US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[MaDef]

Both Kushner and his wife took steps to distance themselves from their businesses before taking on their roles as unpaid White House advisers. Kushner stepped down as CEO of Kushner Companies and sold stakes in many holdings, while Ivanka Trump similarly stepped away from executive roles at her companies.

Both Kushner and Trump have given up daily oversight of their companies as they work as unpaid senior advisers to the president.

The money Trump receives from limited liability companies associated with the Trump Organization has been restructured into annual fixed payments of $1.5 million, “a change made in consultation with Office of Government Ethics officials to reduce her ‘interest in the performance of the business’

Like I said, there's a difference between a blind trust and actively running the business.

If you are going to charge malfeasance, you need more than speculation and innuendo if you want to be taken seriously.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Catfish

I would rather say "The West" was the first to take Kurdish sovereignty seriously. Or better pretended to, while the Kurds were useful.
Just like with the Arabians (England), or Saddam Hussein's Iraq (USA) and so on.

I just realized this is exactly what you said

"pretended" is the perfect word. IMO it was just one of many reasons given for public consumption as a reason why our troops were in Syria since regime change doesn't sit well with most as a reason to deploy troops.

Ya gotta wonder what hell is the public thinking that could ever be accomplished but hey its for freedom and democracy. Too bad nobody ever looked at a map and gave it just a moment a thought for themselves. You just dont go around declaring a land locked region a sovereign state within the already existing boarders of other countries namely Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. You might stand a slim chance of achieving that within one country but SIX?

[vienna]

Originally Posted by MaDef

Like I said, there's a difference between a blind trust and actively running the business.

If you are going to charge malfeasance, you need more than speculation and innuendo if you want to be taken seriously.

If you're going to plead a blind trust, there has to be an actual blind trust in place. What Trump has put in place is a revocable trust:


What's A Blind Trust, Anyway, And Why Won't It Work For President-Elect Trump? --

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyph.../#77096593725b

A trust can be revocable, meaning that the person who created the trust (often called the grantor or settlor) can modify or terminate it at any time, or a trust can be irrevocable, meaning that the grantor cannot modify or terminate the trust (an irrevocable trust can typically only be modified or terminated with the permission of the beneficiary and/or by a court).

Normally, a blind trust is placed under the control of a neutral or 'disinterested' third party; the Trump trust(s) do not follow this normal setup and the trust(s) are administered by Donald Trump JR. and others close to the Trump organizations. It is well known Trump is a control freak and his placing of his trusts(s) in Don Jr.'s hands and those of his minions flies in the face of the definition of the term "blind trust":


What we know, and don't, about Trump's trust **

https://money.cnn.com/2017/02/08/new...now/index.html


...and Trump's revocable trust(s) actually allows him to tap into funds held by the trust(s) at will:


Trump Lawyer Confirms President Can Pull Money From His Businesses Whenever He Wants --

https://www.propublica.org/article/t...ent=1491221180


Change To President Trump's Trust Lets Him Tap Business Profits --

https://www.npr.org/2017/04/03/52251...siness-profits --

The new document also sheds new light on how the trust works. It's run by two trustees, Donald Trump Jr. and an executive of the Trump Organization, who cannot give the president reports on the trust's finances. But Trump's second son, Eric, can do that as chair of the trust's advisory board, and told Forbes magazine last month that he plans to give his father big-picture financial briefings every quarter or so.

Before Trump, recent presidents sold their assets or put them into a blind trust when they took office.

"This is a ploy, okay?" said Kathleen Clark, a professor of law and ethics at Washington University in St Louis. "It's a public relations ploy to give people the impression that Trump has done something meaningful about the massive conflicts of interest he faces."

Those conflicts center mainly around his hotels and brands overseas, U.S. environmental laws that affect his golf courses, and his Washington, D.C., hotel.

So, no, Trump does not have a blind trust(s); his trust(s) don't even need glasses...


As noted before, what would be the GOP reaction if Obama or the Clintons engaged in such deviousness? Do ya think, maybe, the GOP might charge, maybe, ya know, 'malfeasance'?...










<O>

[MaDef]

Symantics Vienna.

[vienna]

Facts, law, research and reality, MaDef...


If you have any actual, verifiable facts, law, research, and/or reality to refute my post, rather than just a 'drive-by comment', it would interesting to hear it...


...oh, and it would also be interesting to hear your answer as to the reaction of the GOP if this situation was happening with a DEM President...








<O>

[Skybird]

Both Guiliani and Pence let deadlines expire for heanding over demanded evidence.



This shows why I said that the impeachment mechanism is just a farce, a strawman, a faulty design: ther eis no neutral legal instance involved that now can legally enforce the handing over of such documents/evidence, sinc ethe whole mechanism is only a poltial one,l no legal one. And thus, if the accused president has according majrities, he can ignore it since there is no legitimated court involved that could even activate legal means to force him or his accomplices to hand over what they had been ordered to hand over.


I think the whole impeachment design is just an alibi, meant to please the plebs and let them believe that if an office holder serioulsy abuses his power he could be removed by runnign this mechnaism, this process.



But any such process where the accused can decide the sentence if enough of his clan are sitting in the audience and cast their vote, is not worth the time.


A serious flaw in the constitutional design. Its a claimed safety that is unable to serve its purpose of a safety.


Neither the senate nor the congress should deice the outcome of an impeahcment. There should be strict criterions for when a party cna trigger the process. And should be decided not by parties and actors, but an independent instance with legal powers to force actors to comply. For example, I have not further thoguht about this detail, a special council of the High Court. An instance that in this case now can jail Guiliani or ence if they do nto comply with the court'S demand.



Impeahcment is a toothless tiger, and it probbaly was designed to be toothless from beginning on. It was meant to not work, and thus it is only an empty shell.


American citizens should want to change this. Its as if members of organised crime seat the seats of the judges and jurymen.


The separation of the three powers executive, legislative, judiciary, is not demanded for no reason in the Western state design.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

American citizens should want to change this.

At the moment the only people who can change this are those in charge of the process, and right now that is the Democrats, specifically House leader Pelosi. She announced Tuesday that there will be no vote -- at least for now -- on the launch of formal impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

"There's no requirement that we have a vote, and so at this time we will not be having a vote," Pelosi said.

Not a big suprise. In the informal, no vote 'impeachment inquiry' what we now have is a tax payer funded, open ended, MSM driven opposition research plan against Trumps' 2020 campaign. Nothing wrong with that. I guess.

[Skybird]

As long as the outcome of an attempt to impeach a president is left to Congress and Senate, it deserve no real interest since it compares to a rigged trial for the reaosns I explained. It should be a High Court kickiong the president or not. A state attorney, an authority independent form the parties. The senetnce, the verdict must not be left to the accused and their accomplices. That is absurd. You do not make the offender, the charged, the suspect the judge of the court! It leads the whole excercise ad absurdum!

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

As long as the outcome of an attempt to impeach a president is left to Congress and Senate, it deserve no real interest since it compares to a rigged trial for the reaosns I explained.

Well like it or not that is the method. And if used properly is the right method. Impeachment is a political process and should not be left to anyone who is not an elected official. We just saw with the Mueller investigation how that system can and was abused.

The senetnce, the verdict must not be left to the accused and their accomplices. That is absurd. You do not make the offender, the charged, the suspect the judge of the court! It leads the whole excercise ad absurdum!

I'm not sure how you see that as the case. The problem is that unless the Democrats make some attempt at a bipartisan impeachment the whole thing will be exactly as it appears. If Republicans are not allowed to participate it is doomed. And it should be. And then there are questions about those in charge. When one of the lead characters is a lizard disguised as a human being then there is little credibility. Adam Schiff is a proven liar, serial leaker and a disseminator of false information. In a perfect and just world he would be under investigation.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by u crank

"There's no requirement that we have a vote, and so at this time we will not be having a vote," Pelosi said.

Not a big suprise. In the informal, no vote 'impeachment inquiry' what we now have is a tax payer funded, open ended, MSM driven opposition research plan against Trumps' 2020 campaign. Nothing wrong with that. I guess.

Fueled by the ever present "Breaking News" news media with a few commercials thrown in

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by vienna

Facts, law, research and reality, MaDef...


If you have any actual, verifiable facts, law, research, and/or reality to refute my post, rather than just a 'drive-by comment', it would interesting to hear it...

How's this for a fact:
The main difference between a revocable trust and a blind trust is that when Trump leaves office he can regain control of his assets without having to go through probate court. So I repeat... semantics.

...oh, and it would also be interesting to hear your answer as to the reaction of the GOP if this situation was happening with a DEM President...

GOP and the DNC, flip sides of the same coin.



Maybe the "never Trumpers" should get together with the "Obama birthers" and start a support group.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

Well like it or not that is the method. And if used properly is the right method. Impeachment is a political process and should not be left to anyone who is not an elected official. We just saw with the Mueller investigation how that system can and was abused.

You leave the sentence to the accomplices. If you reject to admit that this turns any jury and court session into a joke, then you cannot be helped. You could charge Al Capone - and make his foloowres the judge and the jurymen. If you do nto9 see the contrsadfictioinn in your reaosningk,m, really, then you cannot be helped.



Yes impeachment is a political process. And that is the problem. The decision to kick a president is left to people with highly selfish agendas who must not and do not care for evidence, truth and state reason and law and order. Many Republicans, incoduing the speaker, said clearly that they will block any impeachement in the senate NO MATTER WHAT. Dig it? NO MATTER WHAT. They said, in other words: "We do not care for evidence, we do not care for justice, we keep the accused even if evidence proves him guilty. The laws do not interest us, state reaosn doe snot interest us, we just do not care, we want our careers saved and our next elecitons won. So show all your possible eveidnec b ecasue WE DO NOT CARE."



You unite judiciary and legislative in one hand, and make the executive an abandoned instance. In other words, you abandon checks and balances, and abandon separation of powers.



The cirteirons for launchin g an impoeachment must be set high, to prevent opportunistic abuse. But once the cirteirons are met and the process is troggered, it must be taken away from any poltlila infoluence by any party, moinstry, or any of the presidents accomplkices. IT MUST BE RUN INDEPENDENTLY, and the veridct must be found INDEPENDENTLY. And that is why it cannot be left a political process only, that is a charade. A joke. A carricature.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

Well like it or not that is the method. And if used properly is the right method. Impeachment is a political process and should not be left to anyone who is not an elected official. We just saw with the Mueller investigation how that system can and was abused.

You leave the sentence to the accomplices. If you reject to admit that this turns any jury and court session into a joke, then you cannot be helped. You could charge Al Capone - and make his foloowres the judge and the jurymen. If you do nto9 see the contrsadfictioinn in your reaosningk,m, really, then you cannot be helped.



Yes impeachment is a political process. And that is the problem. The decision to kick a president is left to people with highly selfish agendas who must not and do not care for evidence, truth and state reason and law and order. Many Republicans, incoduing the speaker, said clearly that they will block any impeachement in the senate NO MATTER WHAT. Dig it? NO MATTER WHAT. They said, in other words: "We do not care for evidence, we do not care for justice, we keep the accused even if evidence proves him guilty. The laws do not interest us, state reaosn doe snot interest us, we just do not care, we want our careers saved and our next elecitons won. So show all your possible eveidnec b ecasue WE DO NOT CARE."



You unite judiciary and legislative in one hand, and make the executive an abandoned instance. In other words, you abandon checks and balances, and abandon separation of powers.



The cirteirons for launchin g an impoeachment must be set high, to prevent opportunistic abuse. But once the cirteirons are met and the process is troggered, it must be taken away from any poltlila infoluence by any party, moinstry, or any of the presidents accomplkices. IT MUST BE RUN INDEPENDENTLY, and the veridct must be found INDEPENDENTLY. And that is why it cannot be left a political process only, that is a charade. A joke. A carricature.



Right now, the impeachment mechanism is almost meaningless. It leaves suspects and possible accomplices as bengn judges. That is what makes it all hilarious.

[Bilge_Rat]

As I see it, the "impeachment" is going nowhere;

-The Dems can't even agree to hold a vote to open the inquiry;

-There are lots of secret hearings, but I have trouble trying to keep up on what the Dems are accusing Trump of, from possible abuse of power in the july 25 phone call, we are now on the intricacies of ambassadorial appointments, tensions between permanent State employees and White House appointees, etc;

-recent polls show that Republican support for Trump and against impeachment has not wavered one bit, so this will die in the Senate in any event;

-Trump's job approval rating has not budged one bit in the past month, so no political hit at all from the "impeachment inquiry".

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

As I see it, the "impeachment" is going nowhere;

-The Dems can't even agree to hold a vote to open the inquiry;

-There are lots of secret hearings, but I have trouble trying to keep up on what the Dems are accusing Trump of, from possible abuse of power in the july 25 phone call, we are now on the intricacies of ambassadorial appointments, tensions between permanent State employees and White House appointees, etc;

-recent polls show that Republican support for Trump and against impeachment has not wavered one bit, so this will die in the Senate in any event;

-Trump's job approval rating has not budged one bit in the past month, so no political hit at all from the "impeachment inquiry".

https://news.gallup.com/poll/267491/...ing-trump.aspx

For Republicans in their wagon fort, the old quote form foreign politics applies which usually gets credited to Roosevelt, I think:
"Yes, he is a son of a bitch - but he is our son of a bitch."

When a justice system and when law and order degenerate to this low standard, then may the gods in heaven have mercy with man.


.