Trump

[CaptainNexus616]

Trump's response on Twitter to Kim Jong Un:

Is he actually trying to start a nuclear war?! 

This man terrifies me.

I really feel like new restrictions on a president's social media accounts will be put into place Post Trump.

[Norsegod1839]

My friend shares his latest tweet and I thought it was a practical joke!

How do we live in a world where this is okay?!

[Shores]

Trump, you were good at dodging war when you were younger, please dodge it again. I don't want WW3.

[Norsegod1839]

It's scarily getting closer and closer everyday!

[Serephino]

He's not trying to dodge this war because he doesn't have to fight it.  He can hide in the safety of a bunker.

[Cassandra LeMay]

Given that I missed a lot of the recent debates over the last few days, a lot of what has been said falls into the TL;DR category for me, so I won't respond to it. But I want to come back to one thing said earlier and ask for some clarification:

...

Now finally. Back to the Sledgehammer. Trump isn't swinging the hammer. He IS the Hammer. The rest of the government is swinging him.

...

Who or what exactly do you mean by "the rest of the government"? The legislative (i.e. Congress), or parts of the Execuitve other than Trump (e.g. the VP, people in Cabinet positions, the NSC, his advisors)? I am inclined to disagree with you here, but I don't want to jump to conclusions.

[gaggedLouise]

According to Wolff's upcoming book, Trump likes to dine at McDonald's, due to his persienet fear of being poisoned, and "with McDonald's, you know there is no way" to add any poison for a specific person.

This is the most ridiculously funny news item about Trump for some time - now we know why he posed with a KFC meal in a photo he tweeted out during the campaign. :D

Okay - three questions:

1. When was Donald Trump last seen eating at a McDonald's joint?

2. Which is the bigger risk: getting deliberately poisoned in a classy restaurant or an armed nutter running into a McDonald's resturant while you're there and firing at everybody?

3. How secure is it if the POTUS is eating at a McDonald's, his phone rings and he suddenly is in a conversaion about something sensitive and secret?

::)

[gaggedLouise]

Trump will be instituting his own Fake Media Awards, he declared on twitter. The batch of winners for last year will be announced on Monday - per twitter, probably.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/948359545767841792

:P

I bet CNN will be on the list... :)

[Sara Nilsson]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/us/politics/trump-voter-fraud-commission.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Trump ends the voter fraud commission. So much for the overwhelming evidence he promised

[Cassandra LeMay]

I'm not sure if this might not be more of a topic for the "In The News" thread, but since it plays into the Russia probe thing I'll post it here:

Paul Manafort sues the DOJ and Bob Mueller for exceeding their authority in bringing their indictment against him.

Personally I think there may be an argument for Mueller's authority being overly broadly defined in some parts, but, all in all, I think Manafort's lawsuit is without merit, and certainly not something that would justify the relief he seeks from the court. This is either a Hail Mary or a political ploy. Me, I suspect the latter.

[Mithlomwen]

Trump is now taking credit for North Korea's openness to talk with South Korea.

With all of the failed “experts” weighing in, does anybody really believe that talks and dialogue would be going on between North and South Korea right now if I wasn’t firm, strong and willing to commit our total “might” against the North. Fools, but talks are a good thing!
4:32 AM - Jan 4, 2018

[Regina Minx]

I'm not sure if this might not be more of a topic for the "In The News" thread, but since it plays into the Russia probe thing I'll post it here:

Paul Manafort sues the DOJ and Bob Mueller for exceeding their authority in bringing their indictment against him.

Personally I think there may be an argument for Mueller's authority being overly broadly defined in some parts, but, all in all, I think Manafort's lawsuit is without merit, and certainly not something that would justify the relief he seeks from the court. This is either a Hail Mary or a political ploy. Me, I suspect the latter.

As I see it, there are at least 4 fatal flaws with this lawsuit.

• When a defendant in a criminal case wants to argue the legal basis for the prosecution, the place to do that is during the course of the criminal trial, through formal objections and motions to dismiss. This lawsuit is a separate civil suit before a different judge looking to enjoin Mueller from the investigation and prosecution. That tactic not only runs the risk of annoying the judge in the criminal trial (very few judges like having their authority questioned by anyone in the case going around their backs), but there are also laws that normally prevent the same matter from being litigated simultaneously before different judges.
• To your point, Casandra, the basis of the lawsuit against Mueller is that Justice Department regulations regarding the appointment of a special counsel require that the attorney general (or, in this case, Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein) provide the special counsel “with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.” Manafort claims that the specific factual statement in Rosenstein’s order is not broad enough to capture Manafort’s business dealings in Ukraine and that a broadly worded section would exceed Rosenstein's authority as AAG.
  
  There is a problem with this. Even if Manafort is correct, he does not have standing to bring this challenge. The very regulations Manafort is citing explicitly state that they “are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal, or administrative.” Manafort is assuming the right to sue when the law specifically and explicitly denies him this
• Even if he had standing and even if this wasn't the wrong venue to argue this, and again this is to your point, Casandra, the argument is flawed factually. Rosenstein’s order appointing Mueller states that Mueller may investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” But Manafort is being indicted for his business dealings in the Ukraine, you argue, hypotehtical respondant.
  
  That's dubious.  Manafort wasn’t just working for Ukrainian politicians and a Ukrainian political party. He was working for Ukraine’s pro-Russia party. That alone is enough to establish a “link” between Manafort and the Russian government.
• BUT EVEN IF Manafort argued this in the right venue (he isn't), had standing to file it (he doesn't), and was correct in his charge that Mueller is exceeding his authority (he isn't), let's ignore those fatal flaws and just grant all of the above. Mueller exceeded his authority. Now what?
  
  Let's ask the Justice Department about how special counsels can get permission to investigate matters outside of their originally granted authority:
  
  

  If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.

  
  So even if Mueller’s investigation into Manafort did exceed his original authority, Mueller’s could have gotten the authorization to proceed with this investigation and prosecution at any time by consulting with Rosenstein about his decision to expand the investigation. At this point, Rosenstein would either expand Mueller’s authority or assign the new matters to another prosecutor.
  
  So even if Manafort’s lawsuit prevails, the most that the former Trump campaign official can reasonably hope for is that a court may order Mueller to have a conversation with Rosenstein. A conversation, by the way, that may already have happened, since nowhere in the law is there an obligation for the AAG or the special counsel to inform the defendant or the general public about an administrative matter like this.
  
  The bottom line, in other words, is that Manafort’s tactic is unlikely to succeed. He’s claiming a right he doesn’t have, in a courtroom he shouldn’t be in, based on the dubious premise that Robert Mueller is exceeding his original authority, which, even if true, was a problem that Mueller and Rosenstein can fix with a phone call.

[TheGlyphstone]

Clearly, the best way for us to reach out to the North Koreans would be to send them an ambassador capable of appealing to their deeply-held cultural adoration for the accordion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-lnPk5SFrk

[DominantPoet]

Trump is now taking credit for North Korea's openness to talk with South Korea.

Stuff like this is what makes it so baffling that anyone can say Trump isn't bad, or should be respected because he's the President, or really anything positive in general when it comes to Trump. He had nothing to do with this.

[HairyHeretic]

I'm just waiting for him to take credit for the sun rising in the morning :)

[TheGlyphstone]

I'm just waiting for him to take credit for the sun rising in the morning :)

And when he's proven wrong, the trauma causes him to run away to Vegas and become an Elvis impersonator?

[Cassandra LeMay]

As I see it, there are at least 4 fatal flaws with this lawsuit.
...

I have no idea about the standing question in this case, or how civil and criminal suits interact in a situation like this. I'll take your word on in that the standing question is in play here.

As for the rest... I mostly agree with you. I would say that it might be possible to argue that (b)(ii) of Mueller's appointment letter exceeds the "specificity" required by 28 CFR 600.4(a) and therefore tries to bypass 600.4(b). If you find a judge sympathetic enough that argument might fly. (Just look at how hard the SDNY judge recently tried to find any argument possible to dismiss the CREW emoluments case. Hand a judge who doesn't want to get dragged into politics a straw and he might grasp it very hard.)

But, even if the specificity argument had merit I would say that the SC appointment (b)(i) covers the situation in question. If Manafort lied about past actions while he was involved with the Trump campaign that would certainly be within the authority of the SC to investigate. But the only way to investigate lying about past conduct would be to look into the past conduct in question. Therefore discovering past conduct that was breaking the law would be covered by the SC's mandate in this case. It doesn't matter one iota if the conduct happened before the campaign or not, as long as the lie about the conduct in question happened within the circumstances the SC is authorized to investigate under (b)(i) of his appointment.

So yes, I do agree with you that this suit doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. I wouldn't have called it a potential Hail Mary if I thought it had much merit.  ^-^

[HairyHeretic]

And when he's proven wrong, the trauma causes him to run away to Vegas and become an Elvis impersonator?

No, he'll just claim anything other than his truth are more alternate facts or fake news.

[DominantPoet]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5235929/Trumps-lawyer-tries-BAN-publication-explosive-book.html

Apparently, he's now trying to spit in the face of the First Amendment.

He's also trying to get Bannon to "cease and desist" too. Smells an awful lot like a potential tyranny there. -.-

[Various]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5235929/Trumps-lawyer-tries-BAN-publication-explosive-book.html

Apparently, he's now trying to spit in the face of the First Amendment.

He's also trying to get Bannon to "cease and desist" too. Smells an awful lot like a potential tyranny there. -.-

Ugh. To be fair to Trump, White House backlash against tell-alls by former staffers is nothing new. That he goes this far is something new. Trump has a long and documented history of screaming slander/libel and threatening to sue his critics, only now he's president.

[Norsegod1839]

I say we renact the movie Valkarie.... The Tom Cruise nazi one....

Yall know what i am taking about ;)

[Various]

I say we renact the movie Valkarie.... The Tom Cruise nazi one....

Yall know what i am taking about ;)

All those not-even passable accents. Pass.

[Blythe]

I say we renact the movie Valkarie.... The Tom Cruise nazi one....

Yall know what i am taking about ;)

Assassination suggestions are hardly appropriate. Even in jest, this is not okay.

[Norsegod1839]

Assassination? I was simply talking about us all pretending to be German actors!

[Blythe]

Assassination? I was simply talking about us all pretending to be German actors!

There is a very prominent scene in that movie pertaining to assassination. It's on you to make your meaning clear, not on others to interpret you. I can promise you that there are those that read your post and assumed you meant assassination.

Please be more careful with your words.