45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 2

[Byker28i]

White House officials and members of Donald Trump’s transition team are reportedly “purging” their electronic devices to avoid being compromised by subpoenas, it has been claimed.

The accusation comes just weeks after government lawyers ordered the President’s aides to preserve any materials that could be connected to Russian interference in the 2016 election.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/d...

OH BUT HER EMAILS - shout the Trumpettes
Oh the irony shout the rest of us.. private emails, private email servers, wiping data. It's laughable.

[Eric Mc]

A bit like Nixon wiping tapes.

Is destroying evidence not a criminal offence?

[jmorgan]

Eric Mc said:

A bit like Nixon wiping tapes.

Is destroying evidence not a criminal offence?

If indeed it is true. This has been raised when the President deletes a tweet, innocuous as they appeared to be at then time.

Nunes actions at the moment is interesting with respect all this. Certainly cannot claim to be independent thinker in the inquiry. Not that I expected such as US politics seems to be so partisan. Seems that following him at the moment may lead to some interesting stories.

[jmorgan]

Greg66 said:

jmorgan said:

House freedom caucus lost a member then. They were the ones that caused the issue. An interesting read, I think. What Trump wanted to do did not go far enough? However that group stuck together sort of like the three musketeers, all for one and one for all etc. Trump sees enough of a threat that he has threatened them. What can a President do to members of congress that he disagrees with?

From what I remember of the West Wing (therefore quite possibly fictional) as leader of the party Trump can restrict some funding to particular congressmen at re-election time.

But that means the chances of losing a seat early on? I understand the seats in the house have overlapping elections at the local level.

I really should pay more attention to the structure of congress and how they get there.

[scherzkeks]

Great post on SA's blog today. The spoon-fed crowd is slowly transitioning out of the Hitler delusion.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158812654486/trump-an...

[FN2TypeR]

scherzkeks said:

Great post on SA's blog today. The spoon-fed crowd is slowly transitioning out of the Hitler delusion.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158812654486/trump-an...

article said:

By year end, you will see a second turn, from incompetent to “Competent, but we don’t like it

I doubt it some how.

[Murph7355]

pim said:

Yes Dave buy some bloody guns. We are leaving the E.U.Maybe now is the time for the rest of Europe to give two fingers to the Yanks.(More bloody guns)?

Like the Mexian president said to Trump you pay for that effing wall not us.

The rest of the members of NATO who happen to be EU members, other than those noted earlier (Poland, Greece, UK), have been doing this for a while too.

They would st their pants if Russia stepped up the heat. Look at the reaction to Ukraine.

The difference with the wall situation is that Trump could withdraw support for NATO. The money and resources they're shovelling into it could readily be withdrawn, and it'd be a policy area that I doubt would get the resistance his others have as the previous administration were also getting heated about it.

With a budgetary hole to fill now, and having taken a beating on a couple of key election pledges, I wonder how long it will be before this gets a little more focus.

And if the EU thinks it can do anything solo with its current levels of expenditure it needs to have a long hard rethink.

FN2TypeR said:

It's hardly something that can be done overnight though is it?

If their ministry of defence (or equivalent) is as crap as the UKs then it'll take years - our aholes at the MoD can't even acquire a couple of aircraft carriers without making a total mess of it.

Can you define "overnight"? They agreed to the 2% "target" 11 years ago!

If Germany were running a huge deficit I could see some justification for not chipping in their share. As it stands however...and with them benefitting massively from a weakened Euro.

If there were calls for reducing the spend across the board or reducing recipient "benefits" I'd be easier on the whole topic. But as it stands, the US (Obama or Trump flavour) has a point and Merkel should step up and set an example.

[jjlynn27]

davepoth said:

rscott said:

Isn't Trump going against previous NATO agreements? I thought they agreed in 2014 that all members would work toward the 2% target and Germany are on schedule to hit that by the agreed date of 2024.

Schedule my arse, frankly.

Germany's budget surplus is 1.2% of GDP, and they already spend 1.2% of their GDP on defence. So if they decided to spend 2% of GDP on defence they'd still have a budget surplus. The only thing stopping them is that they don't really want to.

Sending an invoice was definitely not the right way to fix it, but Germany really should just get on with it and buy some bloody guns.

Rscott is right. They are on schedule, so your first line is somewhat baffling.

You are right that they chose how to spend the money. Should they spend money on scanners and staff that allows them to catch cancer early, or on the military?

[London424]

Murph7355 said:

pim said:

Yes Dave buy some bloody guns. We are leaving the E.U.Maybe now is the time for the rest of Europe to give two fingers to the Yanks.(More bloody guns)?

Like the Mexian president said to Trump you pay for that effing wall not us.

The rest of the members of NATO who happen to be EU members, other than those noted earlier (Poland, Greece, UK), have been doing this for a while too.

They would st their pants if Russia stepped up the heat. Look at the reaction to Ukraine.

The difference with the wall situation is that Trump could withdraw support for NATO. The money and resources they're shovelling into it could readily be withdrawn, and it'd be a policy area that I doubt would get the resistance his others have as the previous administration were also getting heated about it.

With a budgetary hole to fill now, and having taken a beating on a couple of key election pledges, I wonder how long it will be before this gets a little more focus.

And if the EU thinks it can do anything solo with its current levels of expenditure it needs to have a long hard rethink.

FN2TypeR said:

It's hardly something that can be done overnight though is it?

If their ministry of defence (or equivalent) is as crap as the UKs then it'll take years - our aholes at the MoD can't even acquire a couple of aircraft carriers without making a total mess of it.

Can you define "overnight"? They agreed to the 2% "target" 11 years ago!

If Germany were running a huge deficit I could see some justification for not chipping in their share. As it stands however...and with them benefitting massively from a weakened Euro.

If there were calls for reducing the spend across the board or reducing recipient "benefits" I'd be easier on the whole topic. But as it stands, the US (Obama or Trump flavour) has a point and Merkel should step up and set an example.

It's interesting that you hear 'the EU' say that the UK can't get the benefits of being in the EU without paying the membership, but seem more than happy to get the benefit of the NATO club without paying the entry fee.

[Countdown]

Murph7355 said:

Can you define "overnight"? They agreed to the 2% "target" 11 years ago!

I stand to be corrected but isn't the agreement 2% by 2024?

In which case the Fukcwit-in-Chief is talking balls.

ETA 11 years ago?? I thought the agreement was reached in 2014?

[Tryke3]

Brexit will follow closely in Trumps achievements, I can see it

[GroundEffect]

Eric Mc said:

A bit like Nixon wiping tapes.

Is destroying evidence not a criminal offence?

A question I've had - if you have no subpoena against you, is it illegal?

[Eric Mc]

I think the fact that messages were destroyed before they became part of a criminal investigation makes no difference.

If they were destroyed in order to ensure the evidence was no longer available for examination when the criminal investigation began, that would still be a criminal offence.

In the UK it would come under the "perverting the course of justice" area.

[FN2TypeR]

GroundEffect said:

Eric Mc said:

A bit like Nixon wiping tapes.

Is destroying evidence not a criminal offence?

A question I've had - if you have no subpoena against you, is it illegal?

I'm no expert but surely if the person was brought to trial and it could be proven that they knowingly destroyed the information in question due to its damaging nature then yes, that would be illegal.

[jmorgan]

It was enough for many to convict a certain Mrs Clinton without trial.

I understand that the office of the President has to keep all communications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records...

Of course it is a wiki link so I assume there is some proof in there however one of the links is to Cornell law school but that is all legal speak to me. Eh?

[jjlynn27]

Countdown said:

I stand to be corrected but isn't the agreement 2% by 2024?

In which case the Fukcwit-in-Chief is talking balls.

ETA 11 years ago?? I thought the agreement was reached in 2014?

Original deal in 2006, re-negotiated in 2014.

[p1stonhead]

News Alert - Trump has not gone on holiday this weekend

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/325863-social-me...

And it's not even true because he went golfing in Virginia rather than in Florida!

http://time.com/4713433/president-trump-golf-cours...

Sad that him doing some work is newsworthy though isn't it.

Edited by p1stonhead on Monday 27th March 11:05

[arfursleep]

jmorgan said:

It was enough for many to convict a certain Mrs Clinton without trial.

I understand that the office of the President has to keep all communications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records...

Of course it is a wiki link so I assume there is some proof in there however one of the links is to Cornell law school but that is all legal speak to me. Eh?

I've seen some comment that part of the reason he's holding meetings at his properties, not WH or Camp David etc, is in order to try to circumvent some of the Presidential Records rules. Not sure of the validity of the claims but assuming that places he uses don't have implanted recorded devices etc.

ETA - grammar

Edited by arfursleep on Monday 27th March 12:56

[roachcoach]

arfursleep said:

jmorgan said:

It was enough for many to convict a certain Mrs Clinton without trial.

I understand that the office of the President has to keep all communications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records...

Of course it is a wiki link so I assume there is some proof in there however one of the links is to Cornell law school but that is all legal speak to me. Eh?

I seen some comment that part of the reason he's holding meetings at his properties, not WH or Camp David etc, is in order to try to circumvent some of the Presidential Records rules. Not sure of the validity of the claims but assuming that places he uses don't have implanted recorded devices etc.

Or visitors logs.

[Murph7355]

Countdown said:

I stand to be corrected but isn't the agreement 2% by 2024?

In which case the Fukcwit-in-Chief is talking balls.

ETA 11 years ago?? I thought the agreement was reached in 2014?

The 2% target was agreed in 2006 AIUI (and like you am prepared to be corrected). It was raised again in 2014 because so few were meeting it, and was again stated as the target. Only this is where the "...we'll get there by 2024..." angle was introduced.

The cynical amongst us may well suggest that if you have failed to get there in 8yrs, what are you going to change in the next 10 to make anyone believe you will? If you loaned someone money on this basis you'd write it off.

And why should anyone else in the alliance (for that is what it is - this is meant to be an alliance of allies/friends who are committed to helping each other, not some "ahhhhh, but you never stated WHEN you wanted this met" type legal affair) be prepared to keep bank rolling it when incredibly wealthy member states are not? Especially Germany to be frank.

If a "3rd party nation" suddenly stepped up the ante and invaded/threatened to invade Germany (unlikely I know), do you think the Germans would expect protection? I'm damn sure they would. And I'm damn sure Mrs Merkel wouldn't be happy to be told "don't worry, we'll come and help you in 2024". That is not how insurance policies between friend/allies work. Especially friends/allies who are amongst only a few with a budget surplus and who are doing very well for themselves, especially in full consideration of the last 40+yrs.

btw, this is not intended to be anti-German. I love Germany (I even have some German friends ). It applies to all the other states currently free loading. As noted, if they'd have been honest enough to challenge the 2% as a necessity in 2014 then fair enough. But doing what is being done now seems underhand and not in the spirit of the NATO arrangement. I can readily see why America is pissed off by it. I think we should be too.