The Trump Presidency

[Bryanpoprobson]

I must agree with Jason in the last comment, it reminds me of a scenario during my project management days. I was responsible for one of the first STM64 fibre networks in Europe. My contractor, Nortel, had a set of tests for the the NVT of the network. When I caused a network failure with an ad hoc test, Nortel called foul, saying it was not a valid test.
You can’t set the ground rules for the evidence that is admissible in any scenario be it a judicial revue or a network test, when it is you (or your network) that is under examination. The point I put to Nortel was; it’s like having an exam where you set the questions, answer them yourself and then mark the paper, additionally you set the pass criteria.

[smartcooky]

....and this, ladies and gentlemen, exactly sums up the wilful stupidity of Trump sycophants. It is frightening....no its bloody  terrifying, for those of us living in the rest of the free world, to see that 1 in every 3 Americans thinks just like this.

I agree.  However, I also know the same level of stupidity is just as rampant on the left.  That is my entire point.

No, it isn't at all

No-one on the left is trying to hide evidence of their criminality
No-one of the left thinks they are above the law
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to stuff their own bank accounts
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to invite foreign interference to help them get re-elected
No-one on the left is fighting all the way to SCOTUS to prevent their tax returns from being released
No-one on the left is giving a free pass to killers, misogynists and rapists
No-one on the left has a large portion if their advisors and managers indicted and/or convicted
No-one on the left is promoting conspiracy theories that are part of a Russian Security Service disinformation campaign
No-one on the left has lied or made misleading claims to the American people over 15,000 times in less that 1,100 days

I could write a dozen further lines, but this is enough to make the point, clearly and unequivocally.

THE IS NO COUNTERPOINT IN THE LEFT OF AMERICAN POLITICS THAT BALANCES TRUMP'S PERFIDY!!

Your logic train has completely derailed.  You went from complaining about the intelligence level of some Trump supporters to listing a litany of allegations you have against Trump himself, all the while listing some obvious falsehoods you have gotten completely wrong.

Oh, angels and ministers of Grace defend us!!! You have entirely missed the point.

Trump supporters retain blind loyalty to the Orange Turd currently squatting in the White House IN SPITE OF THE FACT that he has done all of the above - THAT is why they are stupid, THAT is the point I was making.

And you want to talk about Hilary Clinton's honesty... One word... Benghazi!

She endured over 11 hours of testimony in before the Senate Inquisition

She did not dodge
She did not equivocate
She did not procrastinate
She did not prevaricate

She answered every question truthfully (as far as we can tell), and as fully as she was able to given the allotted time and the hostile, partisan and politically charged nature of the questioning. It was a near flawless testimony, and it must have really chapped a few Republican Senators' arses that, try as they might, they were unable to get her to fumble the football.

As a counterpoint to what Clinton did in the Benghazi hearings, that corrupt piece of human excrement occupying the White House was too much of a rank coward to put his money where his mouth is and come testify, under oath, on his own behalf...... And we all know why that is don't we - because he cannot open his mouth without lies coming out.

[gillianren]

It is also a lie that there were no Senate witnesses in Clinton's impeachment trial.  https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/21/tammy-baldwin/Trump-every-other-senate-impeachment-had-witnesses/

[MBDK]

It is also a lie that there were no Senate witnesses in Clinton's impeachment trial.  https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/21/tammy-baldwin/Trump-every-other-senate-impeachment-had-witnesses/

Semantics.  None were called to testify.  From your own link -
"In the Clinton case, House managers obtained depositions from the witnesses and excerpts of that testimony were shown to the Senate, the Washington Post reported."

[smartcooky]

It is also a lie that there were no Senate witnesses in Clinton's impeachment trial.  https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/21/tammy-baldwin/Trump-every-other-senate-impeachment-had-witnesses/

Semantics.  None were called to testify.  From your own link -
"In the Clinton case, House managers obtained depositions from the witnesses and excerpts of that testimony were shown to the Senate, the Washington Post reported."

Goal post move.

Witnesses are witnesses. Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal still undertook questioning, under oath - and their testimony is still valid.

Trump's impeachment trial is the only one of the 19 impeachment trials in the history of the USA, which did not hear from any witnesses at all. It wasn't a trial, it was a cover up, orchestrated by Trump and his minions, and carried out by every Republican Senator but one, the only honorable Republican among the scumbags. History will judge them harshly.

[MBDK]

It is also a lie that there were no Senate witnesses in Clinton's impeachment trial.  https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/21/tammy-baldwin/Trump-every-other-senate-impeachment-had-witnesses/

Semantics.  None were called to testify.  From your own link -
"In the Clinton case, House managers obtained depositions from the witnesses and excerpts of that testimony were shown to the Senate, the Washington Post reported."

Goal post move.

Witnesses are witnesses. Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal still undertook questioning, under oath - and their testimony is still valid.

Trump's impeachment trial is the only one of the 19 impeachment trials in the history of the USA, which did not hear from any witnesses at all. It wasn't a trial, it was a cover up, orchestrated by Trump and his minions, and carried out by every Republican Senator but one, the only honorable Republican among the scumbags. History will judge them harshly.

There were only 15 previous impeachments that had a full Senate trial.  And, yes all of those included witnesses by person, or deposition.  I concede that from further investigation, such depositions are considered witness testimony, but being no legal expert, I had thought that the 6th amendment, which gives criminal defendants the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, would be infringed by declaring the deposition as equal to a witness.   And since the Clinton impeachment involved recorded video depositions, not live witnesses, no questioning by the defendant could occur.

So, gillianren, though I am confounded by the fact depositions are considered the legal equivalent of a witness (in relation to the 6th amendment), I do apologize for my misconception and ensuing false allegation on this specific matter.  I am sorry, but at least I have learned something from my mistake.

Still, smartcooky, I am waiting for your reply to Post #734, where I asked, "do you REALLY stand by such outlandish claims?" (the ones I listed).

[smartcooky]

As for obvious falsehoods you have gotten completely wrong, allow me to briefly list them:

No-one on the left is trying to hide evidence of their criminality
No-one of the left thinks they are above the law
No-one on the left is using the power of their office to stuff their own bank accounts

Hillary is too obvious, but do you REALLY stand by such outlandish claims? 
Before you answer, you may just want to chew on THIS for a while (in regards to the $$$)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/net-worths-of-presidents/

And remember, these must apply to EVERYONE on the left, or you need to strike "no-one" from your contentions.

Misrepresenting facts again I see.

You are, I take it, accusing the Clintons of abusing their office, right. Well, it looks like the facts (from the article YOU linked to) don't support that claim.

"As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001:"

"the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House

Pro Tip 1: It pays to fully read any article you link in support of your claim, just to make sure that it actually DOES support your claim.

Pro Tip 2: The emolument's clause does not apply to former Presidents. Neither Bill Clinton, nor Barack Obama, violated the emoluments clause while they were sitting presidents, but I know a president who has...

1. Members of foreign governments staying at any and all his hotels or resorts or golf courses since January 20, 2017

2. Chinese and other foreign trademarks that have been granted to the Trump brand while he was president,

3. Licensing fees paid by foreign governments for “The Apprentice” for the past two years.

4.  Trump Org has rented space to foreign governments in Trump Tower.

And this last one is a real doozy...

5. Trump has ordered USAF flights to Europe must stop and refuel at a different airport from the ones they have been using for the past four decades. Previously they were using military airfields. It just so happens that the new airport they stopover at is a civilian one, Prestwick, in Scotland, which just happens to be an airport that Trump has a financial interest in, and which services Trump's golf course at Turnberry... Oh how veeeeeery convenient. Furthermore, the USAF buses the flight crew and staff over 20 miles away to a Trump owned resort for the overnight stay - the resort than any other nearby accommodations. USAF have made flights though Prestwick since the 1990s, but this was at most 3 to 6 flights per year. However since 2017...

2017 - 180 flights, 150 overnight stays
2018 - 257 flights, 221 overnight stays
2019 - 324 flights, 298 overnight stays

All but 29 of the overnight stays were at the Trump Resort

Since October 2017, the records (obtained from Scottish FOI applications) show 917 payments for expenses including fuel at Prestwick totaling US$17.2 million.

US taxpayers ought to be outraged by this... most of them probably don't even know, and Trump sycophantic hangers-on won't care anyway. When this is your mentality...



... there is not a lot of hope left for America.

PS: I just thought I would leave this here for you to ponder...


   

[molesworth]

While we currently have our own mendacious, grifting, womanising problem in the UK, which takes up a lot of my attention, the US situation is almost on another level.  There was an interesting piece on the BBC web site which gives some idea of how a lot of us on this side of the pond view things :

Trump impeachment trial: Is US politics beyond the point of repair?

The new decade in American politics has started with a hangover that keeps on getting worse - a quickening of the downward democratic spiral we have witnessed over the past 30 years.

So much of what has gone awry has been resident in the trial of Donald Trump.

The partisan vitriol. The degradation of debate. The use of what were previously rarely used weapons - in this instance impeachment - to escalate America's ceaseless political war.

It also includes the handy word "hyperpartisanship".

[jfb]

Trump openly solicited foreign aid against a domestic political rival in 2016 - "Russia, if you're listening..."

That by itself should have disqualified him from the nomination.  Republicans across the country should have demanded he be replaced as the nominee right then and there.  But he got away with it.  Every time he does something that would have had a Democrat (or, frankly, any moderate Republican) pilloried and expelled from office, the GOP just nods and goes along with it.  He literally could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not pay any consequences whatsoever. 

The worst outcome of this whole shitshow is the precedent it has set.  Future Presidents and Presidential candidates are now free to use the resources of foreign governments and the Department of Justice against their domestic political opponents.  If the Democrats ever take control of the Senate again, future Democratic Presidents and candidates are now free to call up their pals in whatever tinpot dictatorship and get them to help dig up dirt on domestic rivals, and the only thing that will stop them is Senate Democrats putting loyalty to country ahead of loyalty to party, and there's no reason to believe they will behave any differently from the current crop of Senate Republicans in that respect. 

Mitch McConnell just put the "Banana" in "Republican".  There is no putting this genie back in its bottle. 

The only thing that's protected the Republic for almost 250 years has been a sense of shame.  That's gone now. 

[gillianren]

Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm when he was President rather than make money from the Presidency.  Trump didn't even put his businesses in a blind trust after insisting he would.

[MBDK]

Misrepresenting facts again I see.

When did I do that?  I certainly didn't do it in my last reply to you.  YOU, on the other hand, have ignored my actual question and continued your diatribe to crucify Trump.

You are, I take it, accusing the Clintons of abusing their office, right.

Wrong.  I made no such claim, but provided a link that shows how they "used" the power of their office to garner enormous wealth from book deals and speaking engagements after their terms. My "Hilary" remark was predicated on your "hide evidence", and "above the law" comments. 

I didn't clarify the Hillary association, because I don't want to debate it.

Apparently you have warped the statement YOU made -
"No-one on the left is using the power of their office to stuff their own bank accounts" (my bold) by substituting "abusing", so you could continue your crusade. 

Now, from that continuation, I am not going to accuse YOU of misrepresenting facts, but I think you should double check your source(s).  I didn't even bother to look into your other complaints, just the one you considered to be extraordinary.

"but I know a president who has..."

And this last one is a real doozy...

5. Trump has ordered USAF flights to Europe must stop and refuel at a different airport from the ones they have been using for the past four decades. Previously they were using military airfields. It just so happens that the new airport they stopover at is a civilian one, Prestwick, in Scotland, which just happens to be an airport that Trump has a financial interest in, and which services Trump's golf course at Turnberry... Oh how veeeeeery convenient. Furthermore, the USAF buses the flight crew and staff over 20 miles away to a Trump owned resort for the overnight stay - the resort than any other nearby accommodations. USAF have made flights though Prestwick since the 1990s, but this was at most 3 to 6 flights per year. However since 2017...

2017 - 180 flights, 150 overnight stays
2018 - 257 flights, 221 overnight stays
2019 - 324 flights, 298 overnight stays

All but 29 of the overnight stays were at the Trump Resort

Since October 2017, the records (obtained from Scottish FOI applications) show 917 payments for expenses including fuel at Prestwick totaling US$17.2 million.

US taxpayers ought to be outraged by this... most of them probably don't even know, and Trump sycophantic hangers-on won't care anyway. When this is your mentality...

Well, I have found information where the facts only contradict this particular contention of yours.

From-
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/air-force-finds-air-crews-stayed-trump-resort/story?id=65594325
"An Air Force official said an internal review of the 659 overnight stops found that about 6% (39) of the overnight stays were at the Trump Turnberry resort located 20 miles from the airport."

and

"Air Force officials say the increase in refueling stops is due to the airport's 24 hour a day operations and better weather than other airports in the United Kingdom."

and

"The Trump property nightly rate of $136 was less expensive than the $161 charged by a nearby Marriott property. Both of those rates were below the per diem rate of $166."

So, once again, I re-iterate that I am not here to defend Trump, but to point our the very human trait that all people, including the posters here, are subject to - which is that we can let emotions and other factors interfere with our critical thinking process(es), just as CTs do.  And as such, we should all remind ourselves to be vigilant over ourselves to minimize such behavior(s).  Don't always accept everything, even from normally credible sources, at face value.  It is a rare occasion indeed when there is not more to the story.

With that said, I don't expect an answer to the question I asked in post #733 regarding the blanket statements smartcooky made that I took issue with.  The sheer numbers of people who would have to be considered completely free from any associated guilt make them completely implausible.  Still, as a last little "gotcha", remember how much YOU have complained when your question(s) has(have) been ignored by CTs.

[Jason Thompson]

So, once again, I re-iterate that I am not here to defend Trump, but to point our the very human trait that all people, including the posters here, are subject to - which is that we can let emotions and other factors interfere with our critical thinking process(es), just as CTs do.  And as such, we should all remind ourselves to be vigilant over ourselves to minimize such behavior(s).

Such as, for example, suggesting that Trump's accquittal in an impeachment trial where he blocked evidence and witnesses shows him to not be above the law? I repeat my earlier question: If he, as the indictee, gets to decide (or indeed have any say at all) what evidence is seen and what witnesses testify, how is that not abusing his power and being above the law? Who else gets to decide how their own trial goes in that way?

And at what point is it appropriate to let emotion take a part in this when the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth behaves like a spoiled brat, lies almost every time he opens his mouth, and demonstrates not one ounce of geunine humility for even the most basic and understandable mistakes but rather doubles down on finding ways that he is still right and the rest of the world is wrong? The man is dangerous, and the degeneration of high office to childish bickering in such halls of power is frankly terrifying.

[smartcooky]

When did I do that?  I certainly didn't do it in my last reply to you.  YOU, on the other hand, have ignored my actual question and continued your diatribe to crucify Trump.

You misrepresented facts. You posted a link to support your claim that two other presidents abused their office. Those are false claims.

Wrong.  I made no such claim, but provided a link that shows how they "used" the power of their office to garner enormous wealth from book deals and speaking engagements after their terms.

Another goal post move.

The argument is about abuse of the power of the office. You are claiming an equivalence between gathering wealth AFTER a President leaves office and gathering it WHILE the President is still in office. This a compeltely false equivalence.

It is not against the law for a former president to gather wealth after they leave office, but it IS against the law to so to do while the president is still in office. This is because a former president has no power to affect anything in government; a sitting president has. He can manipulate goverment policy and actions to his person benefit - and this is exactly what the Orange Turd has done

You are completely wrong in drawing this false equivalence, you are grasping at straws, using desperate, ill-conceived whataboutism to justify what your Dear Leader is doing.

Now, from that continuation, I am not going to accuse YOU of misrepresenting facts, but I think you should double check your source(s).  I didn't even bother to look into your other complaints, just the one you considered to be extraordinary.

"but I know a president who has..."

And this last one is a real doozy...

5. Trump has ordered USAF flights to Europe must stop and refuel at a different airport from the ones they have been using for the past four decades. Previously they were using military airfields. It just so happens that the new airport they stopover at is a civilian one, Prestwick, in Scotland, which just happens to be an airport that Trump has a financial interest in, and which services Trump's golf course at Turnberry... Oh how veeeeeery convenient. Furthermore, the USAF buses the flight crew and staff over 20 miles away to a Trump owned resort for the overnight stay - the resort than any other nearby accommodations. USAF have made flights though Prestwick since the 1990s, but this was at most 3 to 6 flights per year. However since 2017...

2017 - 180 flights, 150 overnight stays
2018 - 257 flights, 221 overnight stays
2019 - 324 flights, 298 overnight stays

All but 29 of the overnight stays were at the Trump Resort

Since October 2017, the records (obtained from Scottish FOI applications) show 917 payments for expenses including fuel at Prestwick totaling US$17.2 million.

US taxpayers ought to be outraged by this... most of them probably don't even know, and Trump sycophantic hangers-on won't care anyway. When this is your mentality...

Well, I have found information where the facts only contradict this particular contention of yours.

From-
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/air-force-finds-air-crews-stayed-trump-resort/story?id=65594325
"An Air Force official said an internal review of the 659 overnight stops found that about 6% (39) of the overnight stays were at the Trump Turnberry resort located 20 miles from the airport."

My source disagrees. When I have more time, I will post them

"Air Force officials say the increase in refueling stops is due to the airport's 24 hour a day operations and better weather than other airports in the United Kingdom."

Well, they would, wouldn't they

"The Trump property nightly rate of $136 was less expensive than the $161 charged by a nearby Marriott property. Both of those rates were below the per diem rate of $166."

There are literally dozens of accommodations within 20 miles of Prestwick - you've cherry-picked the most expensive to make a false point.

So, once again, I re-iterate that I am not here to defend Trump

Well you are making a bang up job of look like a devoted supporter!

but to point our the very human trait that all people, including the posters here, are subject to - which is that we can let emotions and other factors interfere with our critical thinking process(es), just as CTs do.  And as such, we should all remind ourselves to be vigilant over ourselves to minimize such behavior(s).  Don't always accept everything, even from normally credible sources, at face value.  It is a rare occasion indeed when there is not more to the story.

Trump is a nasty individual, a vile piece of human waste - he always has been and he always will be. The only difference now is that since he became POTUS, he is a vile piece of human waste, with real power - power that he abuses every day.

With that said, I don't expect an answer to the question I asked in post #733 regarding the blanket statements smartcooky made that I took issue with.  The sheer numbers of people who would have to be considered completely free from any associated guilt make them completely implausible.  Still, as a last little "gotcha", remember how much YOU have complained when your question(s) has(have) been ignored by CTs.

I have answered your questions. Just because you don't like the answer does not mean I haven't answered it

[Jason Thompson]

"Air Force officials say the increase in refueling stops is due to the airport's 24 hour a day operations and better weather than other airports in the United Kingdom."

Well, they would, wouldn't they

And literally no-one in the UK is going to buy the argument that Prestwick has "better weather" than the rest of the United Kingdom! Cold, wet, cloudy and windy are pretty much the norm there.

[MBDK]

When did I do that?  I certainly didn't do it in my last reply to you.  YOU, on the other hand, have ignored my actual question and continued your diatribe to crucify Trump.

You misrepresented facts. You posted a link to support your claim that two other presidents abused their office. Those are false claims.

Wrong.  I NEVER made that claim, and expressly pointed out where you are 100& in error on YOUR above quoted claim.  Until you can accept this undeniable and obviously provable FACT, and withdrawn your blatantly false statement, I refuse to have further discourse with such a hate-blinded person.

Perhaps more level-headed and trustworthy (to smartcooky) members of this forum can patiently explain to smartcooky his (I assume) misconception here.