The Trump Presidency - an analysis

[Jerry_Atrick]

There's almost no doubt in my mind McConnell failed Hogwarts, but was goomed well as part of the slitherin house (no, I haven't read the books, but my daughter loves them). But, I think there is method to his madness. Unlike Lindsay Graham, whoe festered at the idea of Trump being elected and then flipped (there must be some damning photos Trump has on him), McConnell, although not standing up to Trump, was largely silent on Trump and any endorsements were at best perfunctory.

 

He has been cast as an adept politician who bides is time and is almost surgical in his approach to curate and preserve his power and its base...So with that in mind, you could argue that he has been very patient. Crucial to this is the number of republican voters who blindly support DT. We will never know the real number, but Ted Cruz came up with 39%. It may well be a numer he plucked from his posterior, but I would think that most of the new turnout republican voters would have been DT supporters, so it may not be too far off.. remember, swinging voters account for a very small percentage of the electorate - otherwise how the heck did Abbot get in... Some people would rather their party in regardless of the ramifications - it doesn't mean they support the candidate.

 

Whether it is 20%, 30%, or 50%, is almost a mute point. McConnell is no fool and he would have realised that getting 10 more Republicans to vote to convict would have had such a backlash amonst a large enough minority (or even a majority) of the Republican party, it in all likelihood would have split it... and then that would mean there would be little chance he would be participating in a party that governs - unless he joined the Democrats. Remember, there were the most vocal calls to split from the Republican party so far after the trial...

 

So, he probably led the charge to not convict for the sake of the party and of course, his own power base. My guess is that he knew Trump would hit out, but he has calculated in the longer term, he is better served getting the courts (his speech was sort of an invitation to the authorities to investigate) to do the dirty work so he couldn't be censured, and he could go about rebuilding the Republican party or at least diminish Trump's influence over it.

 

That is really the only theory I can think of.. Yes.. there are holes in it...

 

BTW, in respect of Trump's actions as president in office, Georgia is opening a criminal investigation: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-criminal-civil-investigations_uk_602b86c2c5b6f88289fe1524

 

I also read today that the FBI have indicated it will investigate Trump's incitement after it deals with the those it is investingating over the physcial insurrection. Can't find the article though...

 

Having said that, given the USA v Nixon, the chances of anything that goes to appeal being thrown out based on an ex president being immune to prosecution for his presidential actions are pretty high. But, if convicted by a state court and the conviction is overturned on immunity, it still sends a strong message.

Edited February 17, 2021 by Jerry_Atrick

[octave]

54 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Having said that, given the USA v Nixon, the chances of anything that goes to appeal being thrown out based on an ex president being immune to prosecution for his presidential actions are pretty high. But, if convicted by a state court and the conviction is overturned on immunity, it still sends a strong message.

Is an ex president immune?  My understanding is that they are not immune and this is supported by searches I have done.    Nixon had been pardoned for all crimes whilst in office by Gerald Ford,   At one point it was thought that Trump may resign in the last few days so that Pence could pardon him.   I cant find any sources about immunity after the presidential term is over. 

[old man emu]

The question is, "For what crimes is a President immune from prosecution"? As a start I would suggest slander/libel as civil wrongs. Surely the basic criminal offences are not immune - theft, assault, sexual offences. 

 

As an aside, have you noticed how quiet it has been at the White House and Oval Office? There's barely been a word of, or from, Joe since the inauguration. Is he too much of an old time guy to have a Twitter account? Is he a Facebookless man?

[Jerry_Atrick]

Yes.. The president is immune from civil litigaton for acts in office to an "outer" set of activities, which go beyond direct presidential avtivity. Although there is no allowance for such an immunity directlyin the consititution, it was accepted by the US Supreme Court for civil actions (Nixon v Fitzgerald). It rested on the doctrine of the separation of powers... That case was a civil case, I beleieve.

 

Also, in the case if USA v Nixon, the question was whether or not the president had absolute privilege, not immunity from prosecution. So the quetion of pardons don't apply. Although the case dealt with the provision of the Watergate tapes as part of a criminal investigation, the question was whether or not the court had jurisdiction to issue the president a subpoena duces tecnum - which is simply to bring or present documents to the court. Nixon contested that it didn't due to the separation of powers; the court held it could, but gave a four-fold test which has a high threshold.

 

In both cases, they referred to other cases, mostly decided in the lower courts. The USA v Nixon held it could rely on these; the Fitzgerald case was mixed - but basically citing that similar cases and questions of law had not been brought before it, and it was going to make up its own mind.

 

In both cases, there was obiter (not formal part of the judgement, but a statement of what they law may be had certain facts - in this case - the question of a criminal prosecution) that stated, and I paraphrase, a presumption an ex-president is immune from criminal prosecution for presidential acts in office, but can be rebutted. USA v Nixon seemed to allude to a lower test than Fitzgerald... Note, if there is a presumption in law, it is often referred to as the "general law", which indicates there are exceptions.

 

Strictly speaking, any presumptive law can be rebutted, so technically an ex-president is not immune from prosecution.. There seems to be three academic chains of thought.. First, like civil liability, the ex=President is immune, because the same reasoning can be applied as for civil liability - well established legal doctrines as well as the existing checks and balances - including (in theory) impeachment... The second is the ex-president can be tried much the same as any other person,, Both of these are based on the fact that that in each of the almost seminal cases, the presumption is obiter, which has no force of law, and cited cases are really inconclusive.

 

The third, which appears to be the more subscribed, is that there is a general law of immunity, but it is not aboslute and can be rebutted. There is speculation of what acts would constute a rebuttal, but the reality is, until it goes to court, we won't actually know. The thing is, the test is likely to be relatively narrow, and my point is that while you and I may agree that the nature of the incitement DT used should rebut the presumption, a court may not; for example, they may say, because it is the president, the words have to be clear and express, such as, "You must now go and storm the Capitol and seek to kill those in the senate to stop the steal". 

 

If you think the Supreme Court will be resolute, think again. Someone had brought a case against DT for what I recall was specific performance for something he was supposed to do - maybe it was to reveal his tax returns. They kept on adjourning and then in the last hearing they ruled as he is no longer president, the case is now ultra-vires (outside jurisdiction).

 

So, when I stated in my previous post immunity, I meant general and not absolute immunity. Of course, it could go to court and they rule no immunity whatsoever... but I doubt it.

Edited February 17, 2021 by Jerry_Atrick

[Bruce Tuncks]

On 05/02/2021 at 6:38 PM, facthunter said:

YOUR MONEY is worth much less. That's what happens when you print more money. INFLATION devalues money but you pay tax on the false value increase. Capital Gains. An honest system would reduce capital gains by the rate of inflation over the corresponding period. RICH people get around paying ANY tax if they want to enough. Capital is transferred from poor to rich and the poor get heavily into (easy) debt. It's a world wide phenomenon getting more exaggerated by the day. Nev

All my life I have believed that but now I'm wondering if it is correct after all. I reckon too much money chasing too few goods must make inflation, but what if the goods are not in short supply?

For example, if the supply of cameras can be doubled by turning up a knob on a robot factory, why not print money so people can have one? The alternative is to have people poorer than necessary for no good reason.

Right now, there is much more money printed than there is tax gathered, yet we have very little official inflation.

 

[old man emu]

18 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

the words have to be clear and express, such as, "You must now go and storm the Capitol and seek to kill those in the senate to stop the steal". 

Indeed it is all in the interpretation, by the mythical "reasonable person", of the words said. We know what words came from DT's mouth, but how would a reasonable person interpret them. Is context a factor in the interpretation? 

 

Take the words, "Mr X is a bastard." Does that mean that X was born to unwed parents? In today's society, does a de facto relationship, which we know is recognised in much Family and other law, infer that any offspring of the relationship are bastards. 

 

Bastard etymology: "illegitimate child," early 13c., from Old French bastard "acknowledged child of a nobleman by a woman other than his wife" (11c., Modern French bâtard), probably from fils de bast "packsaddle son," meaning a child conceived on an improvised bed (saddles often doubled as beds while traveling). Compare German bänkling "bastard; child begotten on a bench" (and not in a marriage bed), the source of English bantling (1590s) "brat, small child."

 

And then there are the Australian contexts: Lucky bastard; happy bastard; miserable bastard ... etc. Notice that these all require an adjective to enhance the context.

 

We know that DT did not use the words above, but his words did cause people to break many laws. Were they "reasonable people"? From our knowledge of the antecedents of their actions we can infer that they were not "reasonable". Therefore does the usual test of considering a "reasonable" person's response to those words he did speak, fail?

[Yenn]

When you look at what D.T. has said and written can there be any doubt about his sanity, or lack thereof?

From his sayings about Covid 19 he was obviously mad and also his insistence that he won in a landslide.

The Republcan Party knew what he was like before he became president, they stuck to him just so they could be the governing party. now they would like to ditch him, but he has them by the short and curlies. Drop him and he will destroy the party. Stick with him and he will still destroy the party, but they don't believe that yet.

Pence dropped the ball when he didn't declare Trump unfit to be president in the last few days. If he had done that where would they be now?

[willedoo]

5 hours ago, old man emu said:

As an aside, have you noticed how quiet it has been at the White House and Oval Office? There's barely been a word of, or from, Joe since the inauguration. Is he too much of an old time guy to have a Twitter account? Is he a Facebookless man?

He might be busy. Hopefully he's a worker and not a Trumpeter.

[pmccarthy]

He's just Biden his time.

[onetrack]

It's certainly a nice change, instead of the daily and hourly media reporting of constant Trump insanity or inanity. Best thing that ever happened was Twitter deleting Trumps account.

These platforms only give idiots a bigger level of world exposure, than they would ordinarily receive. Trump must have surely created a new level of idiocy, "Govt by Twitter".

One is reminded of the Trump regular level of irritating noise, when I hear the likes of an empty trash can, hanging on a rope, banging against something solid, in the wind.

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by onetrack

[old man emu]

  “An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.” Plato.

[Old Koreelah]

Moved from Rec.Flying site:

 

F10

“I think Trump was awesome.”

 

Awesome in that he probably told more lies than all his predecessors combined.

Awesome in his ability to appear as a messiah to long-suffering American workers. 

Awesome at using populism and claiming to care about the little man he actually despises.

 

We can refute pretty much all of your claims. 
 

Voter fraud? Many of the judges who dismissed his claims of voter fraud were republicans. 
“massive leftist bias of the mainstream media” . By this I presume you mean all the American media that didn’t cow-tow to Trump’s objectionable behavior or believe his blatant lies.

 

“I just can’t understand why a guy hiding in a basement, won an election whilst his opponent pulled record crowds.”  
Not hard to understand why the majority of voters chose a very experienced, level-headed leader with sensible ideas instead of a chaotic, insulting, incompetent charlatan.

 

Trump’s “respect” for the military is laughable, considering the efforts he made to avoid serving in it. His insulting diatribes against actual war heroes like John McCain are well documented.
As Nev said: “Trump called ALL  military "Losers and Suckers". That's fully on the record  and repeated more than once.. That would have to be good for morale. NOT.”

 

“He did achieve unheard of peace deals in the ME between Israel and other Arab states, it was a very quiet four years for Israel.” 

Trump’s “Peace Deals” mostly consist of helping Israel take more pieces of Palestinian land, and getting his super rich Arab cronies to go along with it. This has just built up more resentment among the long-suffering Palestinians. No wonder they exploded.

His withdrawal of the US from the multinational Iran deal has accelerated the Mad Mullas’ atom bomb program.

 

“He did pretty well compared to disaster Joe” 

Despite the hate campaign from the far right, Joe Biden has turned out to be a surprisingly energetic and competent President- who actually spends long hours doing his job, rather than playing golf.

Have a look at the evidence. The Us economy is booming.

[onetrack]

There's a substantial article in the link below, about how Trumps trade war with China actually cost Americans and American businesses, dearly.

 

And a little known fact is that thanks to Trumps raving lunacy on American-Chinese trade, the Chinese stopped buying American soybeans, thus sending U.S. farmers into a deep hole. 

Trump was so concerned about vote losses in his Mid-West constituencies, he showered vast amounts of subsidies on those farmers to compensate for the soybean sales losses - while he neglected to support U.S. manufacturers who were hurting equally, due to Trumps erratic and disruptive behaviour in trade negotiations.

 

Overall, Trumps efforts in trade negotiations with China have meant vast losses in American exports to China, and China simply sourcing their requirements elsewhere.

This has effectively worsened the trade imbalance between China and the U.S., the exact opposite of what Trump claimed he was sorting out.

 

Trumps approach to China-U.S. trade of initiating a trade war, then making China sign agreements to purchase a vastly-increased amount of U.S. goods simply backfired in his face.

China had little hope, and even less desire, with regards to increasing its level of U.S. purchases, even without COVID-19 impacts - and making other nations sign agreements to vastly increase their import purchases from your country is not the way International trade operates.

 

A signed agreement to simply purchase more, simply ignores all the other factors influencing International trade - which are usually hammered out during extended negotiations during International Trade Agreement meetings. But such was the simplistic idiocy of the man, who was good at constant disruption, but short on intelligent and skilled negotiation abilities.

 

https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-and-investment-policy-watch/anatomy-flop-why-trumps-us-china-phase-one-trade-deal-fell

[willedoo]

3 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

His insulting diatribes against actual war heroes like John McCain are well documented.

I have a different idea of what constitutes a war hero. Like someone who saves other's lives or charges machine gun bunkers. McCain got shot down and became a POW. That's not heroic, just circumstance while doing his job.

[octave]

5 minutes ago, willedoo said:

I have a different idea of what constitutes a war hero. Like someone who saves other's lives or charges machine gun bunkers. McCain got shot down and became a POW. That's not heroic, just circumstance while doing his job.

 

 

Regardless of how we define "heroes"  bagging someone who went to war on behalf of their country and was captured is pretty despicable to me.    Trump allegedly referred to Mcain as a loser.  Would we apply this to  Australia soldiers who were prisoners of war to the Japanese?   Were ANZACs just doing their job?    Going to war and being killed, inured or captured is a great sacrifice and whether we call it heroic or not it surely does call for respect.

[willedoo]

Having said the above, it could be argued that anyone who had the endurance to survive what he experienced as a POW was a hero.

[willedoo]

When McCain ran for the presidency the internet trolls came down heavy on him. He copped a lot of bagging about his flying career being called a reverse ace and worse. One myth doing the rounds was that he caused the Forrestal fire, which is totally false. It's accepted fact that the rocket came from an F-4 and not a Skyhawk. Around that time, I read a post supposedly from a pilot who was there at the time and he said the accusation was all BS and confirmed the F-4 rocket as the cause. Seems to happen with every presidential run where the misinformation runs wild.

[willedoo]

Biden, like any president, will never be perfect. On his record so far, it would have to be said that he's a big improvement on Trump; probably not hard to do. Personally, I'm not a fan of Biden or his previous record in politics, but I think this time round, as president, he's proving to be level headed, progressive and pragmatic. I also believe he's exercising a lot of his own judgement and authority and not just a puppet as his detractors say. In his short time as president, he has done a lot of positive things. He seems to be no slouch when it comes to getting down to work.

[kgwilson]

Trump lied his way out of military service and considers that to be a heroic thing. I said here or on another thread that he was and still is a malignant narcissist and as such is incapable of feeling empathy for any thing or any one. To him only one thing matters, himself. I can't decide whether he truly believes all the crap he espouses including the continuing big lie that he was cheated out of the Presidency or whether he knows it is all false but perpetuating it keeps the faith of his rusted on supporting nutters.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Just going through the news and I see that Biden has agreed to purchase 500m Pfizer shots to donate to the world.. Presumably the poorer parts of the world.. Can't see Trump taking a leadership stance like that...

 

Of course, some people would criticise a wealthy country helping poorer countries...

[willedoo]

It's always a good thing but as always there's a political aspect to it. In part, it's the U.S. response to China donating vaccines to poorer countries. The U.S. has been critical of China's motives, saying it's to gain influence in those countries. So the U.S. has responded to prove to the world that they're selfless, freedom loving good guys. A case of 'I'll see your 20 and raise you 20'. Not long ago they were bragging about it being more vaccines than China has donated. Joe has a bigger one.

[Yenn]

One thing you must admit is that trump has been a great role model, at least he has for Scomo.

[nomadpete]

So, can anyone explain why Trump, his son's, Rudy, etc have pretty much fallen out from media coverage?  

I was expecting them all to be appearing before the courts.

My suspicion was raised when his orangeness was left office without pardoning himself. Now it seems that he might have been confident that there would be no need for pardons.

So, how much of what we were fed about his bad behaviour was REALLY fake news?

Edited June 10, 2021 by nomadpete

[octave]

Giuliani has been in the news.

 

Audio reveals how Giuliani pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden

 

FBI Raids Rudy Giuliani’s Home and Office

 

New York prosecutor says Trump inquiry now criminal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kgwilson]

At that level and amount of public scrutiny it is a very long but also very slippery slope. They need a watertight case and anything to do with Trump Inc has more holes and twists than they have yet found so the timeframe will go on forever.