Trump's Presidency: Is this the next domino to fall?

6,692 posts in this topic

From Wiki

 

Quote

The Arizona chapter of the ACLU believes that production of child pornography should be illegal, but that possessing it is protected by the right to privacy. "Our policy is that possessing even pornographic material about children should not itself be a crime. The way to deal with this issue is to prosecute the makers of child pornography for exploiting minors."

 

They do not defend distribution or production.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@fraufruit I wondered why Findus had not returned. It's okay, @Findus. You could have just said you had made a mistake. I disagree with the ACLU on that one, by the way. I thought you were alluding to the 14 year old who was charged inappropriately with child porn distribution after sending a sexy pic of herself to another teen, but that case also didn't assert what you said so I decided I was wrong and it must be a different case.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, AlexTr said:

@fraufruit I wondered why Findus had not returned. It's okay, @Findus. You could have just said you had made a mistake. I disagree with the ACLU on that one, by the way. I thought you were alluding to the 14 year old who was charged inappropriately with child porn distribution after sending a sexy pic of herself to another teen, but that case also didn't assert what you said so I decided I was wrong and it must be a different case.

 

Sorry, I meant @Fromm.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Findus said:

Phew, AlexTr. Was doubting my sanity for a minute there...

 

 

I am sure you lost hours of sleep over it.:lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

President Donald Trump went on a 90-minute extended rant during his rally in Wisconsin on Saturday night, programmed against the White House Correspondents Dinner that he refused to attend. During his unhinged monologue, the president said many ridiculous things that will sap your will to continue living in this nightmare dystopia, including: accusing mothers and doctors of executing newborns, calling the media “sick” and ex-FBI officials “scum,” claiming credit for the “sick” idea of sending undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities, and doing an impression of the Saudi king’s accent. Oh, and, of course, there were “Lock her up!” chants.

Speaking about abortion, Trump brought up a lie he’s been touting for a while: that newborn babies are “executed” by their mothers and doctors. He accused Democrats of “aggressively pushing extreme late-term abortion, allowing children to be ripped from their mothers’ womb right up until the moment of birth.”

Then, he went even further, saying, “The baby is born, the mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. I don’t think so.”

Never mind that what he said was patently, demonstrably false. It doesn’t matter because Trump’s goal (and the goal of anti-choice activists) is to strip women of bodily autonomy by any means necessary. And yes, that includes lying about women going through the harrowing experience of having a baby who cannot survive outside the womb.

Trump also engaged in his typical name-calling, this time saying the media are “sick people” who say he won’t leave office “at the end of six years.” Wait, does the president not know that terms are four years each, or can he not do simple math?

No matter, because it’s time to move on to his next victims: leaders in the FBI and Department of Justice. “If you look at what’s happened with the scum that’s leaving the very top of government… these were dirty cops,” Trump said. “These were dirty players… They’re just leaving because they got caught like nobody ever got caught.”

The president also said he was “proud” of his “sick” idea to ship undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities.

“Democrats also support sanctuary cities that release thousands of dangerous criminal aliens onto our streets. In fact, they like the criminal aliens so much that when we are forced to release them into our country… we give them as many as they can handle,” Trump said, adding, “We’re sending many of them to sanctuary cities, thank you very much… They’re not too happy about it. I’m proud to tell you that was actually my sick idea.”

But, as The Daily Beast noted, the White House has never publicly announced such a policy is in action.

Speaking about America’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, Trump talked about his defense of Saudi King Salman in the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. “I said, King, We are losing our ass defending you, King, and you have a lot of money,” Trump claimed he said to Salman. He then mimicked Salman’s accent, saying, “Why would you be calling me? No one’s ever made such a call before.” To which Trump said he answered, “That’s ’cause they were stupid!”

 

Before the rally, Trump promised it would be “very positive,” unlike the White House Correspondents Dinner. Glad to see he fulfilled that promise. Now I’m going to go drown myself in the ocean.

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem. If you want to quash a subpoena, you have to sue for an injunction against the entity that filed the subpoena. You do not sue the entity subpoenaed. Who are these lawyers?

 

Quote

President Donald Trump and several members of his family sued Deutsche Bank and Capital One on Monday seeking to prevent them from responding to congressional subpoenas for information about the president's finances.

 

The House Intelligence and Financial Services committees have issued subpoenas to several banks as part of their investigations of alleged foreign influence on U.S. elections.

...
The suit alleges that Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff and Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters, both D-Calif., have refused to provide the Trumps with copies of the subpoenas, "preventing them from even knowing, let alone negotiating, the subpoenas' scope or breadth."
 

It seeks a declaratory judgment that the subpoenas are invalid and unenforceable and a permanent injunction to quash the subpoenas.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on the Deutsche Bank/Capital One debacle...

 

Trump sues Deutsche Bank and Capital One over Democrat subpoenas

 

Quote

US President Donald Trump has sued two banks in a bid to stop them handing over his financial records to Congress.

The lawsuit against Deutsche Bank and Capital One was filed after Democrat-led committees issued subpoenas for information on his finances.

His three eldest children and the Trump Organisation joined the lawsuit, which argues there are no legitimate grounds for investigating his business affairs.

Leading Democrats said they would not be deterred by the blocking attempt.

A Deutsche Bank spokeswoman told the New York Times: "We remain committed to providing appropriate information to all authorized investigations"

There was no immediate comment from Capital One.

"No legitimate grounds for investigating his business affairs..." Is he really that stupid ?

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, lisa13 said:

is it really so stupid?

 

this kind of response seems to work pretty splendidly for him so far :/

 

I was just thinking roughly the same thing. I believe that some part of Trump's ability to tell lie after lie and make obfuscation after obfuscation that his supporters believe and support is certainly the failed idea that "being a regular person" or rather not being "one of the elites" is mostly predicated on being dumb enough to believe that rich people, no matter how they became rich, are somehow better than normal people. A person with intellectual discernment sees that this has been mere propaganda from the GOP for decades (remember the Contract with America - that was breached by the GOP nearly from day one). 

 

There can be no other rationale. Whereas previously Americans abhorred a liar and a con man, now they seek to promote it and emulate it. Simultaneously dumber and more corrupt, the US has reached near bottom.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Wulfrun said:

"No legitimate grounds for investigating his business affairs..."

 

On the other hand, if he is being permanently audited by the IRS as he claims, there are plenty of legitimate grounds.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, fraufruit said:

 

On the other hand, if he is being permanently audited by the IRS as he claims, there are plenty of legitimate grounds.

 

Maybe the IRS should read the article from the NYT, Deutsche Bank’s history of lending and providing accounts to Mr. Trump I'd think Deutsche Bank would be rather embarrassed by its content

 

"Mr. Trump told Deutsche Bank his net worth was about $3 billion, but when bank employees reviewed his finances, they concluded he was worth about $788 million", yet they still loaned him more money...

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, AlexTr said:

mostly predicated on being dumb enough to believe that rich people, no matter how they became rich, are somehow better than normal people.

 

I don't think that is quite it

 

I would say:  "mostly predicated on repeated experience/observation that leads one to believe that rich people, no matter how they became rich, are somehow subject to fewer laws or constraints than normal people"

 

or at least they never get prosecuted/punished the way a normal person would.  you have to be really really dumb to not see this is, in fact, almost always true for a wide variety of reasons (eta I of course don't mean "you" you, just the average person).  Sometimes it's this assumption that they are "better" but more often it's just plain old grift

 

in the end the main point is that he's kinda given the banks an out by filing a lawsuit as it creates wiggle room for the banks to claim there is a doubt, at least for a time, that the demand for his records is "authorized".   

 

I suspect it will work JUST exactly as intended.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

TRUMP: "In the 'old days' if you were President and you had a good economy, you were basically immune from criticism. Remember, 'It's the economy stupid.' Today I have, as President, perhaps the greatest economy in history." — tweet Tuesday.

THE FACTS: You can assume many previous presidents would beg to disagree that a good economy shielded them from criticism.

Under President Bill Clinton, whose top campaign staffer James Carville coined the phrase "the economy, stupid," to underscore what the campaign should be about, the unemployment rate fell to 3.8% and the nation's economy grew 4% or more for four straight years.

Yet Clinton was under independent counsel investigation for all but one year of his presidency, 1993. The House impeached him in December 1998, at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, though the Senate acquitted him in February 1999. In January 1998, Hillary Clinton alleged a "vast right-wing conspiracy" to take down her husband, a widely mocked complaint about the relentless criticism the Clintons faced from the right (which extended to ridicule over the title of Hillary Clinton's 1996 book, "It Takes a Village.")

Under President Ronald Reagan, the economy expanded 3.5% or more for six years in a row, with growth rocketing to 7.2% in 1984. Yet Reagan was dogged in his second term by the Iran-Contra investigation, which focused on covert arm sales to Iran that financed aid to Nicaraguan rebels.

Both presidents saw much faster growth than Trump has presided over, despite Trump's faulty claim to have "perhaps the greatest economy in history." Growth reached 2.9% last year, the best in four years, but far below the levels achieved under Clinton or Reagan. The unemployment rate touched 3.7% last September and November, the lowest in five decades, but just one-tenth of a percentage point below the 3.8% in April 2000 under Clinton.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@lisa13 First off, never worry that I don't understand the generic 'you.' It's a staple in this kind of dialogue.

 

Second, I would counter that believing rich people don't get punished and being dumb enough to believe thety are somehow better is a hand in glove argument. The general populace tolerates the lawlessness of the wealthy by inheritance or other unsavory means because they perceive them as better.

 

At any rate, this is a good argument for higher graduated inheritance taxes and a cap on overall incomes, but this is a different topic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno. Many not rich people hate rich people on principle which usually translates into jealousy. All rich people are not scum and don't consider themselves above the law.

(There are a few green monsters here on TT who can't seem to be happy over another's good fortune.)

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fraufruit said:

 

On the other hand, if he is being permanently audited by the IRS as he claims, there are plenty of legitimate grounds.

 

SINGLED OUT FOR PRESIDENTIAL HARRASSMENT BY THE DEEP STATE, you mean.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now