Dangers of a Trump Presidency--Part 7

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,565
Ratings
2,484
A wall may not be the best way to secure the border. Democrats want to secure the border. They just don't want to waste billions on an ineffective solution.
The border control actually started with infared cameras and sensors in the 90’s and then switched to walls! Very likely infared and sensors have improved a lot and 90’s was too early for those technologies but when I read the article it was like “what? They didn’t start with a wall they started with infared and sensors?!?”

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/13/...&gwh=F3BA215396E5FF4A602401976769D60C&gwt=pay
 

aftershocks

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,839
Ratings
12,825
I love Kamala Harris! However, in my opinion the Dems really need to go with 'establishment' and by that I mean Biden. No novelties, and though I disagree with it, many think a black woman running for president at this time is not viable for POTUS. I would fully support a Biden/Harris ticket. Trump has turned America into chaos. I think Biden represents a peaceful 8 years under Obama that voters want to go back to.
Or vice versa. I like your way of thinking, but I also think it would work as a Harris/Biden ticket.
I thought some Californian posters have reservations about Kamala Harris? I don't know enough about her, despite how well she appears to carry herself.

Personally I'd prefer for the Democrats a Biden/Kirsten Gillibrand ticket, or Biden/Beto O'Rourke, or Biden/ Julian Castro, or Biden/Michelle Obama.

These are the choices for leadership that I could get behind in a heartbeat.
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,502
Ratings
3,806
F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia



Even if it were impossible for a President to obstruct justice, it would not necessarly follow that he could not be an existential threat to national security.

:puppet: :watch:
Didn't we know this already? Didn't Comey say they were investigating trump too, but he only mentioned Hillary's emails?

So they "opened" inquiry. What did they find? Why is he still president? All of the shows last night were like a rerun of 2016, rehashing everything we already knew. Why isn't he in prison?
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,089
Ratings
13,766
Didn't we know this already? Didn't Comey say they were investigating trump too, but he only mentioned Hillary's emails?

So they "opened" inquiry. What did they find? Why is he still president? All of the shows last night were like a rerun of 2016, rehashing everything we already knew. Why isn't he in prison?
They're two separate things. In 2016, the FBI was looking into the contacts the Trump campaign had with Russia and, I believe, the hacking. But Comey said over and over that there was no investigation into Trump himself. This sounds like it was an investigation into Trump.
Also, if memory serves, the one Comey oversaw was a criminal investigation and I read that this is a counterintelligence one (haven't had time to read the NYT article yet, so I don't know if they mention it) and that they're two different types of investigations.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,232
Ratings
17,965
I thought some Californian posters have reservations about Kamala Harris?
Here's one example of what happens when Kamala Harris is allowed to run things:

Judge rips Harris' office for hiding problems

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris' office violated defendants' rights by hiding damaging information about a police drug lab technician and was indifferent to demands that it account for its failings, a judge declared Thursday....

... in a scathing ruling, the judge concluded that prosecutors had failed to fulfill their constitutional duty to tell defense attorneys about problems surrounding Deborah Madden, the now-retired technician at the heart of the cocaine-skimming scandal that led police to shut down the drug analysis section of their crime lab.
Her ability to ask tough prosecutorial questions in committee hearings in no way means that she would be a good President.

ETA: Here's a link to a piece discussing similar examples: https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/09/kamala-harris-new-book-tries-to-massage
 
Last edited:

aftershocks

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,839
Ratings
12,825
Here's one example of what happens when Kamala Harris is allowed to run things:

Judge rips Harris' office for hiding problems


Her ability to ask tough prosecutorial questions in committee hearings in no way means that she would be a good President.
Plus, with the way campaigns are run, stuff is always going to be dug up on your background, and in some cases made up and twisted. The nature of our politics.

I still don't know enough about Harris, so if she decides to run, it would be interesting to learn a bit more and to see how she handles herself in debate formats. But yeah, right now, I'm sticking with those I know more about and who I see as having a good chance in a general election bust-up.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
51,974
Ratings
26,963
This article has some useful information but doesn't answer anything in much detail:

Trump may declare a national emergency in the border wall battle. Here’s what that means. (Washington Post)

National emergencies are not unprecedented:

...Bill Clinton declared emergencies 17 times, George W. Bush 12 and Barack Obama 13.

The vast majority have been economic sanctions against foreign actors whose activities pose a national threat, ...

Clinton declared a national emergency during the 1996 Cuba embargo, preventing U.S. ships or aircraft from entering Cuban territory without authorization. Obama declared a national emergency during H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic in 2009 to activate disaster plans to set up proper patient treatment.

...There have been 58 pronounced under the National Emergencies Act, of which 31 are still in effect.
A national emergency is similar to an executive order, except that executive orders can only be used to direct already allocated funds, whereas "By declaring a national emergency, the president avails himself of dozens of specialized laws. Some of these powers have funds he otherwise could not access."

Also:

Even though there aren’t many limits on a president’s ability to declare an emergency, it does not create freedom to act carte blanche.

Anyone directly affected by the order can challenge it in court, which Goitein said will almost certainly happen here.
Of course the ultimate issue is what constitutes an emergency and apparently the 1976 law doesn't very clearly define that.

Trump is clearly considering using the declaration to bypass Congress essentially politicizing the process of declaring an emergency which would be a very troubling precedent. But it would not, hyperbole aside, turn him into a dictator.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
11,331
Ratings
5,178
Speaker Pelosi has said she wants good ideas wherever they come from.

She and the House Dems should feature Republican Rep TX 23 Will Hurd and his ideas in their presentation of what to do about border security. Rep. Hurd is a TX border Rep, an ex CIA undercover agent, and his suggestions about border security match well with the article. His knowledge about both security and the difficulties about building any walls in his district need to be heard more widely. Featuring bipartisanship in this effort would be a huge plus. Here is Rep. Hurd on Morning Joe this week:

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/pay-those-dealing-with-the-border-rep-hurd-1422529091966
 

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, Medvedeva, T&M, Shibs, P&C
Messages
45,284
Ratings
31,088
Didn't we know this already? Didn't Comey say they were investigating trump too, but he only mentioned Hillary's emails?

So they "opened" inquiry. What did they find? Why is he still president? All of the shows last night were like a rerun of 2016, rehashing everything we already knew. Why isn't he in prison?
They were investigating his campaign in July 2016 but Comey mentioned only Hillary's emails. However, This is different.

This NYT article is about the investigation that was started after Trump fired Comey. The FBI was suspicious from the beginning because when Trump as Potus was told that Russia had interfered in the election, he didn't say - how did it happen? We must find out. Instead, he said- what can be done for PR? (Paraphrasing, and I think he didn't ask how did it happen be ayse he already knew the answers)

It is a Huge thing for the FBI to investigate a sitting President as a security threat, not just obstruction of justice. Experts said that FBI must have received high level clearance to start this investigation. Later it was turned over to Mueller when he was appointed Special Counsel.
 

babayaga

Well-Known Member
Messages
722
Ratings
620
I suspect it wasn't just firing of Comey that triggered the counterintelligence investigation. I think it was also nearly next day visit by Lavrov and Kislyak to the White House with the Russian video operator (who possibly could be a spy himself) and no American press, where Trump was almost explaining himself to those guys. That visit alone was jaw dropping I thought.
 

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, Medvedeva, T&M, Shibs, P&C
Messages
45,284
Ratings
31,088
I suspect it wasn't just firing of Comey that triggered the counterintelligence investigation. I think it was also nearly next day visit by Lavrov and Kislyak to the White House with the Russian video operator (who possibly could be a spy himself) and no American press, where Trump was almost explaining himself to those guys. That visit alone was jaw dropping I thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html?module=inline

The link is about his meeting with the two Russians after he fired Comey.

His interview with Lester Holt on ABC also exposed him.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ey-whether-he-was-under-investigation-n757821


In addition, the FBI found the first draft of his letter he intended to give Comey, to explain why he was firing him, and he had mentioned Russia. Rod Rosenstein advised him to not mention Russia in it.

I think it was a series of things that he did and said. It seemed almost coordinated, even before the elections, and certainly after the elections- like telling his Russian visitors that he fired the FBI director to avoid the Russia investigation. It is like an on going conversation with our foreign adversary. He has quoted Russian propoganda, like justifying Russia's invasion of Afghanistan. He never criticized Putin and he has defended almost everything. Overseas, he communicated with Putin without a US official in attendance. I am sure all these things did not go unnoticed by our intelligence people.

He did everything in plain sight. It was a matter of connecting the dots.

My concern is that the republicans will pull blinders on, and key parts of the Mueller investigation report will not be made public.

I watched Tom Steyer's interview today. He is adding 40M to impeach and remove this president because he is a security threat. He said it is up to the public to contact their reps to say what they want our elected officials to do. He is signing up 30,000 people every day!
 
Last edited:

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, Medvedeva, T&M, Shibs, P&C
Messages
45,284
Ratings
31,088
This article has some useful information but doesn't answer anything in much detail:

Trump may declare a national emergency in the border wall battle. Here’s what that means. (Washington Post)

National emergencies are not unprecedented:



A national emergency is similar to an executive order, except that executive orders can only be used to direct already allocated funds, whereas "By declaring a national emergency, the president avails himself of dozens of specialized laws. Some of these powers have funds he otherwise could not access."

Also:



Of course the ultimate issue is what constitutes an emergency and apparently the 1976 law doesn't very clearly define that.

Trump is clearly considering using the declaration to bypass Congress essentially politicizing the process of declaring an emergency which would be a very troubling precedent. But it would not, hyperbole aside, turn him into a dictator.
Can the emergency declaration be challenged and by who? It does not make sense to give a president absolute power like this, in a system that operates on checks and balances.

If Trump is able to get his wall by declaring national emergency, it will set a very dangerous precedent.
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,502
Ratings
3,806
They're two separate things. In 2016, the FBI was looking into the contacts the Trump campaign had with Russia and, I believe, the hacking. But Comey said over and over that there was no investigation into Trump himself. This sounds like it was an investigation into Trump.
Also, if memory serves, the one Comey oversaw was a criminal investigation and I read that this is a counterintelligence one (haven't had time to read the NYT article yet, so I don't know if they mention it) and that they're two different types of investigations.
O.k.! trump has done so many things wrong and there are so many investigations, I got confused. :)
 

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, Medvedeva, T&M, Shibs, P&C
Messages
45,284
Ratings
31,088
Didn't we know this already? Didn't Comey say they were investigating trump too, but he only mentioned Hillary's emails?

So they "opened" inquiry. What did they find? Why is he still president? All of the shows last night were like a rerun of 2016, rehashing everything we already knew. Why isn't he in prison?
They're two separate things. In 2016, the FBI was looking into the contacts the Trump campaign had with Russia and, I believe, the hacking. But Comey said over and over that there was no investigation into Trump himself. This sounds like it was an investigation into Trump.
Also, if memory serves, the one Comey oversaw was a criminal investigation and I read that this is a counterintelligence one (haven't had time to read the NYT article yet, so I don't know if they mention it) and that they're two different types of investigations.

Last night I watched all the discussions about it. The counterintelligence investigation in NYT is to investigate Trump as a security threat, and if he is either knowingly collaborating with Russia or is being used by the Russians. This is based on his behavior, particularly after he fired Comey. That is when the new investigation started, and later taken over by Mueller.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/fbi-trump-russia-inquiry.html?rref=collection/byline/michael-s.-schmidt&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection

Excerpts

Opening:

"WASHINGTON — In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.

The inquiry carried explosive implications. Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president’s own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence."



Discussing what happened after Mueller was assigned as Special Counsel:

"The criminal and counterintelligence elements were coupled together into one investigation, former law enforcement officials said in interviews in recent weeks, because if Mr. Trump had ousted the head of the F.B.I. to impede or even end the Russia investigation, that was both a possible crime and a national security concern. The F.B.I.’s counterintelligence division handles national security matters."

"In the months before the 2016 election, the F.B.I. was also already investigating four of Mr. Trump’s associates over their ties to Russia. The constellation of events disquieted F.B.I. officials who were simultaneously watching as Russia’s campaign unfolded to undermine the presidential election by exploiting existing divisions among Americans."

So it sounds like it started in 2016 but it was not a Counterintelligence at that time.

Later-
"The F.B.I. conducts two types of inquiries, criminal and counterintelligence investigations. Unlike criminal investigations, which are typically aimed at solving a crime and can result in arrests and convictions, counterintelligence inquiries are generally fact-finding missions to understand what a foreign power is doing and to stop any anti-American activity, like thefts of United States government secrets or covert efforts to influence policy. In most cases, the investigations are carried out quietly, sometimes for years. Often, they result in no arrests."

This last quote makes me wonder - even if the FBI finds out that Trump had indeed collaborated with the Russians, and is still doing it, the FBI won't be able to do anything about it- is this correct? May be the next step would be to send this information to Mueller or Congress, or.....? Some are saying Mueller knows a lot more.

In any case this is a very good article. The lead writer Michael Schmidt was interviewed on MSNBC last night. He said they started on the article over a year ago and a lot of research went into it.
 
Last edited:

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,565
Ratings
2,484
I think it was a series of things that he did and said. It seemed almost coordinated, even before the elections, and certainly after the elections- like telling his Russian visitors that he fired the FBI director to avoid the Russia investigation. It is like an on going conversation with our foreign adversary. He has quoted Russian propoganda, like justifying Russia's invasion of Afghanistan. He never criticized Putin and he has defended almost everything. Overseas, he communicated with Putin without a US official in attendance. I am sure all these things did not go unnoticed by our intelligence people.

He did everything in plain sight. It was a matter of connecting the dots.

My worry is that the republicans will pull blinders on, and key parts of the Mueller investigation report will not be made public.

I watched Tom Steyer's interview today. He is adding 40M to imoeach and remove this president because he is a security threat. He said it is up to the public to contact their reps to say what they want our elected officials to do. He is signing up 30,000 people every day!
But democrats run the house. They can get the report and release the whole thing.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,089
Ratings
13,766
Trump's chief economic advisor said that furloughed workers were "better off" because they didn't have to use paid vacation days over the holidays. The ignorance is mind-boggling. https://thehill.com/policy/finance/...urloughed-workers-are-better-off-because-they


And on that note, a tunnel suspected to be used for transporting drugs was discovered in AZ. It's the third they found in a month. Build a subterrain wall? https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/425058-third-drug-tunnel-discovered-near-arizona-border
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 5, Guests: 7)

Top