge school shooting. Even the Conservative Political Action Conference condemned him for that.

Yup, an individual definitely worthy of a presidential pardon.
 
lomiller said:
It’d make more sense that negative editorial opinion stems from facts and investigative reporting put him in a negative light. I know it’s become relatively common to see op-ed ignore the facts or try to circulate alternative facts, but this isn’t how it’s supposed to work.
Click to expand...
I certainly take your point, but the Post is more aggressive regarding Trump's administration than any other major paper, as far as I can see.

As I've said, I support the Post. I don't pay for any other paper. I might pay for the Times, but my university covers that subscription.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
trump tweets

"Will be giving a Full Pardon to Dinesh D’Souza today. He was treated very unfairly by our government!"


So that's the go ahead to all the potential crooked donors.
Click to expand...

Essentially legalizing illegal campaign contributions as long as they go to the Presidents party. Not that US democracy was in good shape before, but to no one’s surprise things are getting worse.
 
Segnosaur said:
Didn't really know that much about Dinesh D'Souza so I looked up his Wikipeda page.

So, this guy:
- Plead guilty to making illegal campaign contributions (which kind of limits the chance to argue "I'm innocent"
- His "penalty" was 1) a fine that was less than the amount of the contribution, 2) a few months in a halfway house (not even what people would consider "hard time") and probation. So, he didn't even really serve 'hard time'

Lets take a look at some of his other "actions"...

- Spoke out against same sex marriage (hey, didn't Trump make the claim that he supported gay people?)
- Believes in Intelligent Design
- Blamed Abu Gharib on the "sexual immodesty of Liberal America"
- Mocked survivors of the Stonebridge school shooting. Even the Conservative Political Action Conference condemned him for that.

Yup, an individual definitely worthy of a presidential pardon.
Click to expand...

He also said, just after the Trayvon Martin shooting

"I am thankful this week when I remember that America is big enough to survive grown-up Trayvon in the White House!"

So not only gave money to the GOP but also insults Obama.

Do you need to wonder why Trump pardoned him? They are Soulmates
 
phiwum said:
I certainly take your point, but the Post is more aggressive regarding Trump's administration than any other major paper, as far as I can see.
Click to expand...

And?

Generally speaking, even “anti-Trump” papers have op-ed pieces that are more favorable to him than investigative reporting and simple facts say they should be.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Of course I know what you mean, but the rule of law includes virtually unlimited presidential pardon power, like it or not.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. The difference between what is legal and what is right and how things got done and functioned not the same. Look the constitution says everything the president does is legal unless congress decides otherwise, so obstruction of justice is legal.

In Rome there was no law giving the senate power they traditionally held, and yet the Gracchi Brothers using this legal means to bypass the senate is seen as the beginning of the end of the republic.

Like how the new rule is no supreme court justices unless the same party controls the senate and white house. That is perfectly constitutional and legal too.
 
The United States on Thursday said it was moving ahead with tariffs on aluminum and steel imports from Canada, Mexico and the European Union, ending a two-month exemption and potentially setting the stage for a trade war with some of America’s top allies.

U.S Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told reporters on a telephone briefing that a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum imports from the EU, Canada and Mexico would go into effect at midnight (0400 GMT on Friday).

(Reuters)
 
lomiller said:
Essentially legalizing illegal campaign contributions as long as they go to the Presidents party. Not that US democracy was in good shape before, but to no one’s surprise things are getting worse.
Click to expand...

He has already legalized racial targeting by police and removed the judiciary as a branch of government with his pardon of Sheriff Joe. The courts now clearly have no power so why not go further?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom