The Trump Presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
Verbiage was wrong. I would say type of position. I think that in any organization that gets staffed through patronage you will have significant turnover, when those people fail they get fire. Donnie Ts problem was that he gave positions to complete baffoons whom had no business being there and now he's taken a play out of Jed Bartlett's administration and installed a cabinet secretary as CoS.
Fair enough. I'm sticking to my initial points- it's more than we've seen probably ever, and the onus of why rests squarely on Pres Trump's shoulders.

For an expert businessman, supposedly adept at creating high performance teams, he's really crappy at it.
 
Fair enough. I'm sticking to my initial points- it's more than we've seen probably ever, and the onus of why rests squarely on Pres Trump's shoulders.

For an expert businessman, supposedly adept at creating high performance teams, he's really crappy at it.
He selected a staff that was only going to create one thing, a dumpster fire. But I suppose if we recall his campaign was full of political amateurs as well, and that dumpster fire won an election.
 
Part of the problem may have been that no one, including him, thought he was going to win. I heard Secretary Clinton had a pretty extensive list of highly qualified, vetted individuals ready to step in after her inevitable election.
 
Yeah, the Arpaio pardon was telegraphed pretty heavily. Sheriff Joe was one of candidate Trump's first endorsements, and with the value he places on "loyalty" it was pretty much inevitable.

As a lot of people seem to be pointing out over the weekend, the Arpaio pardon also sends a message to all of Trumps associates currently caught up in the Mueller investigation. That pardons are a possibility and Trump isn't too worried about playing by the rules when it comes to issuing them and look after people who are loyal to him.

Reduces any kind of leverage the Mueller investigation may try and use with people who aren't cooperating.
 
Part of the problem may have been that no one, including him, thought he was going to win. I heard Secretary Clinton had a pretty extensive list of highly qualified, vetted individuals ready to step in after her inevitable election.
So the problem here is that he was woefully unprepared from the jump? I don't really like that as an answer.

In this case, I would have much preferred HRCs actions as opposed to our presidents. If we assume you're right, Mara, and she actually pretended like she cared about winning the election and prepared.
 
So the problem here is that he was woefully unprepared from the jump? I don't really like that as an answer.

In this case, I would have much preferred HRCs actions as opposed to our presidents. If we assume you're right, Mara, and she actually pretended like she cared about winning the election and prepared.

I think that was one of the core arguments during the election - HRC is an experience professional who has prepared for the office and Candidate Trump is an unprepared narcissist with little inclination towards study of any topic, much less the Presidency. I think that was one of the key reasons for HRC's 'victories' in the debates. However, the way it worked out is enough of the electorate didn't agree with that argument - or found other arguments convincing - and voted President Trump into office. I'd like to think many of those folks are having second thoughts about their decision but polling doesn't support that conclusion.
 
So the problem here is that he was woefully unprepared from the jump? I don't really like that as an answer.

In this case, I would have much preferred HRCs actions as opposed to our presidents. If we assume you're right, Mara, and she actually pretended like she cared about winning the election and prepared.

Not just Candidate Trump, but the rest of the Republican Party who would have sided with him and helped him prep if... well, there are a lot of "ifs." I'm sure he had people in mind, but he might have made different decisions. "if."
 
I think that was one of the core arguments during the election - HRC is an experience professional who has prepared for the office and Candidate Trump is an unprepared narcissist with little inclination towards study of any topic, much less the Presidency. I think that was one of the key reasons for HRC's 'victories' in the debates. However, the way it worked out is enough of the electorate didn't agree with that argument - or found other arguments convincing - and voted President Trump into office. I'd like to think many of those folks are having second thoughts about their decision but polling doesn't support that conclusion.
Because Hillary wasn't a narcissist? The Senate seat was gifted off the Tammany hall machine. The Sec State position was patronage in which she did very poor at.

Now, was her staff more put together, probably, the Clinton Machine (Bill) knows how to get things done.

The Sheriff Arpaio pardoning was kind of dumb, needed to let the appeals process play out. But the man is 83. If Obama is gonna commute Pvt Manning's sentence, than Arpaio was going to get a pardon from a Republican President.
 
So the problem here is that he was woefully unprepared from the jump? I don't really like that as an answer.

In this case, I would have much preferred HRCs actions as opposed to our presidents. If we assume you're right, Mara, and she actually pretended like she cared about winning the election and prepared.

The Rust Belt states who never saw her campaign would beg to differ. I don't think she cared, by all accounts I've found she and some (emphasis there) of her senior staff thought her victory was a lock.
 
The Rust Belt states who never saw her campaign would beg to differ. I don't think she cared, by all accounts I've found she and some (emphasis there) of her senior staff thought her victory was a lock.
I'll concede that 100%.

With the caveat that I don't care if she cared. If she assembled a better staff and was able to make a cabinet and staff that immediately impacted the American public and we could avoid 8 months of stalemate due to mismanagement, I don't actually give a shit if she "cared".

It's a very consequentialist argument- do I actually care if she personally cared about the rust belt, if she compiled the best possible cabinet and actually benefitted the American people the most? Nope.
 
The FBI thinks it's found the person who leaked top secret intelligence about Russia

What a winner of a name...

Glad one source of a leak has been arrested. Many more to go.

Air Force veteran in leak case wants FBI admission suppressed
Winner's defense attorneys filed a court motion Tuesday asking the judge to suppress any comments she made to the FBI in that interview because agents never read Winner her Miranda rights...Though she had not yet been formally arrested, Winner's attorneys said, she had every reason to believe she was in custody as she was questioned in a room of her apartment by two agents standing in front of the door.

Welp, there goes that case down the toilet. You would think America's finest G-Men would know something so simple when questioning a suspect. :wall: Many a case have failed because a suspect was not read Miranda, and their exit was blocked, or where it appeared they were not free to go while being questioned.
 
Air Force veteran in leak case wants FBI admission suppressed


Welp, there goes that case down the toilet. You would think America's finest G-Men would know something so simple when questioning a suspect. :wall: Many a case have failed because a suspect was not read Miranda, and their exit was blocked, or where it appeared they were not free to go while being questioned.

I don't know, I've been indoc'ing at NSA this week for my current assignment. They've toughened up considerably after Snowden and the rash of other traitors like Winner this past year. Even if the FBI espionage act case ends up being weak I think they've got several other avenues to pursue - both administrative and criminal. Plus, I think the physical evidence in that case (only 6 people printed the document sent to the newspaper) was very strong.

It's unfortunate we (the IC) are only cracking down on this stuff now that we've had Billions in losses to these people but better late than never IMO.
 
I don't know, I've been indoc'ing at NSA this week for my current assignment. They've toughened up considerably after Snowden and the rash of other traitors like Winner this past year. Even if the FBI espionage act case ends up being weak I think they've got several other avenues to pursue - both administrative and criminal. Plus, I think the physical evidence in that case (only 6 people printed the document sent to the newspaper) was very strong.

It's unfortunate we (the IC) are only cracking down on this stuff now that we've had Billions in losses to these people but better late than never IMO.
True, though it does raise the difficulty in proving the case since the admission is likely to be thrown out. It also gives the defense room to maneuver for a better plea deal. Overall, it was sloppy of them to do that and jeopardize the case, based on the available information of course.
 
Aren't we jumping to conclusions? I have done tons of out of custody interviews that don't require Miranda...OF COURSE the defense is going to attack the admission of the statement, it's very damaging to his client. All part of the the game of criminal law.
 
Aren't we jumping to conclusions? I have done tons of out of custody interviews that don't require Miranda...OF COURSE the defense is going to attack the admission of the statement, it's very damaging to his client. All part of the the game of criminal law.
I don't think it is much of a jump. While a standard tactic by the defense, Miranda 101 (at least in the Florida academy system a decade ago) taught to make sure everyone understood what triggers Miranda and how not using it can appear. While Miranda is not necessary all of the time, if it isn't used, care must be taken to remove (as much as reasonable) the appearance of being in custody if questioned. Part of any investigation is to ensure its integrity and remove as many options as possible that are available to the defense. Hence the reason for yearly training and up to date policies.

I would also note that I did mention that the conclusion is based on the available information. I am, nor have I ever been a super sleuth, but as with many professions, having a strong foundation in the basics helps to interpret data. I freely admit I don't have all the information, none of us likely do.
 
Agreed, but we are only hearing the defense attorneys side.....we won't hear the Governments interview details in the media, as it should be. I think it is unfair to say the G-men screwed up at this stage and saying the admission is likely to be thrown out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top