• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

US Politics The 2020 Trump Presidency Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Long twitter post/thread by this lady, pointing out some of the how/why Trump communicates as he does, and why it is more effective than what Dems like Pelosi or Hillary do:

I’m sorry but this is the biggest load I’ve seen in awhile. Trump mocks the disabled, ffs.
And this little gem:

“Because it’s not about Him. It’s about those he represents. He knows how to bring people into the tent, not push them out.”

Anyone think it’s not about “Him”? That he brings people into the tent instead of pushing them out? 🤢🤮
 
I’m sorry but this is the biggest load I’ve seen in awhile. Trump mocks the disabled, ffs.

A nice juxtaposition would be clips out of his victory dance/speech about acquittal today.


“Because it’s not about Him. It’s about those he represents." ... Anyone think it’s not about “Him”?

Well, this current rant would be about him, but still... you know he's going to go off on all kinds of folks who 'done him wrong'.
 
More winning....


Appeals Court Throws Out Democrats’ Emoluments Lawsuit Against Trump


A federal appeals court on Friday morning tossed a lawsuit brought by congressional Democrats alleging that President Donald Trump violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause by using the White House to profit from the presidency.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in a 12-page decision that Democrat lawmakers behind the suit lack the standing required to sue.

“The Members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit,” the decision reads. “But we will not—indeed we cannot—participate in this debate. The Constitution permits the Judiciary to speak only in the context of an Article III case or controversy and this lawsuit presents neither.”

The clause prohibits federal officials from receiving payments from foreign governments without Congressional approval. President Trump relinquished control over the Trump Organization, which includes his portfolio of hotels and golf clubs, to his children Donald Jr. and Eric Trump. The president still has ownership over the group of nearly 500 business entities.

“I’ll be reading it on the helicopter, but it was a total win,” the president told reporters of the decision on the White House lawn.

The development comes after the panel of three judges expressed doubt in December as to whether individual members of Congress could bring the suit, rather than Congress.

“You are not here representing Congress.” Judge Thomas Griffith remarked to an attorney representing the over 200 lawmakers at the time.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is considering an emoluments suit against the president by Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh (D) and Washington, D.C., Attorney General Karl Racine (D). The progressive group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) had its emolument case revived by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in September.

The decision marks another victory this week for President Trump, who is fresh off being acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial and a State of the Union address that received rave reviews. Earlier Monday, the Department of Labor announced that the U.S. economy added 225,000 jobs in January, smashing expectations of 158,000 jobs.



First thought, it's Breitbart...so....

Then, reading it, it doesn't say WHY it was thrown out. It could be because those bringing the suit were not representing Congress = technicality, not determination of a legal violation. I can't tell from this.

And, lastly, wtf business does a jobs report comment have in closing this 'article'?
 
yeah, he's definitely not profiting off the presidency...

Trump hotels charge Secret Service up to $650 per night while protecting him: report

Secret Service personnel traveling with President Trump to his private luxury properties in Palm Beach, Fla., and Bedminster, N.J., pay rates as high at $650 per night for lodging, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

The Post investigation tallied the amount of taxpayer dollars spent in Trump's properties and found that the Secret Service spent $159,000 at Trump’s D.C. hotel in his first year alone. In the president's out-of-state properties, the Trump company is recorded as charging as much as $17,000 per month for rent.

The newspaper noted that after a thorough search of rentals in the area for comparable homes, the average cost for rent was $3,400.
(my emphasis)

:(

alasdair
 
I am so sick of otherwise valid lawsuits being thrown out for lack of standing.

Far as I'm concerned, if it's a lawsuit against the government or a high ranking government official and related to their duties.. You shouldn't need legal standing.

It's bs.

I've hated the requirement ever since the Obama administration got out of their NDAA lawsuit because of lack of standing of the plaintiff.
 
I think there are a few other ones out there for the emoluments clause.
Yup.
Two other emoluments cases attack Trump for his alleged competitive advantage at the Trump-branded real estate empire. Those cases are still moving through the court system.
 
Long twitter post/thread by this lady, pointing out some of the how/why Trump communicates as he does, and why it is more effective than what Dems like Pelosi or Hillary do:






I’m sorry but this is the biggest load I’ve seen in awhile. Trump mocks the disabled, ffs.
And this little gem:

“Because it’s not about Him. It’s about those he represents. He knows how to bring people into the tent, not push them out.”

Anyone think it’s not about “Him”? That he brings people into the tent instead of pushing them out? 🤢🤮


This pretty much discounts every point she made.

I wonder if any of those crybaby fan boys on fox like Hannity, Tucker, and Jenniene who always bitch when people disrespect the flag made any comments about it. Have they given any Military members or their families a chance voice their frustration with the presidents and share a little bit about how it has effected them to educate the president at all. They know he watches their allot and would most likely end up seeing it. Does it really mean anything when Trump defends our flag when he isn't capable of understanding what it stands for.
 
Yeah the contention that Trump's targets are always these privileged, powerful people, and he's some kind of crass provocateur but ultimately in service of "the truly disenfranchised"...it's all a bit much (to put it politely). He "punches down" often, he even shit on American POWs re: his McCain comments. It was unthinkable pre-Trump that you could say something like "I prefer the ones who don't get caught" or whatever it was and still have a viable political campaign.

I thought that thread had the potential to be interesting at first, because I thought the OP actually could've taken it somewhere intriguing by looking at topics that Trump DOESN'T go off on as much, is more reserved and less typically bombastic about, and maybe interrogate some of the reasons why that is, but once she went off on how Trump somehow serves the material interests of the "truly disenfranchised", and how he "knows how to bring people into the tent" and "it's not about him"...IT'S ALL A BIT MUCH
 
It was unthinkable pre-Trump that you could say something like "I prefer the ones who don't get caught" or whatever it was and still have a viable political campaign.

Trump has lowered the bar to truly subterranean levels. His supporters gloss over that kind of stuff for some reason.
 
Luckily we have a Dem House!

Four prosecutors asked to withdraw (and one of them quit his job) from the Roger Stone case after the Justice Department said it will reduce sentencing recommendations for Roger Stone.
This followed hours after a tweet from Trump.

All four career prosecutors handling the case against Roger Stone, a confidant of President Trump, asked to withdraw from the legal proceedings Tuesday — and one quit his job entirely — after the Justice Department signaled it planned to reduce their sentencing recommendation for the president’s friend.

Jonathan Kravis, one of the prosecutors, wrote in a court filing he had resigned as an assistant U.S. attorney, leaving government altogether. Three others — Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, Adam Jed and Michael Marando — asked a judge’s permission to leave the case.
Zelinsky, a former member of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s team, also indicated in a filing he was quitting his special assignment to the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office, though a spokeswoman said he will remain an assistant U.S. attorney in Baltimore.

None provided a reason for their decisions.

The departures come just hours after a senior Justice Department official told reporters that the agency’s leadership had been “shocked” by the seven-to-nine-year penalty prosecutors asked a judge to impose on Stone and intended to ask for a lesser penalty.

“That recommendation is not what had been briefed to the department,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive case. “The department finds the recommendation extreme and excessive and disproportionate to Stone’s offenses.”

Later Tuesday, the department filed an updated sentencing recommendation that contradicted the reasoning laid out by line prosecutors and asserting the initial guidance “could be considered excessive and unwarranted under the circumstances.” The memorandum was signed by interim D.C. U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea and his criminal division supervisor, John Crabb Jr.

None of the four career attorneys who signed the first memo affixed their names to the second.

“Ultimately, the government defers to the Court as to what specific sentence is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case,” Shea and Crabb wrote.
I guess Trump doesn’t have the guts to pardon him outright.
 
Um...someone shared this on another site, apparently it is some parade in Italy where they do elaborate satirical floats? But, ... wtf...



that is a pretty cool amount of effort anyway you look at it. Build a giant robotic asshole and parade it in your town. Bet their water is fluoridated,
 
Four prosecutors asked to withdraw (and one of them quit his job) from the Roger Stone case after the Justice Department said it will reduce sentencing recommendations for Roger Stone.
This followed hours after a tweet from Trump.
  • alexander vindman removed from his position and president trump is now encouraging the military to discipline him. his crime? answering a congressional subpoena and testifying before the u.s. congress
  • gorden sondland removed from his position. his crime? answering a congressional subpoena and testifying before the u.s. congress
  • elaine mccusker's nomination for a pentagon position has been removed. her crime? refusing to break the law on behalf of the president
president trump, some republicans (but not others) and many trump supporters characterize this as something other than retaliation but if it walks like and talks like...

on top of the news today about trump's interference in the stone sentencing, it's just chilling,.

this is the boiling frog.

alasdair
 
People who were hired during another administration should be judged on their performance. And I don’t think Trump has been held back with regard to much of anything, including firing people.
 
Four prosecutors asked to withdraw (and one of them quit his job) from the Roger Stone case after the Justice Department said it will reduce sentencing recommendations for Roger Stone.

Not everything is as the media spins it. There was a stacked jury
Former Memphis City Schools Board President Tomeka Hart revealed Wednesday that she was the foreperson of the jury that convicted former Trump adviser Roger Stone on obstruction charges last year -- and soon afterward, her history of Democratic activism and a string of her anti-Trump, left-wing social media posts came to light.

Hart even posted specifically about the Stone case before she voted to convict, as she retweeted an argument mocking those who considered Stone's dramatic arrest in a predawn raid by a federal tactical team to be excessive force. She also suggested President Trump and his supporters are racist and praised the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which ultimately led to Stone's prosecution.


Meanwhile, it emerged that U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson had denied a defense request to strike a potential juror who was Obama-era press official with admitted anti-Trump views -- and whose husband worked at the same Justice Department division that handled the probe leading to Stone's arrest. And, another Stone juror, Seth Cousins, donated to former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke and other progressive causes, federal election records reviewed by Fox News show.

....

And those prosecutors? Only one has left their job, the rest withdrew from the case...they are still on gov't payroll (until Trump removes them later, most likely). But, they also didn't follow procedure - not just out of technical violation, but willful intent(and not for the first time):

A day after a nine-year sentencing recommendation for the elderly Roger Stone was filed, Senior DOJ officials immediately distanced themselves from the recommendation. They told CBS News that the prison time recommendation was "extreme, excessive, grossly disproportionate to offenses," and that this is not what was briefed to the DOJ by the assigned prosecutors. Hours later, all four lawyers assigned to the case withdrew, with one, Jonathan Kravis, resigning from the DOJ entirely.

This is unusual, to say the least. Top to bottom, from the start of the case to this shocking end, has been unprecedented. What is going on?

^^From within that article, there are quotes of Jesse Birnall, lawyer for Flynn (obviously a biased source), who sheds some legal perspective on it:

"Roger Stone wouldn't ever have been a target of prosecution had he not been a Trump supporter. The President was absolutely right; the political underpinnings of this case are very disturbing. The events of the past few days show just how unusual this case really is."
...
"These four prosecutors filed a brief making a sentencing recommendation without getting approval from the chain of command. That is extraordinarily unusual in the DOJ. In fact, I can say it's unheard of at the DOJ; certainly, I've never heard of it. In practice, DOJ lawyers almost always get approval for everything they do."

...
"I think they knew exactly what was going to happen when they filed that sentencing recommendation, expecting they will be reined in for doing so. They could then play the role of martyrs by resigning from the case, with one of them resigning entirely from his job.

One of the most serious powers of a prosecutor is asking to deprive a defendant of freedom, requesting jail time. I think this [nine-year sentence] was an abuse of their power as prosecutors, to make a recommendation like this without making a departmental approval.

They knew leftist media would celebrate their disobedience and abuse of power. Leftist media has a history of fawning over people who martyr themselves for left-wing causes, just like
Sally Yates. I think they wanted to leave the Roger Stone case with a bang.

Bottom line, they didn't get approval for sentencing recommendations from DOJ Sr. Officials who obviously didn't agree with it.
 
This followed hours after a tweet from Trump.

The allusion here is that Trump made it happen. Trump stated he hasn't talked with DOJ on it, which leaves his tweet. And, he is allowed to have an opinion, no? I don't think I've even heard conservatives saying it's a good look, most agree Trump's f'd up again and hurt himself when he should just stfu about a topic. However, the buzz that he 'interfered'? Um, proof? Or is it there with Russia! and Kavanaugh! and Ukraine quid pro quo! and all the other things that have been screaming points for the left and eventually found to be without grounds or proof?


I guess Trump doesn’t have the guts to pardon him outright.

Well, let's consider this. For all the screaming Trump interfered or is saving his buddy....part of my asks if he WAS going to do something about it, why not do it quietly and avoid the flak for it? The answer is...because he's Trump (dumbass). However, he very well could simply pardon Stone, Flynn, and anyone else he likes. There is precedent, a lot of it, easily found with Clinton, Obama, and many other Presidents.

5 Times Barack Obama Protected His Allies from Justice and Democrats Didn't Care

Bill Clinton pardon controversy
 
People who were hired during another administration should be judged on their performance. And I don’t think Trump has been held back with regard to much of anything, including firing people.

It's great you keep such an admirable view of retention based on performance. However, how often is a shit worker kept because the boss likes them, in any job? And does the new boss know who is a good worker and who isn't?

EVERY President cleans house upon gaining office. Trump just did a lot less early on than most as he didn't know the people in place. Over time, he's getting to know them better, enough to decide to keep or remove based on how well they support his agenda, which is their job.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top