Cable Forum - President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33705924)

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44409775
G7: Trump says Russia should be part of summit

Quote:

US President Donald Trump says he wants Russia to be part of the G7 group of key industrialised nations.

Russia was expelled in 2014 following its annexation of Crimea, but Mr Trump said he wanted the country readmitted.

The build-up to the meeting has seen major disagreements between the US president and other nations over his imposition of trade tariffs.

There are also likely to be disagreements with Mr Trump over Iran and climate change.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Dick head comes to mind.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35949853)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44409775
G7: Trump says Russia should be part of summit

Macron has other ideas.

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2018/...s-back-with-G6

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 35949850)

Sorry to tell you this polls show he is more popular than ever. At least he does what he says. More than can be said of UK

Quote:

The poll notes, however, that Trump's 44 percent approval rating matches those of former Presidents Reagan and Obama in June of 1982 and 2010, respectively, before the two presidents' parties would both go on to face massive losses during midterm elections.

In addition, Trump's supporters face an intensity gap with his critics. Forty-two percent of voters told pollsters they "strongly disapprove" of Trump's presidency so far, compared to just 26 percent who said they "strongly approve" of the job the president is doing.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...al-up-4-points

---------- Post added at 21:35 ---------- Previous post was at 21:33 ----------

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...r-muhammad-ali

Quote:

President Trump said on Friday that he may pardon the late boxing champion Muhammad Ali.

Speaking to reporters outside the White House as he prepared to leave for the Group of Seven summit in Quebec, Trump said he was thinking about pardoning someone who was "not very popular" when he was convicted.

"He was not very popular then; his memory is very popular now. I'm thinking about Muhammad Ali," Trump said. "I'm thinking about that very seriously."...

...An attorney for Ali, though, said Friday that a pardon from Trump was "unnecessary."

“We appreciate President Trump’s sentiment, but a pardon is unnecessary,” lawyer Ron Tweel said in a statement. “The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Muhammad Ali in a unanimous decision in 1971."

"There is no conviction from which a pardon is needed,” he added.

---------- Post added at 21:47 ---------- Previous post was at 21:35 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35949853)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44409775
G7: Trump says Russia should be part of summit

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/39...ia-back-to-g-7

Quote:

The United Kingdom is pushing back on President Trump's suggestion that Russia rejoin the Group of Seven of the world’s top industrialized economies.

“We should remind ourselves why the G8 became the G7 — it was after Russia illegally annexed Crimea,” a senior government source from the United Kingdom said.

“Since then we have seen malign activity from Russia in a whole variety of ways, including on the streets of Salisbury in the UK. Before any conversations can take place about Russia rejoining, it needs to change its approach,” the source added.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

More obstruction of justice cases in the Russia probe.

Quote:

Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating allegations of Russian interference in the US election, filed new charges on Friday, accusing Paul Manafort and a business associate, Konstantin Kilimnik, with obstruction of justice.
The superseding indictment in federal court in Washington, DC, accused the two men of attempting to tamper with witnesses between February and April this year. The charges follow a court filing on Monday in which the special counsel asked for Mr Manafort’s bail to be revoked for contacting witnesses in his case.
The fresh accusations come as the first of two of Mr Manafort’s trials approaches. Unlike others indicted in the Russia probe who have pled guilty and co-operated, he has fought the charges against him and attempted to have them thrown out, arguing that Mr Mueller has overstepped his authority.

https://www.ft.com/content/e438bf3c-...b-4acfcfb08c11

---------- Post added at 21:53 ---------- Previous post was at 21:52 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35949853)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44409775
G7: Trump says Russia should be part of summit

Surely not, there must be some mistake! :D

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...-at-g-7-summit

Quote:

President Trump exited the Group of Seven (G-7) summit on Saturday with a stark warning to some of Washington's closest allies: reduce trade barriers or face consequences.

As he prepared to depart early from the G-7 summit in Charlevoix, Canada, to head to Singapore ahead of his planned meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Trump delivered an ultimatum to foreign leaders, demanding that their countries reduce trade barriers for the U.S. or risk losing market access to the world's largest economy.

"They have no choice. I'll be honest with you, they have no choice," Trump told reporters at a news conference, adding that companies and jobs had left the U.S. to escape trade barriers abroad. "We're going to fix that situation. And if it's not fixed, then we're not going to deal with these countries."

So, the USA won’t buy from or sell to the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, and Italy?

US Exports to -
Canada - $282.5 billion or 18.3% of its overall exports
Japan - $63.3 billion or 4.4% of its overall exports
U.K. - $56.3 billion or 3.6% of its overall exports
Germany - $53.5 billion or 3.5% of its overall exports
France - $34.2 billion or 2.2% of its overall exports
Italy - $18.4 billion or 1.2% of its overall exports

So, Trump is saying he will not deal with countries who buy over $500 billion worth of US goods, around a third of their exports.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Trump at G-7 floats end to all tariffs, threatens major penalties for countries that don’t agree.

It may sound good but is it? GM foods, dairy and beef products with antibiotics and growth hormones etc, etc.

Unfortunately the WaPo won't let me to copy the URL which I've never known before. I'm sure there will be a link to the report on their site though.

Link available via this twitter post. https://twitter.com/PatrickW/status/1005488255335362567
As an aside for those remainers in the Brexit thread wanting our strategy before negotiations started bear this in mind (from the same report).

Quote:

“If you have a strategy, do not explain your strategy before the meeting — because if you are explaining your strategy before the meeting, you are losing your strategy,” European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker told reporters.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35949819)

They called it a narrow decision or ruling, not a narrow victory. I.E The decision was limited to a very narrow scope.

That's why a lot of outlets called it narrow.

PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...x-wedding-cake

This blog is a neutral one which follows the Supreme Court from a legal perspective and they called it narrow: http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/op...ing-cake-case/

This isn't a Trump thing. People have used this phrasing before to refer to court decisions whose impact is limited. Here is an article from 2014: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...rrow-decisions

Anyone saying victory would be wrong, calling it a narrow ruling appears to a correct way to talk about a legal ruling.

Having re-read through the article, you are correct, this is what they inferred when they wrote the article...which is even more inaccurate (I'll get to that in a minute) but you are correct, they spoke in regards to the ruling, not the numeric majority. Thank you for the correction.

In regards to saying that the scope of the decision was narrow in its definition is wrong. This was not narrow by any imagination.

They all but excoriated CO's findings (the commission). There is no ambiguity in what Kennedy wrote, for the majority:

Quote:

Colorado law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and the commission concluded that Phillips’ refusal violated the law, despite Phillips’ argument that he is opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Colorado state courts upheld the determination.

But when the justices heard arguments in December, Kennedy was plainly bothered by comments by a commission member that the justice said disparaged religion. The commissioner seemed “neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs,” Kennedy said in December.

That same sentiment coursed through his opinion on Monday. “The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” he wrote.

CO should be facing civil penalties and I hope that Phillips decides to sue.

Now, Kagan (in her own opinion) wrote:

Quote:

Liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the conservative justices in the outcome. Kagan wrote separately to emphasize the limited ruling.

Just to be clear though, her finding that this was a narrow and limited ruling was not the prevailing opinion of the majority which all deferred to Kennedy.

Even those who voted against it (like RBG) realize that the issue was folly and CO screwed up:

Quote:

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. “There is much in the court’s opinion with which I agree,” Ginsburg wrote of Kennedy’s repeated references to protecting the rights of gay people. “I strongly disagree, however, with the court’s conclusion that Craig and Mullins should lose this case.”

They just did not want to rule against the couple (bless, lol).

Jeff Sessions seems to think that on a state by state basis, this does show some precedent:

Quote:

“The First Amendment prohibits governments from discriminating against citizens on the basis of religious beliefs. The Supreme Court rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs,” Sessions said.

However, the ACLU does not agree:

Quote:

“We read this decision as a reaffirmation of the court’s longstanding commitment to civil rights protections and the reality that the states have the power to protect everyone in America from discrimination, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people,” said James Esseks, director of the ACLU LGBT & HIV Project.

Now, the ACLU is just full of crap here...they just don't seem to understand that Phillips never turned away the custom in the first place:

Quote:

Waggoner and Esseks disagreed about the ruling’s effect on Phillips’ wedding cake business. Waggoner said her client can resume his refusal to make cakes for same-sex marriages without fear of a new legal fight. But Esseks said that if another same-sex couple were to ask Phillips for a wedding cake, “I see no reason in this opinion that Masterpiece Cakeshop is free to turn them away.”

They just simply refused to be involved in the baking of a cake for a gay wedding.

This again, is the slant from WaPo but in fairness they are just quoting the ACLU representative.

Now there are plenty of other cases pending the HC:

Quote:

Several other legal disputes are pending over wedding services, similar to the Phillips case. In addition to florists, video producers and graphic artists are among business owners who say they oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds and don’t want to participate in same-sex weddings.

Barronelle Stutzman, a florist in Richland, Washington, has appealed a state Supreme Court ruling that found she violated state law for refusing to provide the wedding flowers for two men who were about to be married.

The justices could decide what to do with that appeal by the end of June.

All from the same article so that could possibly be what the post is looking for to cite that this ruling is broad in nature but as it is it has said that the religious beliefs of a cake baker must be considered along with ruling against CO's commission, it mentions the 1st amendment and short of invoking RFRA to make it a federal issue there is nothing they seem to note that invokes federal supremacy here.

At the end of battles over gay marriage Kennedy authored the final part of it, with protection intended to re-affirm the deeply held religious beliefs of those opposed to homosexuality:

Quote:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate.

This is the beginning of him re-affirming that and it is not in a narrow scope - I'll show you an example of a ruling that is limited by definition:

(From Bush V Gore)

Quote:

"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

This was clearly meant to be infer that the case was not setting precedent ; it was narrow in scope to purely that race, at that time and not any election moving forward.

That is the difference between a case and in this case, an issue.

The issue is still being litigated to some extent but the decision was not narrow by any stretch of the imagination.

At the beginning it just looked like the Washington Post was taking a hit for the team / editorializing their own wishes but they were not so thank you for pointing out my error.

However, that just made them look biased. Their fundamental failure in understanding the very basic principle of the ruling however makes them look woefully incompetent ; it is the usual argument of what is worse? Stupidity and ignorance or outright wrong and evil acts?

Both are a danger but the Washington Post just looked like they are clueless.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35949958)

The issue is still being litigated to some extent but the decision was not narrow by any stretch of the imagination.

At the beginning it just looked like the Washington Post was taking a hit for the team / editorializing their own wishes but they were not so thank you for pointing out my error.

However, that just made them look biased. Their fundamental failure in understanding the very basic principle of the ruling however makes them look woefully incompetent ; it is the usual argument of what is worse? Stupidity and ignorance or outright wrong and evil acts?

Both are a danger but the Washington Post just looked like they are clueless.

It wasn't just them, there was a large amount of reporting that suggested it was of limited scope including the SCOUTUS blog which is a pretty well respected outlet for reporting on the court., ABC News and even the right-wing National Review

You may have a different legal interpretation to them, some outlets do, but they weren't isolated in their view of this so I think it's unfair to accuse them of being woefully incompetent. They are clearly in the majority on their interpretation of the judgement.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

GoldenHair, from ABC Australia.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35949974)

GoldenHair, from ABC Australia.

GoldenHair: Licensed to Shill

Worthy of an Oscar nomination at least!

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

How many believe that a special relationship exists between the President of the US and the UK Prime Minister? I guess the only thing about it is that it's especially bad.

Quote:

As he left the summit, Mr Trump commented on how his relationships were faring with other leaders, saying of Mrs Merkel, Mr Macron and Mr Trudeau: "We have a great relationship. Angela and Emmanuel and Justin - I would say the relationship is a 10". Of Theresa May there was no mention.
Neither did Mrs May have a formal one-on-one meeting with the president during the summit, despite holding such meetings with each of the other leaders present.

https://news.sky.com/story/trumps-pe...at-g7-11400189

Where is Trump when British citizens are being poisoned by overseas agents? Ignoring Theresa May, slapping tariffs on British companies and calling for Russia to be readmitted to the G7/8.
It's getting trickier to be both a British patriot and a Trump supporter.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

DT is running America like his own business. He is a ****

---------- Post added at 20:23 ---------- Previous post was at 20:23 ----------

Admin. That was NOT a rude word.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35950049)

DT is running America like his own business. He is a ****

---------- Post added at 20:23 ---------- Previous post was at 20:23 ----------

Admin. That was NOT a rude word.

I reckon he messed up because his mind is elsewhere. He's thinking about the Korea gig and how he could go down in history if he pulls it off.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35950049)

DT is running America like his own business. He is a ****

---------- Post added at 20:23 ---------- Previous post was at 20:23 ----------

Admin. That was NOT a rude word.

Clearly it was, if it triggered the bloody swear filter! :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35950058)

I reckon he messed up because his mind is elsewhere.

You reckon wrong.

He did not mess up - he stood up to other world leaders who are trying to fleece the U.S on trade tariffs, fancy that, a leader of his own nation standing up to others and putting his own country first for a change which is exactly what he campaigned on.