Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 22

[ponderingturtle]

Is this true? I've been trying to get clarity on this.

Specifically, Trump's been very comfortable deleting embarrassing tweets. Deleting official comms would be "But Her Emails" - I suspect the administration is adamant that this account contains personal tweets by a private citizen named Donald Trump, not government communications of somebody called The President Of The United States.

Here is the american bar association disagreeing

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/government_says_trumps_tweets_are_official_presidential_statements

the white house says so.

"White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday President Donald Trump's tweets are indeed official statements.

"The President is the President of the United States, so they're considered official statements by the President of the United States," Spicer said, when asked during his daily briefing how they should be characterized. Spicer did not indicate whether that included both of the President's Twitter handles: @realDonaldTrump and @POTUS."

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-official-statements/index.html

 

[timhau]

Trump got fact checked and it took less than 24 hours to get an executive order.
A pandemic sweeps the world and he does nothing for 3 months.

That's Trump's presidency in a nutshell.

 

[blutoski]

Here is the american bar association disagreeing

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/government_says_trumps_tweets_are_official_presidential_statements

the white house says so.

"White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday President Donald Trump's tweets are indeed official statements.

"The President is the President of the United States, so they're considered official statements by the President of the United States," Spicer said, when asked during his daily briefing how they should be characterized. Spicer did not indicate whether that included both of the President's Twitter handles: @realDonaldTrump and @POTUS."

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-official-statements/index.html

Well, this is what I'm talking about... "Spicer did not indicate whether that included both of the President's Twitter handles: @realDonaldTrump and @POTUS."

I think it's *not* clarified, meaning clear as mud, as they say.

What I'm disputing is saying it's 'clarified', given nobody has complained that he's deleting tweets. My feeling is that the WH is trying to have it both ways.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, this is what I'm talking about... "Spicer did not indicate whether that included both of the President's Twitter handles: @realDonaldTrump and @POTUS."

I think it's *not* clarified, meaning clear as mud, as they say.

What I'm disputing is saying it's 'clarified', given nobody has complained that he's deleting tweets. My feeling is that the WH is trying to have it both ways.

Trump has made official announcements on his personal twitter. Like when he fired Rex Tillerson. That was on the @realDonaldTrump account not the @POTUS account which is really never used.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/13/17113950/trump-state-department-rex-tillerson-fired-tweet-twitter

Is firing the secretary of state enough of an official action of the president for it to count as official statements of the president, or in your world did private citizen Trump fire the secretary of state, and as just another private citizen how can I fire people in the cabinet with a tweet? That would get me on twitter for sure.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump tweets

The men and women of the National Guard have been doing a great job fighting the CoronaVirus. This week, I will extend their Title 32 orders through mid-August, so they can continue to help States succeed in their response and recovery efforts.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

So ridiculous to see Twitter trying to make the case that Mail-In Ballots are not subject to FRAUD. How stupid, there are examples, & cases, all over the place. Our election process will become badly tainted & a laughingstock all over the World. Tell that to your hater
@yoyoel

 

[blutoski]

Trump has made official announcements on his personal twitter. Like when he fired Rex Tillerson. That was on the @realDonaldTrump account not the @POTUS account which is really never used.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/13/17113950/trump-state-department-rex-tillerson-fired-tweet-twitter

Is firing the secretary of state enough of an official action of the president for it to count as official statements of the president, or in your world did private citizen Trump fire the secretary of state, and as just another private citizen how can I fire people in the cabinet with a tweet? That would get me on twitter for sure.

I'm not sure what the 'in your world' snipe was about. I'm asking a question about what the WH thinks.

What I'm getting at is, what's the reality on the ground. If somebody decides to prosecute him for deleting tweets, will the WH just say it's a personal account and not official government communication. My feeling is that they'll handwave it away as a personal account and not subject to government communication laws.

This is why I'm thinking it's unclear. We're reaching a period where it might be tested, so I'm just asking whether there's been an official announcement one way or the other by the WH, and I don't think there actually has. I think this is intentional, to preserve ambiguity and therefore options if problems come up later.

 

[Horatius]

So, (rule of), after Trump's EO Joe Scarborough can sue Twitter for allowing Trump to falsely accuse him of murder, right?

Exactly right. If this EO actually does anything, it will be yet another example of Trump shooting himself in the foot. Essentially the only real power he can bring to bear is removing the liability protections for social media platforms like Twitter, which means Twitter has the choice of banning anything that might open them to a lawsuit, or being sued by everyone who can make a case that a Tweet has injured them in some way.

And just about everyone personally involved in the Joe Scarborough Tweeter Tantrum would have grounds to sue on the basis of deliberate infliction of emotional distress, if nothing else.

And that would apply to any CT tweet that name-checks an actual person. The entire CT Twittershpere would be gone, in an instant.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Trump Tweets

So ridiculous to see Twitter trying to make the case that Mail-In Ballots are not subject to FRAUD. How stupid, there are examples, & cases, all over the place. Our election process will become badly tainted & a laughingstock all over the World. Tell that to your hater
@yoyoel

US election process allowed Trump to be president. Don't worry, we're laughing hard since 2016.

 

[blutoski]

Exactly right. If this EO actually does anything, it will be yet another example of Trump shooting himself in the foot. Essentially the only real power he can bring to bear is removing the liability protections for social media platforms like Twitter, which means Twitter has the choice of banning anything that might open them to a lawsuit, or being sued by everyone who can make a case that a Tweet has injured them in some way.

And just about everyone personally involved in the Joe Scarborough Tweeter Tantrum would have grounds to sue on the basis of deliberate infliction of emotional distress, if nothing else.

And that would apply to any CT tweet that name-checks an actual person. The entire CT Twittershpere would be gone, in an instant.

I think what he has in mind is that content creators can sue if their ads or posts are affected by algorithms. This isn't just about Twitter, the big fish are Facebook and YouTube which have deprioritized hate speech and conspiracy theory content.

I hate to say it, but I think Zuck is just as likely to say 'deactivate the policing algorithms' as he is to say 'crack down on offensive content.'

They're not worried about what happens if they get sued by a widower like Klausutis. They're worried about opening themselves up to Thiel, Koch, or PACs, who can do real damage.

 

[xjx388]

He gets 40%+ approval.i think it's reasonable to say that 40% are supporters.

Yes, these polls are specifically asking about Trump, not GOP. [42.6% approval according to fivethirtyeight].
IIRC, Trump typically has a higher rating than individual GOP representatives/senators.

Well, if those polls represent reality, we have a problem, no? Are we saying that 40% of America is going to vote for him, presumably, because they approve of what he's been doing. It won't take much more to win a second term.

On the other side of the coin, I'm not sure that "approval" equals "supporter" in the "Trump is the best President we've ever had/I will defend him to the death," sense. I approved of a lot of what Obama did and in general as a President, even though I'm not what you might call an Obama supporter. If I had been polled, I would have given him approval on a lot of things. But I didn't vote for him.

ETA: The bottom line is that "Trump supporter" is a phrase used to paint certain posters as unreasonable, and therefore dismissible, because they are "defending Trump." That isn't always (usually, even) the case.

 

[The Don]

Well, if those polls represent reality, we have a problem, no? Are we saying that 40% of America is going to vote for him, presumably, because they approve of what he's been doing. It won't take much more to win a second term.

On the other side of the coin, I'm not sure that "approval" equals "supporter" in the "Trump is the best President we've ever had/I will defend him to the death," sense. I approved of a lot of what Obama did and in general as a President, even though I'm not what you might call an Obama supporter. If I had been polled, I would have given him approval on a lot of things. But I didn't vote for him.

ETA: The bottom line is that "Trump supporter" is a phrase used to paint certain posters as unreasonable, and therefore dismissible, because they are "defending Trump." That isn't always (usually, even) the case.

I've been saying consistently that President Trump has at least a 50% chance of reelection.

If you're going to have your own definition of supporter then your number will be lower. Mine is the number who appear to support him

 

[blutoski]

Well, if those polls represent reality, we have a problem, no? Are we saying that 40% of America is going to vote for him, presumably, because they approve of what he's been doing. It won't take much more to win a second term.

These are my thoughts, yes. That approval is a subgroup within 'will vote for' as you suggest: not everybody who will vote for Trump in November approves of him, they just may think he's the lesser of two evils.

Voters are probably a higher percentage, closer to 50%. (at the moment... there's 6 more months of this)

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, if those polls represent reality, we have a problem, no? Are we saying that 40% of America is going to vote for him, presumably, because they approve of what he's been doing. It won't take much more to win a second term.

On the other side of the coin, I'm not sure that "approval" equals "supporter" in the "Trump is the best President we've ever had/I will defend him to the death," sense. I approved of a lot of what Obama did and in general as a President, even though I'm not what you might call an Obama supporter. If I had been polled, I would have given him approval on a lot of things. But I didn't vote for him.

Nice no true scottsmen there. How about defining Trump supporter as those who support him by say planning on voting for him?

Surprising he can get so many votes when no one ever supports him.

 

[Stacyhs]

I mean, I could make a point here about forming a strong opinion on a matter before being in possession of all the information, or even any information other than a single post on a forum.

Important information that could have, and should have, been given in that single forum post. Sorry, but your post sounds more like an excuse.

 

[Stacyhs]

This article goes into a previous move to have the FCC remove some protections from social media companies from lawsuits, which could be being revived.

Thank you for the link. I had previously posted an article about the latest relevant court action this week that your link also referenced. As a legal analyst said on CNN, Trump's EO has all the power of a tweet on very fancy paper. We can expect a legal challenge to the EO very quickly.

 

[Ladewig]

I don’t think there are many dyed-in-the-wool Trump supporters in this forum. There are many who voted for him because of reasons not having to do with Trump himself.

As for the real world, yup...there are a lot of dummies in the electorate. But even then, I don’t think you can say that 40% of the electorate are “Trump supporters.” They are GOP supporters, perhaps. Maybe they are “we want X policies implemented/not implemented and Trump is the candidate most likely to achieve that, even though I don’t like him,” voters.

Well, if that’s the case, I have to play the why-won’t-the-moderate-GOPs-denounce-the-Trump-extremists? card. I think that is fair given that the GOP invented that card.

......

You are doing this wrong. You cant rationalize with Trump. You can't bring logical arguments. That's not the game. The game is who shouts the loudest.

If we can change the game to who laughs the loudest we might create some unforced errors by Team Trump.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump will win the election. You are all ******.

 

[Aridas]

Is this true? I've been trying to get clarity on this.

It was a statement by the Mooch. I don't recall it ever being officially confirmed outside that.

Specifically, Trump's been very comfortable deleting embarrassing tweets. Deleting official comms would be "But Her Emails"

So? Who is going to actually care? "But Her E-mails" is a political weapon, not an ideological one. A bunch of the people around Trump have done pretty much exactly the same or worse, after all, despite all the harping that they were doing on the subject. Where's the massive amount of breathless reporting on that? It's just another thing that got swept away in a news cycle or two. Repeatedly, as person after person around Trump was caught.

- I suspect the administration is adamant that this account contains personal tweets by a private citizen named Donald Trump, not government communications of somebody called The President Of The United States.

To poke further at the PRA and the Trump Administration, though...

In June 2018, Politico reported that President Donald Trump frequently and routinely would tear up papers he received, resulting in government officials taping them together for archiving to ensure that Trump did not violate the Presidential Records Act.[6]

In July 2018, Business Insider reported that President Trump gave his personal cellphone number to various world leaders, having unrecorded conversations with them completely without U.S. officials' knowledge.[7]

In July 2018, CNN reported that The White House had suspended the practice of publishing public summaries of President Donald Trump's phone calls with world leaders, two sources with knowledge of the situation told CNN, bringing an end to a common exercise from the Republican and Democratic administrations.[8]

In May 2019, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the National Security Archive, and the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration alleging that President Donald Trump and senior advisers such as Jared Kushner were failing to meet their legal obligations under the Presidential Records Act to create and to preserve records of top-level meetings with foreign leaders.[9][10]

In October 2019, an outgoing information security officer warned that with the transfer to the White House Communications Agency, political appointees would be in charge of electronic records.[11]

 

[blutoski]

Thank you for the link. I had previously posted an article about the latest relevant court action this week that your link also referenced. As a legal analyst said on CNN, Trump's EO has all the power of a tweet on very fancy paper. We can expect a legal challenge to the EO very quickly.

Is that going to matter, though... my impression is that legal challenges are not going to override government activity. It'll wind through the courts for the next three years and sometime near the end of Trump's 2nd term, we'll get a ruling. Which the WH will appeal and maybe send it to the Supreme Court with its 5 new Trump appointed judges.