Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump refuses to disclose his taxes or disassociate himself from his business empire like every other President has before him in modern times. He therefore has no one but himself to blame if investigation after investigation is being launched into whether he's making decisions to benefit himself financially rather than the country. We already know he used a charity like a personal piggy bank.

Anyone that wants to whine that's unfair should stay away from politics. Anyone that wants to whine that Trump shouldn't be held to the same standards as other Presidents, shut the hell up and go play intramurals, brother.

[Dr. Strangelove]

BREAKING: Barr refusing to appear before the House tomorrow because he refuses to answer questions from committee attorneys. Wants questions only from lawmakers themselves. House preparing a subpoena.

If he refuse to comply after that, seems like there's heavy support for a vote of contempt.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Trump refuses to disclose his taxes or disassociate himself from his business empire like every other President has before him in modern times. He therefore has no one but himself to blame if investigation after investigation is being launched into whether he's making decisions to benefit himself financially rather than the country. We already know he used a charity like a personal piggy bank.

Anyone that wants to whine that's unfair should stay away from politics. Anyone that wants to whine that Trump shouldn't be held to the same standards as other Presidents, shut the hell up and go play intramurals, brother.

First, DSL, if you want to hang your hat on Trump's unwillingness to disclose his taxes "like every other US President has done," and "hold him to the same standards as other Presidents" as a means of continuing to interfere and distract the President from carrying out his duties, have at it. Weak sauce that one is. I don't think Neal is going to get them but that is debatable from a legal standpoint and I'm not a lawyer.

Second, whether the Ds want to continue to distract the President isn't about fairness. I never said the continuous investigations were unfair. Politics isn't about fairness by any stretch of the imagination it's dirty business - you know this, I know this. Congressional Investigations are emerging as a means to discredit a President who is not a member of the party doing the discrediting. Check the history of the various presidencies going back as far back as you want. My take is that it's gotten much worse since the Nixon debacle and getting his resignation WAS the right thing for Congress to obtain. In Trump's case it's the wrong thing to do for the reasons I've stated in numerous posts of mine that focus on distracting the President from matters of state. YMMV and I respect that but my take isn't playing at an intramural level. See any post here, the National Review or any number of sources whose take is pretty much like mine and no longer aligned with your train of thought at all.

[iam416]

Barr would join Eric Holder in being held in contempt by Congress. So, yeah, whatever.

[Jeff Buchanan]

........... as a matter of legal precedent, the courts are ambiguous on the matter of the right of Congress to sue the President to make him do something, in this case give Congressman Neal what his committee has asked the WH to provide.

I've read some legal opinions on this and most of them that declare Trump has to provide his taxes when requested by Congress to do so, IMO, are not well laid out. As far as I can tell, it's not clear cut. So, we'll have a long drawn out legal battle to determine if Trump has to or not. For what? Transparency, the public's need to know, finding out if Trump is a liar and a tax cheat? Common, man. I don't find that terribly important when you consider other important matters that the President should be dealing with. Here's decent NYT piece that's pretty much on Trump's side.

............ there is little precedent for using it (edit: Section 6103 of the US Tax Code which Neal has based his request for Trump's tax returns on)

The Ds, in the person of Neal, have to know this. They aren't likely to get Trump's taxes to support "transparency" in the current term or, for that matter in the next 2-3 years. Clearly, that begs the question then, why do this. To embarrass and potentially discredit the President.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/us/politics/trump-tax-returns.html

[Ghengis Jon]

Here's interesting, baseless speculation. Do you think Trump would dump his ventriloquist dummy for a different veep?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/26/opinions/what-if-trump-dumps-pence-for-nikki-haley-wierson/

[Dr. Strangelove]

First, DSL, if you want to hang your hat on Trump's unwillingness to disclose his taxes "like every other US President has done," and "hold him to the same standards as other Presidents" as a means of continuing to interfere and distract the President from carrying out his duties, have at it. Weak sauce that one is. I don't think Neal is going to get them but that is debatable from a legal standpoint and I'm not a lawyer.

Second, whether the Ds want to continue to distract the President isn't about fairness. I never said the continuous investigations were unfair. Politics isn't about fairness by any stretch of the imagination it's dirty business - you know this, I know this. Congressional Investigations are emerging as a means to discredit a President who is not a member of the party doing the discrediting. Check the history of the various presidencies going back as far back as you want. My take is that it's gotten much worse since the Nixon debacle and getting his resignation WAS the right thing for Congress to obtain. In Trump's case it's the wrong thing to do for the reasons I've stated in numerous posts of mine that focus on distracting the President from matters of state. YMMV and I respect that but my take isn't playing at an intramural level. See any post here, the National Review or any number of sources whose take is pretty much like mine and no longer aligned with your train of thought at all.

If a President can't deal with both an opposition party attacking him and 'matters of state' at the same time, then go play intramurals, brother.. It fucking comes with the job. Do you think the Dems took it easy on Lincoln during the War? Do you think Republicans declined to say anything nasty about FDR until WWII was over? If those two could somehow manage, I don't wanna hear Bill Clinton or Donald J. Trump whine that their presidencies were crippled by investigation. Especially not Trump since so many of his problems are his own damn fault.

[Dr. Strangelove]

An American-led coup of the Maduro regime seems to have failed. Bolton's team openly feuding with the Joint Chiefs for not giving them enough military options. Trump complaining to friends that Bolton is trying to drag him into a war

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.debfc70902a9

[Kapture1]

I guess it wasn't really an American led coup then lmao

leave it to DSLand WAPO to parrot Maduro talking points, and take the side of the Ruskies

[Kapture1]

6ke4zks67ov21.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=831da8d2cc84ccf959d4a0cac0b70cebf8f26f19.jpg

[Jeff Buchanan]

If a President can't deal with both an opposition party attacking him and 'matters of state' at the same time, then go play intramurals, brother.. It fucking comes with the job. Do you think the Dems took it easy on Lincoln during the War? Do you think Republicans declined to say anything nasty about FDR until WWII was over? If those two could somehow manage, I don't wanna hear Bill Clinton or Donald J. Trump whine that their presidencies were crippled by investigation. Especially not Trump since so many of his problems are his own damn fault.

Fair enough. Point taken on Lincoln and FDR.

But to narrow the scope of our exchange, your point is one that involves the correctness of continuing investigations centered around the Mueller Report which, I think, you acknowledge have a primary political, not a legal purpose.

That being the case, to what end, other than to discredit the President politically, does continuing investigations obtain? Frankly, I don't think your points about Lincoln and FDR, although historically correct, pertain to the question I just asked. Yours is a retrospective POV.

The issue at hand is this: does discrediting the President for political purposes serve the nation's best interests? The ongoing investigations have the potential of weakening Trump's hand with Kim, with Xi and with ME entities that just happen to have common interests vis-a-vis Iran. Are you OK with this so the left can say they nailed Trump and yeah for that while NK, China and Iran gain the upper hand? I'm not and that is where you and I are likely to disagree and that's fine...... and BTW, the hatred of the president spawned by the political opposition to Lincoln's successful effort to defeat the Confederacy led to his assassination.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I guess it wasn't really an American led coup then lmao

leave it to DSLand WAPO to parrot Maduro talking points, and take the side of the Ruskies

Couldn't care less about Maduro. He can rot in hell. But no, I'm not particularly interested in seeing the US get back into the Latin American coup business.

[froot loops]

Newsflash: President Deals is an awful negotiator, nothing the Democrats do weakens him more than he himself does. He can't keep his mouth shut and he can't be bothered with details. Not a great combination Bob. How many more stupid summits is he going to have with North Korea?

The good thing is his foreign policy nonsense is relatively small potatoes that is worthless. He makes a lot of bluster that make guys like Jeff happy but it's meaningless.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Fair enough. Point taken on Lincoln and FDR.

But to narrow the scope of our exchange, your point is one that involves the correctness of continuing investigations centered around the Mueller Report which, I think, you acknowledge have a primary political, not a legal purpose.

That being the case, to what end, other than to discredit the President politically, does continuing investigations obtain? Frankly, I don't think your points about Lincoln and FDR, although historically correct, pertain to the question I just asked. Yours is a retrospective POV.

The issue at hand is this: does discrediting the President for political purposes serve the nation's best interests? The ongoing investigations have the potential of weakening Trump's hand with Kim, with Xi and with ME entities that just happen to have common interests vis-a-vis Iran. Are you OK with this so the left can say they nailed Trump and yeah for that while NK, China and Iran gain the upper hand? I'm not and that is where you and I are likely to disagree and that's fine...... and BTW, the hatred of the president spawned by the political opposition to Lincoln's successful effort to defeat the Confederacy led to his assassination.

Neither Lincoln nor FDR ever had the opposing party control either half of Congress. Nor did Congress have much of an investigative power before the 20th century. But the Presidency also did not assume the mammoth proportions it has today until FDR and especially post-WWII. The opportunities for a post-WWII President to abuse power is enormous compared with any 19th century leader. And that also is in large thanks to Congress, which has relentlessly handed over power to the Executive Branch.

You seem to assume that the President's personal dignity and credibility and the nation's interest are one and the same. Sadly, no one more consistently discredits THIS President more than he does to himself. Do you think foreign leaders are actually paying more attention to what Dems say about Trump rather than what Trump himself says on a daily basis? I'm guessing if President Xi starts to think Trump's a moron, it has more to do with his personal interactions with him and Trump's tweets than what Richard Blumenthal said about him on CNN last night.

If Trump didn't want this shit he should've been far more transparent about his finances back in 2016. Instead he reacted in the most suspicious ways possible. If Trump didn't want a Special Counsel, he shouldn't have fired Comey the way he did and then react in the most suspicious ways possible. Was Trump thinking about the country's best interest or his own when he decided he wasn't going to reveal any of his tax returns? When Trump agreed to pay Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about how he cheated on Melania with her, was he thinking solely of God & Country? Or was he thinking of himself?

[AlabamAlum]

Saw Endgame.

meh.