[Discussion] Hope to Remember The Trump Administration Thread as being 'transparent and honest'

Let's follow and discuss what our newest presidential administration gets up to, the good, the bad, the lawsuits, and the many many indictments.

Gremlin wrote:

The good news is that there are existing laws and HR rules against their shiny new bigotry.

Yahoo News: Store clerk fired after telling customers to ‘go back to their country’ in viral video

The bad news is that the President's racism is blatantly obvious.

does the White House have an HR department?

We should really rethink that whole "the president can commit crimes with impunity" thing, it seems like it might cause some problems.

USA Today: Prosecutors weighed DOJ policy blocking indictment of a sitting president in closing Trump hush-money probe

WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors' decision to end an investigation into hush money payments to women claiming affairs with Donald Trump relied at least in part on long-standing Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime, a person familiar with the matter said Thursday.

The Justice Department told a federal judge on Monday that it had "effectively concluded" its investigation into efforts to silence the women in the final months of the 2016 campaign, but did not explain why it had done so. Prosecutors have said the payoffs violated a federal law that restricts campaign donations.

A person familiar with the case, who was not authorized to discuss it publicly, said it was unclear whether prosecutors made a determination that they had sufficient evidence to bring a case against Trump or anyone other than his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty last year. But the Justice Department's opinion that a president cannot be indicted factored into the decision to end the probe, the person said.

So if we vote him out he spends the rest of his life in jail when all this sh*t catches up to him?

How many crimes are we willing to let Trump walk on if he agrees to resign?

Jayhawker wrote:

How many crimes are we willing to let Trump walk on if he agrees to resign?

None

DSGamer wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

How many crimes are we willing to let Trump walk on if he agrees to resign?

None

Absolutely. They grifter their way into that position, and they can pay the bill in full when it comes due - him, his family, and every rat he piped into town.

Why would he resign? If charges finally start to stick he can just use his bully pulpit to avoid them. If he resigns he can no longer rewrite the rules to benefit himself. The more trouble he’s in the harder he’ll fight to stay in office.

The same reason Agnew and Nixon resigned. We agreed not to prosecute them.

I feel like that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how Trump operates. He will burn this country and everyone around him to the ground before he admits guilt or failure. If he leaves office before 2021 it will only be because he is either forcibly removed or dies due to his sh*tty diet and sedentary lifestyle.

Could be. But, that wasn’t the question.

So how should we have the Oval Office redecorated when Trump spontaneously combusts and accidentally sets the room on fire?

Jayhawker wrote:

Could be. But, that wasn’t the question.

My answer is still none.

If the lesson we learn from Trump is that the *more* crimes you commit the easier it will be to get away with, then definitely the next person that’s as bad as Trump will go even further.

DSGamer wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

How many crimes are we willing to let Trump walk on if he agrees to resign?

None

Before he resigns? All of them.

After he resigns? None.

Haha, motherf*cker, turns out you're not the only bullsh*t artist in town.

DSGamer wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

Could be. But, that wasn’t the question.

My answer is still none.

If the lesson we learn from Trump is that the *more* crimes you commit the easier it will be to get away with, then definitely the next person that’s as bad as Trump will go even further.

I can't disagree. But I'm not completely sure that the calculus works. He is a clear and present danger to the country, right now. He is passing info to Putin and others, and he continues to do Putin's bidding to weaken the nation.

Also, a pleas deal can also include an agreement to expose those that are leading the the white nationalist coup, and to do what he can to call off his cult members. If he resigns, it could even deliver the Senate, in addition to the White House and keeping the House.

I won't blame them for considering it. I mean, it's what my main prediction has always been. But it is getting late. the later in his term, the less benefit there is in letting him walk. But I think it is something that will need some national discussion. I don't think there is a clear cut answer either way.

Arguably, pardoning Nixon is what got us to this point. As was letting Iran-Contra skate (and hey, Barr was involved in that too).

Part of the problem, of course, is that Trump is only part of the problem--he's brought to light a festering swarm of white nationalist hate groups, and they won't go away even if he does. (Though how he departs might affect their cohesion.)

Gremlin wrote:

We should really rethink that whole "the president can commit crimes with impunity" thing, it seems like it might cause some problems.

USA Today: Prosecutors weighed DOJ policy blocking indictment of a sitting president in closing Trump hush-money probe

WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors' decision to end an investigation into hush money payments to women claiming affairs with Donald Trump relied at least in part on long-standing Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime, a person familiar with the matter said Thursday.

The Justice Department told a federal judge on Monday that it had "effectively concluded" its investigation into efforts to silence the women in the final months of the 2016 campaign, but did not explain why it had done so. Prosecutors have said the payoffs violated a federal law that restricts campaign donations.

A person familiar with the case, who was not authorized to discuss it publicly, said it was unclear whether prosecutors made a determination that they had sufficient evidence to bring a case against Trump or anyone other than his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty last year. But the Justice Department's opinion that a president cannot be indicted factored into the decision to end the probe, the person said.

If only there were some process that could be started to remove him from office for said crimes. Preferably one that included a very public investigation so the public could hear all the very opinion-swaying evidence and testimony before a vote was taken.

Stengah wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

We should really rethink that whole "the president can commit crimes with impunity" thing, it seems like it might cause some problems.

USA Today: Prosecutors weighed DOJ policy blocking indictment of a sitting president in closing Trump hush-money probe

WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors' decision to end an investigation into hush money payments to women claiming affairs with Donald Trump relied at least in part on long-standing Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime, a person familiar with the matter said Thursday.

The Justice Department told a federal judge on Monday that it had "effectively concluded" its investigation into efforts to silence the women in the final months of the 2016 campaign, but did not explain why it had done so. Prosecutors have said the payoffs violated a federal law that restricts campaign donations.

A person familiar with the case, who was not authorized to discuss it publicly, said it was unclear whether prosecutors made a determination that they had sufficient evidence to bring a case against Trump or anyone other than his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty last year. But the Justice Department's opinion that a president cannot be indicted factored into the decision to end the probe, the person said.

If only there were some process that could be started to remove him from office for said crimes. Preferably one that included a very public investigation so the public could hear all the very opinion-swaying evidence and testimony before a vote was taken.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. We just need to wait a bit longer to see if anything else comes up.

Gremlin wrote:

Arguably, pardoning Nixon is what got us to this point. As was letting Iran-Contra skate (and hey, Barr was involved in that too).

Part of the problem, of course, is that Trump is only part of the problem--he's brought to light a festering swarm of white nationalist hate groups, and they won't go away even if he does. (Though how he departs might affect their cohesion.)

If there’s a bright side to that - if a new President were to emerge, it’ll be a lot easier and count as quite a few big easy wins for the first 100 days to clamp down on domestic terrorism by persecuting these groups with a DOJ and FBI that aren’t neutered any longer.

Agreeing not to prosecute Nixon and Agnew is probably the biggest and most far reaching mistake we've made as a country. It is the direct cause of the current ride of right wing fascism. It should absolutely not be repeated with trump (completely aside from the fact there is a 0% chance trump would admit to failure and resign under any circumstance)

BlackSheep wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

Arguably, pardoning Nixon is what got us to this point. As was letting Iran-Contra skate (and hey, Barr was involved in that too).

Part of the problem, of course, is that Trump is only part of the problem--he's brought to light a festering swarm of white nationalist hate groups, and they won't go away even if he does. (Though how he departs might affect their cohesion.)

If there’s a bright side to that - if a new President were to emerge, it’ll be a lot easier and count as quite a few big easy wins for the first 100 days to clamp down on domestic terrorism by persecuting these groups with a DOJ and FBI that aren’t neutered any longer.

The DOJ and FBI were neutered with respect to those groups well before Trump. If you think that FOX News and the GOP would let prosecuting white-nationalist domestic terrorists be viewed as anything other than an attack on political expression then I fear and suspect you are being very optimistic.

Yonder wrote:
BlackSheep wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

Arguably, pardoning Nixon is what got us to this point. As was letting Iran-Contra skate (and hey, Barr was involved in that too).

Part of the problem, of course, is that Trump is only part of the problem--he's brought to light a festering swarm of white nationalist hate groups, and they won't go away even if he does. (Though how he departs might affect their cohesion.)

If there’s a bright side to that - if a new President were to emerge, it’ll be a lot easier and count as quite a few big easy wins for the first 100 days to clamp down on domestic terrorism by persecuting these groups with a DOJ and FBI that aren’t neutered any longer.

The DOJ and FBI were neutered with respect to those groups well before Trump. If you think that FOX News and the GOP would let prosecuting white-nationalist domestic terrorists be viewed as anything other than an attack on political expression then I fear and suspect you are being very optimistic.

I don’t care about the opinions of Fox News. And if there’s not a Repub sitting in the Oval Office, I can’t imsgine them having too much to say concerning prosecution. Oh, they’ll talk and they’ll attempt the same craptastic playbook of fear and malcontent, and it’ll work on the deplorables; however, there are more than a few of the GOP that wouldn’t mind watching Trump burn over policies he’s enacted - even though they agree with him, but because they’re so toxic and so hard to handle, they don’t want the association with them and letting Trump take that heat would be ok by them

Last week the Interior Department announced that, like the Department of Agriculture, it's relocating key agencies out of D.C. This time it's the Bureau of Land Management, which will require senior staffers to move to new offices in Grand Junction, CO by October 1st.

People in favor of the move say that it will put BLM staffers closer to the people and resources they manage in the West. Critics say that 90% of the BLM's staff and offices are already located in the West and that the move is part of a plan to isolate the BLM and make it easier for special interests who want access to the resources on federal lands to get their way.

This is supported by the Trump administration's announcement a few weeks ago that William Perry Pendley will be the BLM's new deputy director of policy and programs. Pendley's previous job was the president of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, a free market non-profit that has spent the past 40 years suing the BLM and other agencies over what it feels are government intrusions into the right to own and use property. In 2016 Pendley penned an article in the National Review that argued the government should sell off the hundreds of millions of acres of public land it currently manages. The Mountain States Legal Foundation's $2.5 million budget comes from donations by oil and gas companies as well as other conservative non-profits, like the Adolph Coors Foundation.

thrawn82 wrote:

Agreeing not to prosecute Nixon and Agnew is probably the biggest and most far reaching mistake we've made as a country. It is the direct cause of the current ride of right wing fascism. It should absolutely not be repeated with trump (completely aside from the fact there is a 0% chance trump would admit to failure and resign under any circumstance)

Not doing Reconstruction properly after Lincoln was assassinated.

But yeah it's up there.

BlackSheep wrote:

there are more than a few of the GOP that wouldn’t mind watching Trump burn over policies he’s enacted

You're right. It's 4, if the past week was any indicator...

Stele wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

Agreeing not to prosecute Nixon and Agnew is probably the biggest and most far reaching mistake we've made as a country. It is the direct cause of the current ride of right wing fascism. It should absolutely not be repeated with trump (completely aside from the fact there is a 0% chance trump would admit to failure and resign under any circumstance)

Not doing Reconstruction properly after Lincoln was assassinated.

But yeah it's up there.

Johnson never intended to do reconstruction, in fact he was already in the process of hamstringing it while Lincoln was alive. Stopping reconstruction was the whole point of the Lincoln assassination. In other words, the mistake was not preventing the assassination, or not taking on Johnson as a VP. It is unreasonable to think there was any reality where Johnson supported reconstruction.

but yes, successfully implementing reconstruction would have made a big difference.

*sigh*

Ahead of a Monday meeting with Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, Trump told reporters at the White House that he could win the war in Afghanistan in just one week if he really, really wanted to. But Trump says he won’t do that because he doesn’t want millions to die.

“I don’t want to kill 10 million people,” he said. “I have plans on Afghanistan that if I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the earth, it would be gone, it would be over in literally 10 days.”

JC wrote:

*sigh*

Ahead of a Monday meeting with Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, Trump told reporters at the White House that he could win the war in Afghanistan in just one week if he really, really wanted to. But Trump says he won’t do that because he doesn’t want millions to die.

“I don’t want to kill 10 million people,” he said. “I have plans on Afghanistan that if I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the earth, it would be gone, it would be over in literally 10 days.”

If I turn the desert to glass, we win!

Some thing on the news where Iran says they captured 17 CIA operatives but Trump of course denies it.

Is it weird that I believe Iran over him? Being lied to every time he opens his mouth, I just assume he's lying again.

Stele wrote:

Some thing on the news where Iran says they captured 17 CIA operatives but Trump of course denies it.

Is it weird that I believe Iran over him? Being lied to every time he opens his mouth, I just assume he's lying again.

The fact he commented on it indicates, to me, that Iran is telling the truth.

Trump is maybe the best chance for the "turning the desert into glass" fantasies that the far right has been nursing since at least the first Gulf War. Never mind that the best outcome to hope for would be that it would alienate us from the rest of the world, actual strategic interests don't figure into fantasies.

Luckily, he's canny enough not to want to start that fight, at least for the moment.