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

7,155 posts in this topic

12 minutes ago, AlexTr said:

@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.

Interesting last point of yours considering your TT logo. 

Focussing on what other people have : ie envy.. instead of focussing on what YOU yourself have or not!?

I agree with fraufruit!

Envy is a disease.

0

Share this post


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

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.)

 

 

There is wealthy and well-off and then there are Manafort, Kushner, et. al. If we have people here who have amassed that kind of wealth without inheriting, good for them. 

However, what we are talking about is the select group of Americans who are NOT wealthy at all and idolize to the point of worship anyone who is wealthy. Their credulity creates a lot of the inequalities, both legal and social. It could never merely be the fact of being wealthy. There has to be the support of a belief system that tells both the wealthy and their non-wealthy sycophants that being wealthy is a sign of intellect and superiority.

 

Furthermore, that jealousy (and I know of whom you are talking) is, in my opinion, born of a fear that the wealthy are actually better than they are. Alternatively, it is a self-loathing at not having achieved more.

 

I know a lot of wealthy to super-wealthy people who just had dumb luck or were in the right place at the right time. I know fewer wealthy to super-wealthy people who are actually intellectual titans.

1

Share this post


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

All rich people are not scum and don't consider themselves above the law.

 

I don't think anyone suggested that at all, did they?

 

not sure how a -> b here

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case, I was referring to those who hate rich people just because. Just conversating as Rikki Lake would say.

 

As for the wealthy people I know, most are pretty brilliant. You have to be to hold onto it.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best people -

 

Former Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle is capping one year of dating Donald Trump Jr. with a major new job: leading the charge in getting his dad re-elected.

 

Guilfoyle — who has been seeing the first son since last May, following his split from Vanessa Trump — has announced that she’s joining President Trump’s 2020 campaign as a senior advisor.

“It's time to get to work and WIN for America in 2020,” she wrote in a social media post about her new gig.

Conservatives are hailing Guilfoyle’s new career move, which comes about nine months after news broke that she was leaving Fox News. Amid rumors that her exit from the network was prompted by allegations of misconduct, Guilfoyle went on to become vice chairwoman of America First Policies, a pro-Trump PAC.

She’ll now be working directly on the Trump campaign, becoming the latest de facto family member to be hired by POTUS. First daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner are White House senior advisors, Eric Trump’s wife Lara Trump is a senior consultant to Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale, and both Don Jr. and Eric have been hitting the campaign trail while running The Trump Organization on behalf of their father.

While the Trumps aren’t exactly the first family to play favorites — it’s standard for family members to serve as campaign surrogates, and President Kennedy famously appointed his brother Robert to be his attorney general —Guilfoyle’s hiring is breathing new life into accusations of nepotism.

While Trump supporters are lauding what they call a “solid squad” on his campaign, critics are calling Guilfoyle — who was previously married to California Gov. Gavin Newsom — a “grifter” who is dating Don Jr. to “get on the payroll.”

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, lisa13 said:

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".  

 

Trump's lawyers have already failed by not engaging directly with the House in court to quash the subpoena. This lawsuit is an attempt to coerce Deutsche Bank and Mazars into doing what he wants regardless of subpoena. Yet, any casual reader of all of the documents knows that this is already a no-go.

 

Quote

Trump’s lawsuit argues that Mazars should follow the code of professional conduct issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. It quotes one section that counsels CPAs against “disclos[ing] any confidential client information without the specific consent of the client.”

The next paragraph of that code, however, says that CPAs can release client information “to comply with a validly issued and enforceable subpoena.” 

 

 

Trump's legal team has to prove that the subpoena isn't valid. BY the time they get to that the compliance will already have happened.

 

Quote

On Monday, some legal experts were skeptical that the president’s tactic would succeed. They said courts generally have granted Congress fairly wide powers to investigate, even in cases where the investigation wasn’t connected to a pending bill. 

“You can never say never because courts change and there are new judges, but this is way over the top,” said Kerry W. Kircher, who served as House counsel for the Republican majority from 2011 to 2016, referring to the suit. “I’m as confident as I can be that there’s no chance of success here on the merits.”

Kircher said that the courts would be “altering the whole arrangement of checks and balances” should they rule in favor of Trump.

In Trump’s lawsuit, his attorneys cited a Supreme Court decision called Kilbourn v. Thompson, which found “no express power” in the Constitution for Congress to investigate individuals without pending legislation.

The problem with that argument, said University of Baltimore law professor Charles Tiefer, is that Kilbourn v. Thompson is a case from 1880.

And it was overruled by a decision in 1927, Tiefer said. 

“It has not been followed for the last 90 years,” Tiefer said of the 1880 decision. Instead, the 1927 ruling found Congress has much wider powers to investigate — and courts since then have let that interpretation stand and even reinforced it.

Tiefer, a Democrat and former acting House counsel, said the main goal of Trump’s team may be not to block the subpoena forever but simply to delay it so any damaging information comes out after the 2020 election. But he said the case could actually move through the courts quickly — perhaps in just a few months.

“By reaching back to precedent to the 1880s, they’re seeking . . . to overturn the entire modern case law that the courts have put together to respect Congress’s investigative power,” he said of Trump’s lawyers. “It’s a very long shot. . . . These suits look like an act of desperation by the Trump lawyers.”

 

So, on this point, I am going to have to disagree with you. He has given neither entity and out and they already know that. They can simultaneously fight this case and provide information to Congress.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, this is not news. We all saw it coming. Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe

 

Quote

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III wrote a letter in late March complaining to Attorney General William P. Barr that a four-page memo to Congress describing the principal conclusions of the investigation into President Trump “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s work, according to a copy of the letter reviewed Tuesday by The Washington Post.

The letter and a subsequent phone call between the two men reveal the degree to which the longtime colleagues and friends disagreed as they handled the legally and politically fraught task of investigating the president. Democrats in Congress are likely to scrutinize Mueller’s complaints to Barr as they contemplate the prospect of opening impeachment proceedings and mull how hard to press for Mueller himself to testify publicly.

At the time Mueller’s letter was sent to Barr on March 27, Barr had days prior announced that Mueller did not find a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian officials seeking to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. In his memo to Congress, Barr also said that Mueller had not reached a conclusion about whether Trump had tried to obstruct justice, but that Barr reviewed the evidence and found it insufficient to support such a charge.

Days after Barr’s announcement, Mueller wrote the previously undisclosed private letter to the Justice Department, laying out his concerns in stark terms that shocked senior Justice Department officials, according to people familiar with the discussions.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read. Read. Read something. (sigh) 

 

Quote

House Democrats tell The Daily Beast they’ve been told Special Counsel Robert Mueller is willing to testify before them about his report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, but the Department of Justice has been unwilling to set a date for it to happen.

 

The impasse comes as lawmakers have grown increasingly frustrated over Attorney General Bill Barr’s handling of the release of the Mueller probe and as other Trump associates have declined to appear before congressional committees.

 

Shortly after it was reported on Tuesday night that Mueller had written and called Barr to complain that the attorney general had not fully represented the special counsel’s findings, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) sent out a statement demanding both men appear before his committee and saying he had been stonewalled so far.

 

“The Attorney General has expressed some reluctance to appear before the House Judiciary Committee this Thursday,” Nadler said. “These reports make it that much more important for him to appear and answer our questions. The Department of Justice has also been reluctant to confirm a date for Special Counsel Mueller to testify.”

 

Nadler had sent a letter to DOJ following the department’s release of the Mueller Report asking that Mueller appear for questioning no later than May 23. Two sources familiar with the conversations said the Judiciary Committee has been in regular contact with DOJ about setting a date for Mueller’s testimony and that those conversations were still going on. Committee sources said it was their impression that Mueller was willing to testify to discuss his findings, though it was unclear whether that would take place in public or behind closed doors.

 

But the DOJ has, according to multiple sources, not agreed to a date, citing Mueller’s continued status as a department employee—since the special counsel serves under the attorney general.



We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin

2

Share this post


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


We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin

 

You are on the right track but there is no need for you to be so hard on yourself.  

 

Referencing the Daily Beast, unnamed sources, and politicians like Nadler and Schiff has prompted you to make some pretty ridiculous positions, but the answer might lie in finding new sources rather than self-flagellation.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, the master of projection proves why s/he has earned that title. Good on you, Loretta.

 

The Mueller report was a damning indictment of Trump's blatant obstruction of justice. Barr has done a pretty good job of stonewalling and obfuscating the public debate so far, but the heads of the House Committee on the Judiciary and House Intelligence Committees (whom you dismiss as "politicians") are having none of it. Even Forbes, that liberal scion of liberal liberalism, is calling for Barr's impeachment for misconduct.

 

Meanwhile, as AlexTr noted, Trump still has no idea how subpoenas work. Or much of anything else, really.

 

Tick tock, bitches.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 minutes ago, El Jeffo said:

 

The Mueller report was a damning indictment of Trump's blatant obstruction of justice. Barr has done a pretty good job of stonewalling and obfuscating the public debate so far, but the heads of the House Committee on the Judiciary and House Intelligence Committees (whom you dismiss as "politicians") are having none of it.

 

They need to grow a set and do what it takes to get Mueller in front of the committee.   They have leverage if they want to use it.   It could be that they get more mileage out of complaining.   

By the way,  per AlexTrJones' WaPo article:

 

In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that media coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials. Mueller did not express similar concerns about the public discussion of the investigation of Russia’s election interference, the officials said. Barr has testified previously he did not know whether Mueller supported his conclusion on obstruction.

 

Maybe Mueller's dissatisfaction with the message taken from the report has less to do with differences with Barr and more to do with media spin.   Thus, it is critical for Mueller to testify.

13 minutes ago, El Jeffo said:

Tick tock, bitches.

 

Oooooohhhh Freddy Foreshadowing.    :lol:    Is the next shoe ready to drop?   Is the next domino about to fall?

 

You never learn.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, balticus said:

Thus, it is critical for Mueller to testify.

Your buddy Barr seems to disagree (for the third time, since you seem to have problems comprehending AlexTr's and fraufruit's posts)

 

44 minutes ago, balticus said:

You never learn.

imax_projection.jpg.194d7af502ff920e5292

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

On some nights, after the club’s Grille Room closed, head waiter Jose Gabriel Juarez — an undocumented immigrant from Mexico — was told to clock out. He pressed his index finger onto a scanner and typed his personal code, 436.

But he didn’t go home.

 

Instead — on orders from his bosses, Juarez said — he would stay on, sometimes past midnight. He vacuumed carpets, polished silverware and helped get the restaurant at Trump National Golf Club Westchester in Briar­cliff Manor, N.Y., ready for breakfast the next day.

All off the clock. Without being paid.

“It was that way with all the managers: Many of them told us, ‘Just clock out and then stay and do the side work,’ ” said Juarez, who spent a decade at the golf club, before leaving in May 2018. “There was a lot of side work.”

Allegations that workers were routinely shortchanged on their pay at President Trump’s suburban country club are now the subject of an inquiry by the New York attorney general, whose investigators have interviewed more than two dozen former employees.

The inquiry could raise awkward political questions for Trump, who has made stopping illegal immigration a centerpiece of his presidency and his reelection campaign but faces allegations that his business benefited from low-paid undocumented workers.

In interviews, six former Trump workers told The Washington Post that they felt systematically cheated because they were undocumented. Some told The Post about being denied promotions, vacation days and health insurance, which were offered to legal employees. The same pattern of unpaid labor was also described by a former manager.

Others recounted practices that could violate labor laws. Two told The Post that they had been required to perform unpaid side work. Two others said managers made them work 60-hour weeks without paying them overtime.

A spokesman for the New York attorney general’s office confirmed that it had received complaints from workers about conditions at the club but declined to comment further.

The Trump Organization has denied the allegations, and workers who spoke to The Post did not keep paper records of the extra hours they said they worked.

But Juarez was among nearly 30 former employees at Trump’s golf courses in New York who met with prosecutors in February. They handed over pay stubs and W-2 forms and answered questions about their salaries, hours, tips and lack of benefits in one-on-one interviews over many hours, according to several workers. Some have follow-up meetings scheduled in coming weeks.

“They were focused on the payments,” Gabriel Sedano, who worked in maintenance at the club for 14 years, said of the prosecutors. “The days they paid us. The extra hours they didn’t pay us. The tips.”

Many who met with investigators were among those who were fired as part of a companywide purge of unauthorized workers earlier this year.

In a statement, the Trump Organization called the former workers’ accounts “nonsense.”

“The Trump Organization has extensive policies and procedures in place to ensure compliance with all wage and hour laws,” spokeswoman Kimberly Benza said, after The Post sent a brief description of the employees’ accounts. “This story is total nonsense and nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations from illegal immigrants who unlawfully submitted fake identification in an effort to obtain employment.”

In January, the company said it would start using E-Verify, a federal program that allows employers to check whether new hires are legally eligible to work in the United States.

The inquiry adds to the list of inquiries by New York state investigators and Democrats in Congress scrutinizing aspects of Trump’s life, including the business on which he built his fame and fortune...

 

more here

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, El Jeffo said:

Your buddy Barr seems to disagree (for the third time, since you seem to have problems comprehending AlexTr's and fraufruit's posts)

 

The Daily Beast is not reliable or objective.   

 

You have learned nothing.   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.