The Trump Presidency – 2016

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

“I want to know who’s the person, who’s the person who gave the whistle-blower the information? Because that’s close to a spy,” he continued. “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”

Uh...

Well that vindicates Snowden in a way.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Say wha? Is this based on any favorable/unfavorable numbers?

I'm basing that off general comments and reading, her numbers, like Hillarie's are as good as they are going to be, but when looking at the overall "feel" Warren's getting almost the same reactions. And among Reps she's literally just as reviled.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Not ready to elect a woman?

Let's not forget that Hilary won the popular vote by several million.

You're forgetting a lot here.

The primaries were rigged in her favor. Admittedly so by the DNC.

She was Running against Trump. Lesser of two Evils.

The Dems almost consistently win popular votes because, cities.

Hillarie's results weren't because the country WANTED her as much as she was the only other option available.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I'm basing that off general comments and reading, her numbers, like Hillarie's are as good as they are going to be, but when looking at the overall "feel" Warren's getting almost the same reactions. And among Reps she's literally just as reviled.

Republicans are not going to vote for a Democrat anyway, so not sure why the Dems should care. And of course they don't like women.

I don't see the same vitriol toward Warren. She seems pretty easy for the party to get behind. Has enough progressive cred to appeal to them while still being moderate enough to appeal to independents.

I think nominating Biden would be worse since a large chunk of the party views him as a Republican and might just sit out.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Republicans are not going to vote for a Democrat anyway, so not sure why the Dems should care. And of course they don't like women.

I don't see the same vitriol toward Warren. She seems pretty easy for the party to get behind. Has enough progressive cred to appeal to them while still being moderate enough to appeal to independents.

I think nominating Biden would be worse since a large chunk of the party views him as a Republican and might just sit out.

This. Clinton in 2016 enthusiasm was quite muted from my observations.

Warren OTOH has high enthusiasm - the highest of any Democratic candidate currently running.

The two aren't even close to similar.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I'm basing that off general comments and reading, her numbers, like Hillarie's are as good as they are going to be, but when looking at the overall "feel" Warren's getting almost the same reactions. And among Reps she's literally just as reviled.

Hilary's favorably with Dem voters was in the mid 30s to 40% with unfavorable in the mid 50s to 60%.

Warren currently has 68% favorability and 15% unfavorable. She's also trending more into favorable with each debate. She has the highest net favorability of the dem candidates.

The two aren't comparable and trying to compare Warren to Hillary is lazy. Their views are different and their approach to campaigning is different. The only thing they really have in common is they're both democrat women.

[bob]

Unless Congress has a wild change in makeup, does Warren have any chance of being able to put her policies into law? If not, seems like a wasted presidency.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by bob

Unless Congress has a wild change in makeup, does Warren have any chance of being able to put her policies into law? If not, seems like a wasted presidency.

That seems rather short-sighted, considering how quickly the political landscape has been changing.

[bob]

To me a failed presidency that gets nothing accomplished seems to be a way to kill any progressive momentum. Certainly would be something people would use to run against her ("she accomplished nothing in her 4 years").

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RendeR

You're forgetting a lot here.

The primaries were rigged in her favor. Admittedly so by the DNC.

If by rigged you mean, she got more votes, sure. Otherwise, though, horse shit.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by bob

To me a failed presidency that gets nothing accomplished seems to be a way to kill any progressive momentum. Certainly would be something people would use to run against her ("she accomplished nothing in her 4 years").

Yeah, you certainly could be right. I agree that American politics seems to be pendulous and reactive in that way.

On the other hand, if progressive momentum and policies is the goal, then getting an actually progressive leader in the White House still seems like a better plan then building up an even bigger reserve of good will based on the GOP fucking up even more.

[Atocep]

ICIG letter to the DNI has been released. The reason it was flagged as a"serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law, or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information" was Trump's own Executive Order which says:

I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the ability of persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States to interfere in or undermine public confidence in United States elections, including through the unauthorized accessing of election and campaign infrastructure or the covert distribution of propaganda and disinformation, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

Link to Letter:
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploa...ni_unclass.pdf

Link to Trump's EO:
https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...tates-election

[Edward64]

Trump/GOP/Independents are 46% of "non approval of impeachment inquiry" so far (polled after transcript but before whistleblower complaint). I would have thought it would have been closer to 38-42% of the core Trump supporters.

It would be great if someone/others can corroborate that the server does exist.

Impeachment Inquiry Poll: Americans Split, Independents Are Not Convinced : NPR

Americans are split, 49%-46%, on whether they approve of Democrats' impeachment inquiry into President Trump, and independents at this point are not on board, a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll finds.

But the pollsters warn that the new developments could change public opinion quickly, especially with 7 in 10 saying they are paying attention to the news.

"Democrats in the House have work to do to convince people of the usefulness of their case," said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which conducted the survey of 864 Americans. The poll was conducted Wednesday night with live phone interviewers. That was one day after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry, but before a whistleblower complaint about the president's call with the Ukrainian leader was released to the public.

Miringoff added that while "independents still need to be convinced," the next few days are going to be crucial for both Democrats and Republicans, who will be making their cases about the validity of the inquiry.

[JPhillips]

The server exists? That's Q and Seth Rich talk. There is no hidden server, it's just a fantasy designed to get Russia and Paul Manafort off their respective hooks.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

It would be great if someone/others can corroborate that the server does exist.

It's not a secret server in the sense that it was unknown. The DOD uses a standard network (NIPRnet), a network for classified information up to Secret (SIPRnet), a system for TS/SCI information, and then information that's of the most critical of value is stored on standalone systems with no network connection.

What the whistleblower is saying is that the call logs were moved from the NIPRnet where they're usually stored onto one of those classified systems.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

It's not a secret server in the sense that it was unknown. The DOD uses a standard network (NIPRnet), a network for classified information up to Secret (SIPRnet), a system for TS/SCI information, and then information that's of the most critical of value is stored on standalone systems with no network connection.

What the whistleblower is saying is that the call logs were moved from the NIPRnet where they're usually stored onto one of those classified systems.

Got it. Just read this ...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/bigg...-cover-up.html

White House officials were “deeply disturbed” by a July 25 phone call Trump had with Zelensky. There were discussions “with White House lawyers because of the likelihood,” in the minds of officials, “that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain.”

Senior White House officials intervened to “lock down” records of the call with Zelensky, which “underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.”

White House lawyers directed White House officials to remove the electronic transcript of the Zelensky call from the computer system where such transcripts normally are stored. That transcript then was loaded into a “separate electronic system” that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. “One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.”

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by bob

Unless Congress has a wild change in makeup, does Warren have any chance of being able to put her policies into law? If not, seems like a wasted presidency.

There's a reason I've been saying for years that you want your ideologues in the Senate (or House, failing that) and a generally unoffensive, but ideologically friendly, face in the White House to sign your legislation. Warren in the Senate can shape the legislation sent to the White House.

Warren in the White House will, unless Democrats take both houses and nuke the filibuster for legislation, need supermajority support to enact any policy that requires appropriations.

(And I still have no interest in further septuagenarians in the White House.)

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RendeR

her numbers, like Hillarie's are as good as they are going to be, but when looking at the overall "feel" Warren's getting almost the same reactions.

She's not getting similar reactions though, and is a much different candidate. Her numbers are much better than Hillary's - at no point during the '16 cycle was Clinton's unfavorable less than 10 points higher than Warren's are, and there's a lot more undecideds with Warren (favorables actually about the same as Hillary) which means she could go in any direction from here, up or down. Her politics aren't the same, her baggage is less and not the same … as Atocep said literally being a white female Democratic candidate is as far as the similarities go.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

(And I still have no interest in further septuagenarians in the White House.)

I am with you on that, but at this point unless something radical changes we are getting one. And of the three (though it really looks like it might be down to two with Sanders fading), Warren is the better choice. She really has grown on me.



Btw, there is another thread to talk about the Democratic candidates.

[Edward64]

I would prefer someone younger (45-55 range) but I don't have a problem with grandma or grandpa (or a great grandma/pa) during a transition period to calm things down after a Trump Presidency.

If it was between the 2, I prefer Biden over Warren just because Biden is more traditional and Warren is a bigger spender (or seems to be). One pro to Warren is her election will break down the gender wall that is long overdue.

Either way, I'm sure they will bring in a VP that is younger.

FWIW, a nice grid breakdown of their policies in wiki

400 Bad Request

[cartman]

What is currently on the mind of the American President

To show you how dishonest the LameStream Media is, I used the word Liddle’, not Liddle, in discribing Corrupt Congressman Liddle’ Adam Schiff. Low ratings @CNN purposely took the hyphen out and said I spelled the word little wrong. A small but never ending situation with CNN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 27, 2019

[cartman]

Calls an apostrophe a hyphen, and misspells 'describing' in a tweet complaining about being called out on his spelling

[PilotMan]

That alone would have sunk Obama as unhinged and dangerous and altogether a terrible leader for OUR CHILDREN!

[Butter]

What the hell is the difference, seriously

[albionmoonlight]

I guess when "Liddle" is trending on twitter and not "Impeachment," that's a win for Trump.

[HomerSimpson98]

This MF'er is insane. Embarrassing

[Edward64]

Wonder who the NSC attorneys were. I'm sure they'll get a chance to testify as to their rationale and/or if others directed to do so.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/polit...use/index.html

The White House acknowledged Friday that administration officials directed a now-infamous Ukraine call transcript be filed in a highly classified system, confirming allegations contained in a whistleblower complaint that have roiled Washington.

In a statement provided to CNN, a senior White House official said the move to place the transcript in the system came at the direction of National Security Council attorneys.

"NSC lawyers directed that the classified document be handled appropriately," the senior White House official said.

White House officials say the transcript was already classified so it did nothing wrong by moving it to another system.
:
:
But the statement did not explain whether anyone else in the White House was part of the decision to put the the Ukraine transcript in the more restrictive system.

Nor did it delve into an accusation in the complaint that other phone call transcripts were handled in a similar fashion.
:
:
The transcript of the Ukraine phone call -- which the White House released publicly on Wednesday -- did not contain information like intelligence secrets or military plans that might ordinarily merit moving it to a highly classified system.

Officials familiar with the matter say Trump and others at the White House sought to restrict access to phone calls with foreign leaders after embarrassing leaks early in the administration.

[mauchow]

At what point does the audio get released,if there even is one? No one will believe a verbatim transcript.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I guess when "Liddle" is trending on twitter and not "Impeachment," that's a win for Trump.

Trump is dangling the keys again.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by mauchow

At what point does the audio get released,if there even is one? No one will believe a verbatim transcript.

Apparently, no President has felt it prudent to record White House phone calls since Nixon

[mauchow]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Apparently, no President has felt it prudent to record White House phone calls since Nixon

NSA?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Stormy Daniels arrested while performing at Ohio strip club, her lawyer, Michael Avenatti says - CBS News

I'm drunk and I don't know what this means but I'm entertained none-the-less.

ETA:


So only family members can touch nude strippers? Who made this law? Was there some state congressman who said "I want to touch my stripping cousin but no one else can"?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...strip-n1059676

Two reasons for posting

1. In my old age, I find myself looking to close the loop on stories.

2. I don't know how much she was paid to feature at the club but the idea that the City of Columbus may have been her biggest tipper of the trip is funny to me.

[JPhillips]

The NRA is agreeing to bankroll Trump's defense if he agrees to stop talking about gun control.

I guess we're done pretending that donations don't influence lawmakers.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The NRA is agreeing to bankroll Trump's defense if he agrees to stop talking about gun control.

I guess we're done pretending that donations don't influence lawmakers.

And on the same day the Senate Intelligence Committee Dems released a report detailing the NRA's use of their financial resources to curry favor with two Russians, one of which is known spy Maria Butina.



https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...hange-n1059496

[thesloppy]

If this whole kerfuffle could end up significantly harming Trump, Biden & the NRA this shit is a Christmas miracle.

[Thomkal]

The Washington Post
@washingtonpost


Trump told Russians at infamous 2017 meeting that he wasn’t concerned about Moscow’s interference in U.S. election https://washingtonpost.com/national-secur


Also said Because the US does it all the time

[JPhillips]

CNN is reporting that Trump calls with Putin and Saudi Arabia were also put on the code word server.

[JPhillips]

Just to clarify what is going on here, the White House appears to be engaged in massive, systemic abuse of the classification system and underlying presidential authorities in order to cover up egregious wrongdoing including impeachable conduct.

This is a historic scandal.

— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) September 28, 2019

This.

[Thomkal]

Lot of talk on twitter tonight that the dam has burst on the Trump adminstration and people are going to come out of the woodworks to reveal stuff about his actions.

[JPhillips]

This will get lost, but it's a holy shit story all on its own:

A U.S. Army officer formerly in charge of all White House communications at Mar-a-Lago" uploaded child pornography to a Russian website in 2017 and 2018, making him a target for blackmail.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/loc...235563497.html

[PilotMan]

None of this stuff is surprising. The people who he chose to surround himself with now, and before, and the long history of his dealings in the private world, all point to this stuff. It's just shocking that this level of bs has been covered up this long, that this level of bs has been enabled by Americans who value power over country. Frankly, it's like the accusations of sexual misconduct. Kick them all out. The bar needs raised.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The NRA is agreeing to bankroll Trump's defense if he agrees to stop talking about gun control.

I guess we're done pretending that donations don't influence lawmakers.

We asked for transparency, we are getting transparency {shrug}

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Lot of talk on twitter tonight that the dam has burst on the Trump adminstration and people are going to come out of the woodworks to reveal stuff about his actions.

At this point Rudy may take down everyone involved simply because he can't shut up.

[GrantDawg]

Who are the lawyers on the board? Explain this stuff to me, because I am not getting clear answers.

1) How powerful is a congressional subpoena?

2) Can they compel testimony over Executive Privilege during an impeachment inquiry?

3)If congress does get more authority and power during an impeachment inquiry, doesn't it require a vote to actually be official?

4)Why didn't they have an inquiry vote before recess?


An inquiring if dull mind wants to know?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Who are the lawyers on the board? Explain this stuff to me, because I am not getting clear answers.

1) How powerful is a congressional subpoena?

2) Can they compel testimony over Executive Privilege during an impeachment inquiry?

3)If congress does get more authority and power during an impeachment inquiry, doesn't it require a vote to actually be official?

4)Why didn't they have an inquiry vote before recess?


An inquiring if dull mind wants to know?

These sorts of confrontations have happened so rarely that there is not a lot of settled law on the subject.

I will say that, in general, the courts want to try and stay out of direct disputes between the political branches. It is called the "political question" doctrine (that's what the Court just relied on to say that it could not review gerrymandering claims).

But (1) if Congress says "give us X--here's a valid subpoena for it and it falls within the scope of our power to review the executive" and then (2) the executive says "Fuck off" then (3) I would expect Congress to go to the courts. Then (4a) the Courts could say "Y'all are the political branches; work it out." Then I think that there's a Constitutional Crisis (which pretty much means, in my mind, uncharted and possibly dangerous territory).

Or (4b) the Courts could say "the subpoeana is valid" and then the Executive branch could comply or not. It it does, then great. It it does not, then Constitutional Crisis.

FWIW, if at any point in this process, the Dems say "it isn't worth it; let's just wait for 2020" or the GOP says "We need to cut bait with Trump; welcome President Pence" then that would support the idea that this political dispute ended up having a political resolution that did not need to resort to the Courts.

[JPhillips]

I think the warning from Schiff is the best approach, if you don't comply we'll see that as obstruction and we'll roll it into any impeachment charges.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think the warning from Schiff is the best approach, if you don't comply we'll see that as obstruction and we'll roll it into any impeachment charges.

Ok. That might be all they can really do. But would that change the outcome in the Senate that we know is coming? Wouldn't it better for the White House to just deny and obstruct if they know the information will be even more damaging in the court of public opinion which seems to be the only court that matters here?

[JPhillips]

The other options aren't good. Jailing for inherent contempt is a short term solution at best and probably is better at getting headlines rather than information. Taking the admin to court over and over slows the process to the point where Trump may slide as the 2020 clock runs out.

Right now there's plenty for the Senate and if they choose to ignore it there's not much Dems can do. Polling for impeachment, though, is already moving in the Dem direction, so I won't count out the possibility of the Senate flipping on the issue.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This will get lost, but it's a holy shit story all on its own:



https://www.miamiherald.com/news/loc...235563497.html

I think he was busted for lying in an invetigation, not for child porn, is my guess

[thesloppy]

Can you imagine if the Republican party had attacked Obama?!?!