Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

[Stavros]

How does the US selects its judges?
Over the years the judiciary in England has been the subject of intense scrutiny over the background of judges, but when a candidate for a senior court in the US doesn't even know basic terms in law and has never tried a case you have to wonder if there are even elementary requirements for the job -he is so obviously unqualified for the job he could in this context just as easily be nominated Attorney General. Farcical. One assumes his nomination will be withdrawn.
Video is in the link if you can bear to watch it.

One of Donald Trump’s nominees to become a federal judge has failed to answer a string of basic questions about law.

Matthew Spencer Petersen admitted he was unfamiliar with several common legal terms during questioning by Republican Senator John Kennedy at a hearing earlier this week.
Mr Petersen, a member of the Federal Election Commission, had been selected by the President to become a federal judge on the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

However, he admitted during questioning that he had never tried a criminal or civil trial.
Video of the hearing posted to Twitter by Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, showed Mr Peterson failing to explain basic legal terms such as “motion in limine” - a request filed by a party to a lawsuit which asks the court for an order or ruling limiting or preventing certain evidence from being presented by the other side at the trial of the case.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8111826.html

[bluesoul]

october 28th 2016: trump seems to have a lot of faith in the FBI (headline is a little misleading i have to admit)

today: "it's a shame. what's happened to the FBI? it's a very sad thing to watch"

btw- tom fuentes: don't fuck with this guy. seriously. don't. fuck. with this guy.

sideline: remember the story of gulliver's travels? well, tom fuentes is gulliver. and we're the lilliputians- only thing is, we're all the same size. not exactly a guy to fuck with

so, where were we?

i'll give trump this (in this case): the press did take his words out of context. he was- in his way- expecting the FBI to find hillary (clinton) guilty. but the press wrote it as he was praising them. he wasn't. he just said, he hoped they would do the right thing. they did. it just wasn't right in his context.

today, again, not really sure i agree with the press here. i think they have gone beyond trying to drum up some sensation where there is none. all he is saying is he stands by the police and he will not stand by the anti-police sentiment. okay, but what president wouldn't say that?

my point? and i have one: ahem ahem... coughs like hell (sorry, been smoking more)

the press isn't fucking helping by printing bullshit because all it does is fuel the right and radical the left and vice versa. imo, the only way things will get better is if both sides understand each other and currently a matter of "i'm right" vs "no, i'm the one who is right" etc

i get it: some people can't be helped. the "vex" person constantly claiming communism for example (hilarious but boring) but we're just going around in circles addressing them. why?

too much entertainment and not enough research. in short: you're wasting your fucking time.

btw: consider this a side post with the climate change thread. can't be fucked to move it since donald trump is fucking climate change anyway right?

[buttslinger]

The Republicans did shoot down a couple of Trump's worst Judge nominees, right after Moore lost. No experience at all as Judges.
Many of Trump's appointees are like the wife of World Wrestling Federation's Vince McMahon, or the guy from Blackwater's sister. For a while there was talk he was going to have Blackwater fight the war in Afghanistan. All mercenaries, or something. If the shit you can SEE is this toxic, think what he does that you CAN'T see!!
This morning he announced he was going to FIX the FBI. Is that code for spayed and neutered??
If you set a Veternarian approaching, Bob Mueller, pull out your service revolver, please!!!!!
Why aren't more old Republicans livid over this Russia thing, most of them lived through twenty years of Cold War with Russia. What does it take to get Trump FIXED?
A tax bill?
No tax bill?
A nuclear attack on Rocket Man??
We may not have enough time to get a Democratic House and Senate.

[bluesoul]

we don't need the time, but thank god for the republican's, they're buying us that time with prayer.

[bluesoul]

here is a list of words trump has banned the cdc (center of disease control) from using:

transgender
fetus
diversity
science-based
evidence-based
entitlement
vulnerable

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/h...ned-words.html

[broncofan]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/o...logan-act.html

The Logan Act makes it a crime for a United States citizen, “without authority” from the federal government, to communicate with foreign officials in order to “influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government” in a dispute with the United States or “to defeat the measures of the United States.” A conviction can result in a prison sentence of up to three years.

I had not looked at the arguments against the enforcement of the Logan Act, but they are really not very good. The fact that Trump was the incoming president does not mean the law does not apply. It applies to anyone who is not the head of the executive branch. Some have argued that the Trump team was merely trying to express foreign policy preferences to Russia but that is obviously untrue as well. The purpose of what Flynn said was to coordinate a response from Russia that would undermine the policies of the sitting President. He did not even say what the policy of the United States would be but instead directed Russia on how they should react.

The argument others are trotting out is that the statute's lack of use should make it unenforceable. They call this legal argument desuetude. I have not read articles or case law on the subject but it seems to me if it should apply, then it should apply to a statute that has been violated frequently, but has not been enforced. This is a case where the statute has been on the books and it has generally not been used to prosecute people because it's not common for someone to interfere with the foreign policy prerogatives of the president in this manner. If anything, the transition period provides the perfect opportunity to do so in a way that has a real effect because there could be genuine confusion about who has power.

[Stavros]

How does the US selects its judges?
Over the years the judiciary in England has been the subject of intense scrutiny over the background of judges, but when a candidate for a senior court in the US doesn't even know basic terms in law and has never tried a case you have to wonder if there are even elementary requirements for the job -he is so obviously unqualified for the job he could in this context just as easily be nominated Attorney General. Farcical. One assumes his nomination will be withdrawn.

Petersen has now withdrawn his nomination.

[BostonBad]

If Trump does win:

I think our democracy will survive.

I don't think it will lead to an apocalypse. But America won't become the utopia again that him and his supporters think it will be either. I can see members of his own party in Congress as well as Democrats fighting him any chance they get when it comes to some of his proposals. So expect 4 more years of gridlock.

As for what will happen on the international stage, who knows? We have to wait and see who would Trump surround himself when it comes to key cabinet positions and most importantly what his doctrine will be when it comes to foreign policy. For the world's sake, lets just hope it doesn't revolve around some kind of isolationism.

If Trump does win, I don't think the Republican Party will ever be the same. I think the primary showed you that Republican voters were fed up with the status quo and were ready for something new. So they're not going to want to go back to that.

But I think the same can be said for the Democratic party one as well. Who will emerge to become the new "it" candidate in wake of Hillary's defeat and what direction will they want to take the party in. Because a Trump victory will signify that people were truly fed up with political correctness, the Left's perceived weakness on Radical Islam, and illegal immigration. That they were fed up with being labeled a racist, sexist, anti-LGBT community gun-loving xenophobe because they dared question any aspect of those aforementioned groups of people. In other words, that "deplorable" remark will wind up coming back to bite Hillary and the Democrats in the ass.

I know one thing is for sure. Regardless of who wins, you're looking at a country that is going to be divided more than ever because one of the two most polarizing candidates in history is now the President of the United States. The amount of resentment and animosity towards to what people will consider the "other side" is only going to get worse. All you have to do is look to reaction of those who opposed Colin Kapernick's stance against police brutality and the actions of some the protesters in Charlotte.

Our country isn't a Democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic. Democracy fails because the fools of society have too much power. —"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands..." it's not and to the Democracy. Our founding fathers knew that giving too much power to the masses would lead to a circus.

[Stavros]

The Logan Act makes it a crime for a United States citizen, “without authority” from the federal government, to communicate with foreign officials in order to “influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government” in a dispute with the United States or “to defeat the measures of the United States.” A conviction can result in a prison sentence of up to three years.
I had not looked at the arguments against the enforcement of the Logan Act, but they are really not very good. The fact that Trump was the incoming president does not mean the law does not apply. It applies to anyone who is not the head of the executive branch. Some have argued that the Trump team was merely trying to express foreign policy preferences to Russia but that is obviously untrue as well. The purpose of what Flynn said was to coordinate a response from Russia that would undermine the policies of the sitting President. He did not even say what the policy of the United States would be but instead directed Russia on how they should react.
The argument others are trotting out is that the statute's lack of use should make it unenforceable. They call this legal argument desuetude. I have not read articles or case law on the subject but it seems to me if it should apply, then it should apply to a statute that has been violated frequently, but has not been enforced. This is a case where the statute has been on the books and it has generally not been used to prosecute people because it's not common for someone to interfere with the foreign policy prerogatives of the president in this manner. If anything, the transition period provides the perfect opportunity to do so in a way that has a real effect because there could be genuine confusion about who has power.

I think the issue with the Logan Act in this instance, is that it has not been used to prosecute before because there was no reason to, whereas this latest Transition Team behaved in a reckless manner, and moreover, with the Russians.

It is precisely the connections to Russia that give this aspect of the Logan Act an additional warrant for investigation because
a) Russia is not an ally of the USA,
b) there is clear evidence that during the campaign the President made direct appeals to the Russian government for assistance with his campaign against an American citizen, and
c) the Russians were, and are, using cyber technology to attack and undermine democratic governments in Europe and North America.

If, for example, the Transition Team held discussion with the Conservative Party in the UK on a post-Brexit trade deal, that would be improper, but not a major crime as the UK is in alliance with the US in NATO, and any talks on trade would be hypothetical given the uncertainty of the UK's relationship with the EU after 2019.

Russia is not in alliance with the USA, and its economic interests conflict with those of the USA, but, crucially, the communications the Transition Team exchanged with the Russians concerned live policy issues that the Transition Team did not have the authority to discuss, as they were the business of the elected government of the USA whose President at the time was Barack Obama, and only one man can be President at any one time. It is clear the Logan Act was violated in this instance.

The second point concerns the extent to which the Republican Party candidate during the campaign appealed to a foreign government, and also to an organization called Wikileaks that works in alliance with the Russian government, to help undermine the campaign of an American citizen. It established a reasonable suspicion that there was, or the candidate wanted there to be, a direct relationship with the Russian government. It could be argued that far from being a campaign stunt, the appeal was followed up at the time, and that a 'relationship' or some 'communications' with the Russian government continued so that during the transition period the team felt able, even justified to discuss and implement policy without any legal right to do so.

Not only is there a clear violation of the Logan Act, morally it is quite remarkable that an American running for the Presidency should so openly appeal to a foreign government to attack one of its own citizens also running for office, as well as recruit the assistance of a sub-state organization that leaked materials illegally procured from US agencies that were published on the World Wide Web. In fact at the time there was a case for an investigation into the campaign team before the election was even held, and I wonder if there could have been a legal case to have the candidate arrested, and/or removed from the campaign by the Republican Party -?

Consider the context, because it is now clear that the Russians have been engaged in a systematic attempt to undermine democratic government in Europe and North America, cyber-warfare by any other name.

Vladimir Putin owes his current position to Boris Yeltsin, but the closer he got to Yeltsin, the more he saw of the corrupt nature of Russian government that had conferred staggering riches on a few men, that had undermined the institutions that had been developed in the USSR which gave Russia some form of governmental integrity, and weakened the Russian economy by giving independence to states which previously buttressed the Russian economy with imports, grain from the Ukraine being an obvious example.

Putin fought on two fronts when he became President
-domestic: re-structuring the economy to advantage average citizens at the expense of oligarchs -if the oligarchs co-operated, Putin let them keep their wealth in exchange for a share, if they crossed him they would end up in prison or exile. He also moved to reduce the share of Russian resources owned by global corporations, with BP and Royal Dutch-Shell the primary 'victims' -allowed to retain certain assets in the country, but obliged to sell even more back to Russian companies (in which he owns a share). And of course, BP and Shell also have substantial investments in the USA.

On the international front, Putin lost faith in 'the west' because he felt deceived at the manner in which the Security Council was used to justify regime change in Iraq, and in Libya, and because he felt that too many 'entrepreneurs' in the west had taken advantage of Russia in the Yeltsin period, and because substantial sums of money originating in Russia had flowed out of the country and into real estate deals in Europe and the US, some of that money being receipts from crime, organized crime having established a deep presence in the USSR notably in the 1970s. Putin thus sees himself as the 'saviour' of Russia, and appears to think that Russia is not held in the same esteem as the USA, Germany, France and even Britain. Hence his campaign in Syria, to both protect the Asad regime, but also to demonstrate the real power of the Russians to determine the outcome of events outside the country.

One must also say that Putin was appalled at the sight of a Black man in the White House, and that for both the future 'President Debt' and those close to him, from Felix Sater and other Russian businessmen, to admirers of Putin such as Michael Flynn, it was not just the threat of another Democrat -and Hillary Clinton too- in the White House, but a seething resentment bordering on mental illness that regarded Barack Obama as someone to be opposed, ridiculed, undermined and attacked at every opportunity. The mere fact that a Black man could be elected President in the USA was proof of the dangers of democracy and the lad from Queens agreed, and found common cause with Putin.

There is a reason why the Russia ties stink. And the reasons feed directly into the Logan Act, quite apart from the other potentially illegal acts committed since the campaign began, and since the inauguration. Whether or not actual proceedings will follow we must wait and see. Either way, 2018 is going to be an interesting year.

[buttslinger]

Our country isn't a Democracy...... Our founding fathers knew that giving too much power to the masses would lead to a circus.

Our Founding Fathers weren't real keen on giving power to blacks or women either!!!

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.

The "TRUMP TEST" is to see what happens when the system gets "infected" by a germ or virus, does the system fight off the infection and survive or die?

I'm hearing that the House Republicans, some of them, have set up a secret society to come up with evidence of their own to discredit Mueller's team and have just cause under the Constitution to dismiss the entire Mueller Operation, it's just like anti-biotics, if you don't totally kill an infection, it roars back with a vengeance!!!

There's plenty of reason to be afreared, almost the entire Republican Party gathered around Trump and sang his praises like he was a STAR yesterday.......

But I think if he actually tried to fire Mueller, they'd turn on him. Fair Weather Friends, that lot.

What a midterm election we might have if the economy is booming and all of Trump's circle are facing indictments!!!