• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trump Presidency: Part 17

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

Never Trumper Republican John Bellinger, represents Never Trumper Diplomat Bill Taylor (who I don’t know), in testimony before Congress! Do Nothing Democrats allow Republicans Zero Representation, Zero due process, and Zero Transparency....

....Does anybody think this is fair? Even though there was no quid pro quo, I’m sure they would like to try. Worse than the Dems!
Click to expand...

Ah, turning on his friends, now. Well, well, well ...

Hans :p
 
In federal appeals court today, Trump's attorneys argued that he could publicly murder someone and not be punished while in office.
 
The_Animus said:
In federal appeals court today, Trump's attorneys argued that he could publicly murder someone and not be punished while in office.
Click to expand...

I listened to the entire hearing. Not only that but if Trump pulled out a gun and shot someone on 5th avenue NY authorities couldn't apprehend him.

Their argument was absurd. The President had ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY not only from prosecution but from any investigation. Only after impeachment could the President be investigated. Now, I might concede that the President may not be prosecuted while in office, it is risible to suggest that authorities cannot investigate.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
BTW interesting the athe high school level political theater in the House has distracting attention from Trump's total capitulation to Putin,Erdogan, and Assad in the Mideast?
Click to expand...
None of whom are particularly friendly to Israel, especially Assad who is beholden to Iran. But somehow supporting Israel is a primary concern of Republicans.
 
acbytesla said:
I listened to the entire hearing. Not only that but if Trump pulled out a gun and shot someone on 5th avenue NY authorities couldn't apprehend him.

Their argument was absurd. The President had ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY not only from prosecution but from any investigation. Only after impeachment could the President be investigated. Now, I might concede that the President may not be prosecuted while in office, it is risible to suggest that authorities cannot investigate.
Click to expand...

You have to wonder why they even made it
 
acbytesla said:
Now, I might concede that the President may not be prosecuted while in office
Click to expand...

Don't. It's a DOJ memo, not any written law, and because of the argument put forth in front of that judge, that memo has been called into question.

Not until 1915 were all Senators elected. Before they were selected by their respective State legislators.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. I think they should've kept that. Not everyone needs to be elected and not everything should be up to a popular vote.
 
Trebuchet said:
None of whom are particularly friendly to Israel, especially Assad who is beholden to Iran. But somehow supporting Israel is a primary concern of Republicans.
Click to expand...


If you look at the Israeli press, they are scared as hell about these developments...with good reason. There are signs that Erodgan might now go full scale "Death to Israel" to increase his claim to be a major power in the Islmaic world.
COmmon opinion is that Bibi has been played for a sucker by Trump.
And, btw, some of the evangelicals convulutions to show how this is somehow good for Israel are funny. There is now a huge contradiction between their blind support for Israel and their blind worship of Trump,and they are not handling it very well.
 
dudalb said:
But it is such a crappy argument;they could have dragged it out with a better one.
Click to expand...

Like what? They had other arguments as well. They argued since it involves POTUS it belongs in Federal court. Otherwise POTUS would see a deluge of state prosecutors potentially going after Presidents. One of the judges pointed out there were lots of federal courts that could do the same anyway and it hasn't happened. They argued that this was all subterfuge in an attempto to obtain his financial records.

But basically the main theme of Trump's argument is that as Potus he should be immune from any investigation.
 
dudalb said:
The Lynching remark seems to have ignited a fire storm with it obvious racial overtones.
I know that all lynchings in the US were not racially motivated....most of those in the Old West were whites lynching whites...but the lynching of blacks by white mobs in the South is what most people think of when the term is used, and Donnie damn well knew this.
It's also one of coded shout outs to his White Nationalist followers.
We have a President of the US who is not only a bigot but uses bigotry as a political weapon.
And the Trump supporters on this site see nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...
I'm no fan of Trump, I detest the man - president or not.

But I don't think he was dog whistling, or at least he is dumb enough not to realize the significance of the comment. He could easily have been trying in his subtle and nuanced way to insult the Dems.

I could be wrong, but I think Trump just doesn't care, he says whatever comes into his head and due to his background and personalty sometimes this means he is misogynistic or racist or homophobic etc. I recon he's not spending all his time in private preoccupied with ensuring white privilege. I think he makes of the hip decisions if he thinks it will make him popular with whatever crowd he is talking to at the time.

Due to his obvious lack of empathy, intelligence, sophistication in the way he thinks and talks it wouldn't have even crossed his mind that the comment was bad in another way other than the way it was intended to be bad.

If he did make the comment intentionally because of its undertones, then he's not the ignorant clumsy person I thought he was, he's more of a calculated intelligent nasty dangerous person.
 
acbytesla said:
To drag out the process. There is little doubt that whatever ruling is made it will be appealed to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
And it would be precious to see their faces when SCOTUS says "Sorry, guys, but the law clearly says he CAN be prosecuted."

I suspect these guys are mixing up what COULD be done with what SHOULD be done.

The DoJ have made it an internal policy that they will try not to prosecute a sitting president. It's what they think SHOULD be done...by the DoJ.

But the law of the land is that nobody is above the law, president included. So he can, legally, be prosecuted by someone. It is what COULD be done. And that is a different and most newsworthy situation.
 
BadBoy said:
I'm no fan of Trump, I detest the man - president or not.

But I don't think he was dog whistling, or at least he is dumb enough not to realize the significance of the comment. He could easily have been trying in his subtle and nuanced way to insult the Dems.

I could be wrong, but I think Trump just doesn't care, he says whatever comes into his head and due to his background and personalty sometimes this means he is misogynistic or racist or homophobic etc. I recon he's not spending all his time in private preoccupied with ensuring white privilege. I think he makes of the hip decisions if he thinks it will make him popular with whatever crowd he is talking to at the time.

Due to his obvious lack of empathy, intelligence, sophistication in the way he thinks and talks it wouldn't have even crossed his mind that the comment was bad in another way other than the way it was intended to be bad.

If he did make the comment intentionally because of its undertones, then he's not the ignorant clumsy person I thought he was, he's more of a calculated intelligent nasty dangerous person.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with Badboy here. I find it hard to believe that he is signalling specifically racists. I see it as Trump whining that everyone is so unfair to him.
 
Norman Alexander said:
And it would be precious to see their faces when SCOTUS says "Sorry, guys, but the law clearly says he CAN be prosecuted."

I suspect these guys are mixing up what COULD be done with what SHOULD be done.

The DoJ have made it an internal policy that they will try not to prosecute a sitting president. It's what they think SHOULD be done...by the DoJ.

But the law of the land is that nobody is above the law, president included. So he can, legally, be prosecuted by someone. It is what COULD be done. And that is a different and most newsworthy situation.
Click to expand...

They're probably not going to say that. But it's hard for me to believe they will say that Trump's financials cannot be subpoenaed. Especially when they are not seeking them from him, but a third party. This would be pro forma for any one elsel.
 
What's next? A Trump denial?
A group of Republicans disrupted a hearing of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry Wednesday by storming into a secure room at the Capitol in a protest carried out with the blessing of President Donald Trump...The standoff, which ended after more than five hours, marks an escalation of the effort by Trump and his allies to counter the Democratic-run investigation that is almost certain to lead to the president’s impeachment in the House. During a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Trump said, “Republicans have to get tougher and fight.” Link
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom