What has Pres. Trump done wrong so far.

gcomeau wrote:
Russia Sanctions. Today is the deadline. They are *legally required* to enact them.

They just refused to do it.

Close. They aren't legally required to enact them. They are authorized to enact them. They are legally required to explain why they didn't choose to use the authorization. The explanation from State appears to be that the threat of sanctions was sufficient to change Russian behavior and actual sanctions weren't necessary. Not sure that I agree with their analysis.

But this is a breaking story and the news websites aren't consistent with one another. It also doesn't appear that the Treasury and State are on the same page. State doesn't want new sanctions, Treasury seems to want additional sanctions on individuals. It seems like another story in which the reporters are running with it before all of the facts are out. We'll likely have a better idea tomorrow.

My personal preference would be not to sanction Russia the country since that would tend to hurt everyone, but to sanction the kleptocrats at the top. Hit those responsible where it hurts and leave everyone else alone.

Actually, the President must impose sanctions.

CAASTA section 224

But the WH statement said they wont.

Which is strange since the Presidents had other options to not impose sanctions.

Mainly, by stating his belief that nobody knowingly hacked/affected/provided funding to fiddle with the election.

Annachie wrote:Actually, the President must impose sanctions.

CAASTA section 224

But the WH statement said they wont.

Which is strange since the Presidents had other options to not impose sanctions.

Mainly, by stating his belief that nobody knowingly hacked/affected/provided funding to fiddle with the election.

Of course in order to do that he would have to call the entire US intelligence community liars.

So instead they dragged their feet as long as possible, waited until the last possible day of the final deasdline, then shrugged and said essentially "we're not gonna do it because.... we don't think we need to.". And essentially dare Republican leadership in the House and Senate to do something about it.

Now I'd like an honest answer here Bio.

If this was Obama, and the FBI and CIA and NSA all said, say, IRAN had interfered in US elections to Obama's benefit, and the ENTIRE US Congress and Senate passed with near 100% support sanctions bills instructing Obama to impose sanctions against them, and Obama did NOTHING for the full allotted time given to him to get those sanctions implemented then at the end said "Nah, we're gonna do nothing at all and just ignore that bill that I signed". And that was all in the context of spending the entire year leading up to that having half his adminstration and also his own family members caught in lie after lie after lie after lie after lie about having contact with Iranian government personnel and what the nature of those contacts were... and being bizarrely praiseworthy of the Ayatollah...



What would your reaction to that situation be? Because I'm pretty sure we're all confident it wouldn't be "meh, no biggie, politics as usual!".


This is way outside normal. And not in a "oh Trump is such a refreshing maverick" way.

gcomeau wrote:

Now I'd like an honest answer here Bio.

If this was Obama, and the FBI and CIA and NSA all said, say, IRAN had interfered in US elections to Obama's benefit, and the ENTIRE US Congress and Senate passed with near 100% support sanctions bills instructing Obama to impose sanctions against them, and Obama did NOTHING for the full allotted time given to him to get those sanctions implemented then at the end said "Nah, we're gonna do nothing at all and just ignore that bill that I signed". And that was all in the context of spending the entire year leading up to that having half his adminstration and also his own family members caught in lie after lie after lie after lie after lie about having contact with Iranian government personnel and what the nature of those contacts were... and being bizarrely praiseworthy of the Ayatollah...



What would your reaction to that situation be? Because I'm pretty sure we're all confident it wouldn't be "meh, no biggie, politics as usual!".

This is Tillerson not Trump. It isn't Trump's style. Trump doesn't back down from a fight and never does anything without maximum publicity. He'd be announcing it on Twitter and giving an interview on Fox, if he'd made this decision. Also he enjoys publically humiliating people. He'd have a lot of fun publically humiliating Russian kleptocrats. Clearly someone (Tillerson) never let Trump know that he had a golden opportunity to publically humiliate people without domestic reprecussions.

This quiet let it expire behind the scenes while using it as a threat posture, is however Tillerson's style.

So the true comparison would be Tillerson vs Hillary Clinton.

I think sanctions against Russian kleptocrats are definitely warranted and I disagree with Tillerson here. As I mentioned above I don't like whole country sanctions in this instance because they'll miss the target. I suspect there will be enough media publicity that Trump will definitely do something (especially if someone in his administration points out to him that he has a golden opportunity to humiliate people). Trump doesn't like Tillerson and isn't going to take a bullet for him. And Tillerson doesn't like playing second fiddle to Trump. Tillerson wants to be the guy in charge.

If Hillary had pulled the same stunt with Iran under the hypothetical scenario you outlined above, I wouldn't be happy with her either. Although in her case, I'd be checking the Clinton Foundation bank accounts for donors with Iranian links. I also don't think that the same type of sanctions would work. Iran is a lot more insular and the religious fundamentalists have no problem taking a sanction for Allah. It would be more effective not to sanction Iran directly but to sanction western companies doing business with Iran. To really drive it home, sanction the CEOs of those companies. This of course would tick off Germany enormously, so intel would definitely need solid proof before a CEO was placed on the list.


I really don't care about them missing the target date. Washington never does anything on time, so that is politics as usual. What I care about is that something get done eventually.

biochem wrote:

gcomeau wrote:

Now I'd like an honest answer here Bio.

If this was Obama, and the FBI and CIA and NSA all said, say, IRAN had interfered in US elections to Obama's benefit, and the ENTIRE US Congress and Senate passed with near 100% support sanctions bills instructing Obama to impose sanctions against them, and Obama did NOTHING for the full allotted time given to him to get those sanctions implemented then at the end said "Nah, we're gonna do nothing at all and just ignore that bill that I signed". And that was all in the context of spending the entire year leading up to that having half his adminstration and also his own family members caught in lie after lie after lie after lie after lie about having contact with Iranian government personnel and what the nature of those contacts were... and being bizarrely praiseworthy of the Ayatollah...



What would your reaction to that situation be? Because I'm pretty sure we're all confident it wouldn't be "meh, no biggie, politics as usual!".

This is Tillerson not Trump. It isn't Trump's style.

1) I was unaware Tillerson had assumed the presidency. When did it become the Tillerson administration that Tillerson was responsible for the conduct of? You would think that kind of thing would make the news.

2) Treasury compiled the list. Not State. What are you basing your claim this was Tillerson on besides you just deciding to claim it and your feeling it's "his style"?

Trump doesn't back down from a fight and never does anything without maximum publicity. He'd be announcing it on Twitter and giving an interview on Fox, if he'd made this decision.

Yeah, like he announced on Twitter he was the one who drafted Jr's denial letter about the Trump tower meeting....

He is capable of withholding information when he wants to. It is after all just another form of lying, which he does as automatically as breathing. And whether he did it PERSONALLY or not is beside the point. His presidency. His administration. His responsibility to implement the sanctions.

And you are avoiding most of the meat of the question. It was about a pattern of behavior by both Trump and vast swaths of the Trump administration which you are not addressing. Secretary of State "Russia's best friend Putin pinned a medal on" that Trump decided to appoint is only one little piece of the far larger puzzle.


So nope, not playing along with this "oh this is all Tillerson let's only talk about Tillerson" deflection of yours.

If Hillary had pulled the same stunt with Iran under the hypothetical scenario you outlined above, I wouldn't be happy with her either. Although in her case, I'd be checking the Clinton Foundation bank accounts for donors with Iranian links.

Oh FFS, this again? Seriously?

For the umpteenth time, the Clintons DO NOT GET MONEY GIVEN TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION. So you can't bribe the Clintons by sending money to the foundation. It doesn't work that way.

I also don't think that the same type of sanctions would work.

Now just spectacularly missing the point...

I really don't care about them missing the target date.

They didn't "miss the target date". They announced an intention NOT TO DO THE SANCTIONS AT ALL. They made the announcement on the target date.

This is not a matter of them running late on schedule. They are openly defying the law.

He tweets about how the UK NHS is so bad that people are marching in protest, wanting it gone, and thus the US should never consider anything like it.
The marchers were actually in support of it, and just wanted more funding allocated. Never let the truth get in the way if you want to rant.

Spruiked about how he'd caused the gains in the stock market, just before the biggest 1 day fall ever.

Stated, not implied, but outright stated that the Democratic party controlled the courts back in 2008-2011.

Was it a mis-speak?

Of course it was. But then that implies that he has no idea what the three branches of US government are which is even more scary.


Down here in Oz, his comment would be contempt of court.
Actually, the Victorian state courts received formal apologies from two Federal Ministers a couple of months ago after ther were found to be in contempt for bad mouthing judges.

There are still 30-40 White House staffers who haven't gotten their security clearances and are being allowed to work around highly sensitive classified information on an interim basis.

It is over a year since this administration took office.

The FBI does NOT take this long to determine if they are giving someone a clearance or not. Kushner.... Porter.... they are not, or were not, in some kind of backlog. The FBI said NO. They said no to both of them MANY months ago. And Trump is just keeping these people on anyway because as president with final say over all matters of classification he can.

Kushner has (and Porter had) access to the PDB for cripes sake. One of the most highly classified documents in the world. Through the entirety of Obama's administration something like 12 people were cleared to see that.

Remember a little over a year ago when handling of classified information was like the most important thing in the entire world to the GOP?


Yeah, me too.


(But don't worry, the GOPs position on everything but trade is totally the same as it always was. bio assures us this is so. Which I'm sure means the Tea Party will be demonstrating in the streets about the massive deficit Trump just blew up after Obama spent 8 years reducing it in 3... 2... 1.... .... ..... *crickets*)

gcomeau wrote:There are still 30-40 White House staffers who haven't gotten their security clearances and are being allowed to work around highly sensitive classified information on an interim basis.

On a slightly different but connected topic, how about all that extreme vetting for immigrants and asylum seekers? Apparrently what is good for the goose is not sauce for the gander. Trump, obviously has as much of the legal system as the idiot he tried to appoint a sa judge. He is whining about due process for Rob Porter. There is a restraining order against him. It is not being cited as a Temporary one, so one should assume it is a permanent one. If it is indeed a permanent one, then there was, indeed due process, insomuch as a judge recieved a motion and granted a TRO, and scheduled a hearing on the matter. Restraining orders do not (in Louisiana, at any rate) fall under the [i]rule nisi guidelines. So the judge did have to hear testimony under oath (the definition of due process) from both sides before issuing the permanent restraining order the FBI found and reported to the White House.