***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[gry60]

Obama made money from lucrative book deals once he was elected, while in office. He did it while he was in the Senate as well. I am not saying anything is wrong with it. My point then, and now, is that most presidents increase their net worth while in office. As it relates to the immediate-past president, it was done with profits from outside ventures (namely lucrative book deals).

Obama was not pushing his books in exchange for the buyers' consideration in his policy proposals or in exchange for favorable executive actions.

Since the Saudis have been spending lots of money in his hotels, since 2016, Trump has been very reluctant at best, and silent at worst, about the abuses of their government on American soil or Americans. He is actively trading this country's security for personal enrichment. That is just one example with one particular country. Then you have the Turks, the Chinese, the Russians, and maybe more...

Stop your baseless rationalizations.

 

[d nice]

With the exception of Trump himself I'd say it's worse over here. It's like our government representatives just figured out the existence of hashtags and emojis and now they can't stop.
There's few words to describe just how corny my representatives act on twitter. Think of a bunch of 50-70 year olds tweeting like teenagers about government affairs.

That's just ridiculous man. I understand the need to want to interact with the public but we should hold govt reps to a different standard.
I feel uneasy seeing heads of state on public social media platforms mixing it up with bots and people with cartoon avis. It's too much potential trouble imo with cyber warfare being a common tool these days. An account gets hacked and tweets some crazy ****, and now all of a sudden you have a foreign policy disaster on your hands.

 

[blastercombo]

Obama was not pushing his books in exchange for the buyers' consideration in his policy proposals or in exchange for favorable executive actions.

Since the Saudis have been spending lots of money in his hotels, since 2016, Trump has been very reluctant at best, and silent at worst, about the abuses of their government on American soil or Americans. He is actively trading this country's security for personal enrichment. That is just one example with one particular country. Then you have the Turks, the Chinese, the Russians, and maybe more...

Stop your baseless rationalizations.

Dummies won’t get this.

 

[IATT]

 

[Belgium]

Perhaps. Here is an excerpt from the State Dept. buying thousands of dollars of President Obama's books while he was in office.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...e-dept-buys-70k-of-obama-books/1#.XH6q5cBKiM8

Again, I am not saying that it is wrong. But profiting from the presidency is not new.

How is it not wrong/unethical for a president to use the office of the presidency to promote his own private businesses for financial gain? Because it's not against the law? (Depending on the circumstances)
Whether it's unnecessary and wasteful purchasing of a president's books by US embassies or a president and his advisers actively personally engaging in promoting his own financial interests through the presidency, I'd describe that as at best unethical.

As you said yesterday though, the extent of president Trump's active promotion of his own businesses, as well as linking his private businesses to furthering relationships with the US government, is unprecedented.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

He basically constantly mixes refusing to ever be wrong and trying to convince everyone they're insane. It's pretty indicative of a narcissist.

I don’t know his motivations so I won’t go as far as to call him a narcissist, although his engagement with some people does come off as egotistical. I def don’t think dude is unintelligent. I think he knows exactly what he’s doing and saying. I just think he’s trolling 90% of the time, and he’s pretty good at it. He baits people, he tries to catch people in logic traps he sets with said bait, and on the other side be intentional in the way he counters arguments. He baits people into the argument he wants to have as opposed to countering the merits of someone else’s well thought arguments. Some people here lob him easy arguments to counter though.

All in all I believe he’s troll.

 

[dwalk31]

Obama was not pushing his books in exchange for the buyers' consideration in his policy proposals or in exchange for favorable executive actions.

Since the Saudis have been spending lots of money in his hotels, since 2016, Trump has been very reluctant at best, and silent at worst, about the abuses of their government on American soil or Americans. He is actively trading this country's security for personal enrichment. That is just one example with one particular country. Then you have the Turks, the Chinese, the Russians, and maybe more...

Stop your baseless rationalizations.

I think your implication that Trump is pushing his hotels in exchange for the buyers' consideration in his policy proposals or in exchange for favorable executive actions is a pretty baseless rationalization. We can agree to disagree on this point.

Saudis likely didn't start staying in Trump hotels in 2016. Your implication that Trump is silent about Saudi abuses because of his hotel bookings seems far-fetched, to me. Not to mention the fact that he isn't silent.

The situation in that region is very delicate. And top security advisers have said as much. That said, the Trump administration issued sanctions to several Saudis over their alleged roles in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

 

[blastercombo]

How is it not wrong/unethical for a president to use the office of the presidency to promote his own private businesses for financial gain? Because it's not against the law? (Depending on the circumstances)
Whether it's unnecessary and wasteful purchasing of a president's books by US embassies or a president and his advisers actively personally engaging in promoting his own financial interests through the presidency, I'd describe that as at best unethical.

As you said yesterday though, the extent of president Trump's active promotion of his own businesses, as well as linking his private businesses to furthering relationships with the US government, is unprecedented.

It’s more than that. He’s offered to ruin decades of relations and trade agreements in exchange for his own debt relief. Let’s not forget that trump is a failure as a busniess man as well and lives on loans



But



Dummies don’t get that

 

[IATT]

"Baseless".. 3 days ago:

 

[dwalk31]

How is it not wrong/unethical for a president to use the office of the presidency to promote his own private businesses for financial gain? Because it's not against the law? (Depending on the circumstances)
Whether it's unnecessary and wasteful purchasing of a president's books by US embassies or a president and his advisers actively personally engaging in promoting his own financial interests through the presidency, I'd describe that as at best unethical.

As you said yesterday though, the extent of president Trump's active promotion of his own businesses, as well as linking his private businesses to furthering relationships with the US government, is unprecedented.

Unprecedented, but not illegal. And not the first to make a profit from the office of the presidency.

I think that you have to look at the law as it relates to the ethics. Legally, a president can't have a conflict of interest as they are exempt from the federal conflict of interest rules.

I don't know if it is "right" but I understand the premise.

 

[dwalk31]

"Baseless".. 3 days ago:

Trump can't be proud of his golf course and feel that a US business in the UK is good for US/UK relations?

 

[Belgium]

I think your implication that Trump is pushing his hotels in exchange for the buyers' consideration in his policy proposals or in exchange for favorable executive actions is a pretty baseless rationalization. We can agree to disagree on this point.

This week Trump promoted one of his own private businesses and linked that business to furthering the US-UK relationship. His promotion came right after UK courts ordered him to pay back the Scottish government's incurred legal fees for Trump's failed lawsuit regarding the golf course he was promoting through an official presidential statement.

What do you think T-Mobile was trying to accomplish here? Just a coincidence? Only 2 officials had ever stayed at Trump's DC hotel prior to the announcement of a $26b merger requiring approval from the Trump administration. The very next day, 9 high-ranking T-Mobile execs suddenly showed up to Trump's DC hotel and booked a few nights. Since then, T-Mobile execs have stayed for over 50 nights.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/t-mob...ands-at-trump-dc-hotel-ahead-of-sprint-merger
T-Mobile Admits It Spent Thousands at Trump DC Hotel Ahead of Sprint Merger
In a letter to congressional Democrats, T-Mobile revealed it had spent $195,000 at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., while finalizing a merger with Sprint that required federal antitrust approval, The Washington Post reported Tuesday. “While we understand that staying at Trump properties might be viewed positively by some and negatively by others, we are confident that the relevant agencies address the questions before them on the merits,” Anthony Russo, T-Mobile USA’s vice president of federal legislative affairs, wrote in the Feb. 21 letter.

Before the $26 billion merger was announced, the Post reported only two T-Mobile officials had stayed at the president’s hotel. Since the announcement, T-Mobile execs have stayed at the hotel for more than 50 nights. The $195,000 was also used to pay for “meeting space, catering, business center services, audio/visual equipment rental, [and] lodging” at the hotel, the letter states, in response to questions posed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA).

 

[IATT]

Trump can't be proud his golf course is good for US/UK relations?

Seems like a conflict to me

But I'm not American

 

[frink85]

Is there a term for money laundering that goes to a payoff/bribe? Because that’s what T-Mobile is doing. What are the chances they booked all these rooms and conventions and etc and didn’t ever show up?

 

[dwalk31]

This week Trump promoted one of his own private businesses and linked that business to furthering the US-UK relationship. His promotion came right after UK courts ordered him to pay back the Scottish government's incurred legal fees for Trump's failed lawsuit regarding the golf course he was promoting through an official presidential statement.

What do you think T-Mobile was trying to accomplish here? Just a coincidence? Only 2 officials had ever stayed at Trump's DC hotel prior to the announcement of a $26b merger requiring approval from the Trump administration. The very next day, 9 high-ranking T-Mobile execs suddenly showed up to Trump's DC hotel and booked a few nights. Since then, T-Mobile execs have stayed for over 50 nights.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/t-mob...ands-at-trump-dc-hotel-ahead-of-sprint-merger
T-Mobile Admits It Spent Thousands at Trump DC Hotel Ahead of Sprint Merger
In a letter to congressional Democrats, T-Mobile revealed it had spent $195,000 at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., while finalizing a merger with Sprint that required federal antitrust approval, The Washington Post reported Tuesday. “While we understand that staying at Trump properties might be viewed positively by some and negatively by others, we are confident that the relevant agencies address the questions before them on the merits,” Anthony Russo, T-Mobile USA’s vice president of federal legislative affairs, wrote in the Feb. 21 letter.

Before the $26 billion merger was announced, the Post reported only two T-Mobile officials had stayed at the president’s hotel. Since the announcement, T-Mobile execs have stayed at the hotel for more than 50 nights. The $195,000 was also used to pay for “meeting space, catering, business center services, audio/visual equipment rental, [and] lodging” at the hotel, the letter states, in response to questions posed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA).

Companies spend a ton of money to influence policy. It is big business in DC. I actually know a lobbyist (I know that is a dirty word). If they announced, during President Obama's presidency, that they spent thousands on President Obama's books would that be President Obama's fault? If only two T-mobile officials bought the books prior would that matter?

These are analogous situations just different business ventures.

 

[dwalk31]

Seems like a conflict to me

But I'm not American

President can't have a conflict of interest per federal conflict of interest laws, in America at least.

 

[blastercombo]

Is there a term for money laundering that goes to a payoff/bribe? Because that’s what T-Mobile is doing. What are the chances they booked all these rooms and conventions and etc and didn’t ever show up?

Questions like these are why trump won’t release the tax information

 

[Belgium]

Companies spend a ton of money to influence policy. It is big business in DC. I actually know a lobbyist (I know that is a dirty word). If they announced, during President Obama's presidency, that they spent thousands on President Obama's books would that be President Obama's fault? If only two T-mobile officials bought the books prior would that matter?

These are analogous situations just different business ventures.

And since you are familiar with lobbyists, what do you think they see when they look at this tweet?
Specifically Trump pointing out a direct link between his private businesses and furthering relationships with the US government?

 

[dwalk31]

And since you are familiar with lobbyists, what do you think they see when they look at this tweet?
Specifically Trump pointing out a direct link between his private businesses and furthering relationships with the US government?

An opportunity. The same opportunity they would have seen if he didn't tweet it. The same T-mobile saw.

 

[Belgium]

 

[dwalk31]

Reasons that credibility is so important for individuals testifying under oath. Smh

 

[noskey]

I don’t know his motivations so I won’t go as far as to call him a narcissist, although his engagement with some people does come off as egotistical. I def don’t think dude is unintelligent. I think he knows exactly what he’s doing and saying. I just think he’s trolling 90% of the time, and he’s pretty good at it. He baits people, he tries to catch people in logic traps he sets with said bait, and on the other side be intentional in the way he counters arguments. He baits people into the argument he wants to have as opposed to countering the merits of someone else’s well thought arguments. Some people here lob him easy arguments to counter though.

All in all I believe he’s troll.

Cat wont even answer if he approves or disapproves of Trumps actions as a whole. Smells like troll to me.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

Wait, did the US Dept of Defense just quote Eddie Murphy as Mama Klump with ‘Hercules, Hercules!’ or is this a deeper reference that I’ve missed all these years?

 

[Belgium]

Assuming Cohen's former attorney Stephen Ryan did approach Trump's attorneys about a pardon for Cohen while he was reviewing seized material from the raid alongside Trump's attorneys, Cohen's limited answer might help him out here. Trump's lawyers reportedly dismissed the idea, however Giuliani left open the possibility of granting one in the future.
Excerpt:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lawyer-for-cohen-approached-trump-attorneys-about-pardon-11551753372
Lawyer for Cohen Approached Trump Attorneys About Pardon
An attorney for Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, raised the possibility of a pardon with attorneys for the president after federal agents raided Mr. Cohen’s properties in April, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Conversations among those parties are now being probed by congressional investigators, according to document requests issued Monday by the House Judiciary Committee to dozens of Trump associates, including one of the president’s current lawyers and Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Cohen’s attorney at the time, Stephen Ryan, discussed the possibility of a pardon with lawyers for Mr. Trump in the weeks after the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided Mr. Cohen’s home, office and hotel room, the people said. The pardon discussions occurred while Mr. Ryan was working alongside lawyers for Mr. Trump to review files seized from Mr. Cohen’s premises by the FBI to determine whether they were protected by attorney-client privilege.

The president’s lawyers, including Jay Sekulow, Rudy Giuliani and Joanna Hendon, dismissed the idea of a pardon at the time, these people said. But at least one of them, Mr. Giuliani, left open the possibility that the president could grant Mr. Cohen one in the future, they said.

Mr. Ryan left the impression that if Mr. Cohen couldn’t rely on a pardon, he might cooperate with prosecutors from the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office investigating Mr. Cohen, the people said.

In testimony before the House Oversight Committee last week, Mr. Cohen said: “I have never asked for, nor would I accept, a pardon from Mr. Trump.” There is no indication Mr. Cohen personally asked for a pardon or that he was aware of any discussion on the topic.

“Mr. Cohen stands by his testimony before the House Oversight Committee,” a spokeswoman for Mr. Cohen said in response to questions for this article.

When lawyers have approached Mr. Giuliani about a presidential pardon for their client, “I always give the same answer which is, ‘The president is not going to consider any pardons at this time and nobody should think that he is,’” Mr. Giuliani said. He added that he also tells lawyers, referring to the president: “Whatever happens in the future, that is his prerogative.”

Mr. Giuliani declined to say whether any lawyers for Mr. Cohen had contacted him, though he said “I would assume ones representing Cohen” were among the several lawyers he said have asked him about pardons for their clients.

After the document review was completed, Mr. Cohen hired a new attorney and publicly broke with the president, saying in an ABC News interview that his “first loyalty” was to his family and country. He has since spoken extensively to investigators in the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office, which is now probing the Trump Organization, the president’s real-estate company, and to special counsel Robert Mueller’s office, which is investigating whether Mr. Trump or any of his associates colluded with Russia to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. Mr. Trump has denied collusion and Russia has denied meddling.

In testimony before the House Oversight Committee last week, Mr. Cohen said he couldn’t discuss his most recent communications with Mr. Trump or anyone acting on the president’s behalf. “Unfortunately, this topic is actually something that is being investigated right now by the Southern District of New York and I’ve been asked by them not to discuss it,” he said.

A spokeswoman for the Southern District declined to comment.

In August, Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to eight charges, including two campaign-finance violations for arranging hush-money payments during the 2016 election to two women who alleged sexual encounters with Mr. Trump. He said during his plea hearing that Mr. Trump had coordinated and directed the payments. Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to a ninth charge, lying to Congress, in November. In December, federal prosecutors in New York for the first time directly implicated the president in the payoff scheme. That month, Mr. Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison, starting May 6.

Mr. Trump has said Mr. Cohen was reimbursed for paying one of the women but has denied the alleged sexual encounters with either woman.

Congressional investigators have requested information about conversations between attorneys for Mr. Cohen and the president. In letters sent Monday to dozens of Trump associates—including Mr. Sekulow; former White House counsel Don McGahn; and Mr. Cohen—the House Judiciary Committee sought documents related to “possible pardons” for Mr. Cohen, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former national security adviser Mike Flynn.

Dangling the prospect of a presidential pardon to discourage someone from assisting prosecutors in a criminal investigation could constitute witness tampering or obstruction of justice, according to former federal prosecutors.

The Constitution gives the president an unreviewable pardon authority, and the courts in several cases have found that even Congress cannot put restraints or limits on the presidential power to pardon or commute sentences. Traditionally, presidents have tried to depoliticize the pardon and clemency process by insisting that most requests go through a special office in the Justice Department. But Mr. Trump has shown he is willing to bypass the traditional Justice Department review when he feels it is necessary, and has issued a number of pardons to popular conservative figures in the last two years.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly declined to rule out pardoning his former aides being investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller and New York federal prosecutors. Asked in November whether he would pardon Mr. Manafort, who was convicted in August of eight counts of fraud and in September pleaded guilty to another two federal crimes, Mr. Trump said it was “very sad what’s happened to Paul” but said he hadn’t offered to pardon him. But, the president added: “I’m not taking anything off the table.”

Mr. Trump hasn’t pardoned any of his associates charged in continuing investigations, and Mr. Giuliani has said the president won’t consider pardons while the investigations are still under way. But, Mr. Giuliani said in an interview late last year, Mr. Trump “reserves the power to do it if and when it’s appropriate.”

 

[dwalk31]

Cat wont even answer if he approves or disapproves of Trumps actions as a whole. Smells like troll to me.

I did answer. You just didn't like my answer.