The decision, which was first reported by NBC News, is a reversal for the president, who repeatedly said he would not use his authority to pardon his son or commute his sentence.
What I’m seeing is proof that Trump (rather, the Republican Party) failed to use the justice department to go after Hunter for tax evasion.
And while I do see that Trump clearly wanted to use the DOJ vindictively, and that he apparently wanted to put Hunter to death over tax evasion, I’m not seeing anything to support your claim that Trump would use the DOJ to manipulate Joe.
So what point are you trying to make here? That if Trump wants to manipulate Joe, leading off by killing Hunter is his go-to? Removing your leverage in the opening play is kind of a shit strategy, if I’m honest.
Are you trying to imply some other claim and hope I’ll validate it in the absence of an actual argument from you?
You’re just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something will stick.
Is the above an accurate read of why you shared that article on two separate comments I made? Comments submitted without elaboration or clarifying why you think they support the statements you’ve made.
Look — Trump is a dangerous old fool, and he will do awful things. Possibly, even awful things that are vaguely similar to what you are describing. But your arguments, reasoning, and supporting ‘evidence’ aren’t good. If you’re going to be argumentative, insulting, and present conspiracy theories online, at least do it well.
Appreciate your comment. Nobody can prove something that is a matter of intuition. Can’t prove what anyone might do in the future.
You agree, at a minimum, with me that there are clear conflicts of interest.
That fact alone is a national security risk.
People often lose their security clearance if they go into debt or get arrested. It’s not because of the risk they are bad with money or even that they’ve committed a crime. It’s because they are in a position where they are vulnerable to being exploited.
And it’s a sliding scale. The more someone knows, or the more control someone might wield, there is increasingly less tolerance in the national security world for possible avenues of exploitation.
Ex presidents are loose ends on the nation’s closest secrets, right? Also, potentially very powerful, even after their terms end, right?
Trump absolutely has a history of demanding loyalty and trading favors. “Hey, Joe, as you know, we have your son, Hunter, and we’re holding him over there, and we have some of the boys watching him, and we were wondering if you wouldn’t come out and publically say US weapons are prolonging the war in Europe, and that we need to leave well enough alone…”
We have literally heard that rhetoric from Trump with our own ears.
Are you the same person that was trying to both sides this? You can’t compare turning over the former president’s criminal kid to a bunch of alt right trumpists and Russian loyalists with turning over the ex president’s criminal kid to lib dems, Merrick Garland and Jim Comey types. They bag this dude’s shit when he travels. You think they were going to let him let Trump keep his kid?
Edit: : we will see after The noise dies down and insiders start spilling the beans about what happened in the room. My confidence level that the national security conflict of interest was a principal consideration is very high.
It seems like you’ve been focusing a lot on opportunity in your statements, but you also have to consider motive.
After Biden’s term is up, the Republican Party is being handed full control of the U.S. government. They have the presidency, the house, and the senate. They simply do not need Biden.
Regarding Ukraine, Trump can just not send any more aid, and (illegally) stop any in-progress aid while calling it an official presidential act.
I think Trump is really weak. The instances of him taking advantage of other people relate to money, sex, power, and his ego. (In a topical sense - I don’t think he’s smart enough to get ego fulfillment from things like achieving policy goals.) He doesn’t engage in a hard push for matters of statecraft or policy goals. He leaves that to the sycophants around him. Surely they could conceive of such an idea, but even if they did try to put something like that in motion, do you think he would grant anyone in his circle enough power to carry out such a plan? And if they could carry out such a plan, I just don’t see Trump’s ego accepting help from ‘the competition’, let alone other nations viewing a Democratic-led Trump envoy with anything but suspicion. Other countries have intelligence services. They’ll be able to figure out why someone pulls a policy 180, and they’ll do whatever is best for their country.
And to your point about Trump demanding loyalty - absolutely. But from his sycophants. He doesn’t need any particular democrat to be a sycophant. I think, honestly, he’s a lazy slob who is so used to money and power carrying water for him that he just finds the next person. He doesn’t have the grit to be malevolent unless it’s for money, sex, power, or his ego.
And, for the record, I am not the ‘both sides’ person. I have no idea what that line of thought is about. For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t make that argument because I don’t think Trump loves his male children enough to care what happens to them. I believe he’d only care if something affected his public image.
I’m lumping the sycophants in with the leader. He is the leader. He susceptible to influence, and easy to manipulate, but give him credit. There is no way he hasn’t already had people killed. He’s had the kgb looking out for him for decades, and a lot of the people around him, too. Some of the sycophants are so shamelessly devout because they are ideological allies, some, it’s because they’re compromised. Someone, maybe, got to their families. Too loose of an end for my tastes, and I think those around Biden would see it similarly. I hope you’re right for everyone’s sake. I think you understate Trump’s role in the criminal enterprise and his willingness to use violence.
What I’m seeing is proof that Trump (rather, the Republican Party) failed to use the justice department to go after Hunter for tax evasion.
And while I do see that Trump clearly wanted to use the DOJ vindictively, and that he apparently wanted to put Hunter to death over tax evasion, I’m not seeing anything to support your claim that Trump would use the DOJ to manipulate Joe.
So what point are you trying to make here? That if Trump wants to manipulate Joe, leading off by killing Hunter is his go-to? Removing your leverage in the opening play is kind of a shit strategy, if I’m honest.
Are you trying to imply some other claim and hope I’ll validate it in the absence of an actual argument from you?
You’re just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something will stick.
Is the above an accurate read of why you shared that article on two separate comments I made? Comments submitted without elaboration or clarifying why you think they support the statements you’ve made.
Look — Trump is a dangerous old fool, and he will do awful things. Possibly, even awful things that are vaguely similar to what you are describing. But your arguments, reasoning, and supporting ‘evidence’ aren’t good. If you’re going to be argumentative, insulting, and present conspiracy theories online, at least do it well.
Appreciate your comment. Nobody can prove something that is a matter of intuition. Can’t prove what anyone might do in the future.
You agree, at a minimum, with me that there are clear conflicts of interest.
That fact alone is a national security risk.
People often lose their security clearance if they go into debt or get arrested. It’s not because of the risk they are bad with money or even that they’ve committed a crime. It’s because they are in a position where they are vulnerable to being exploited.
And it’s a sliding scale. The more someone knows, or the more control someone might wield, there is increasingly less tolerance in the national security world for possible avenues of exploitation.
Ex presidents are loose ends on the nation’s closest secrets, right? Also, potentially very powerful, even after their terms end, right?
Trump absolutely has a history of demanding loyalty and trading favors. “Hey, Joe, as you know, we have your son, Hunter, and we’re holding him over there, and we have some of the boys watching him, and we were wondering if you wouldn’t come out and publically say US weapons are prolonging the war in Europe, and that we need to leave well enough alone…”
We have literally heard that rhetoric from Trump with our own ears.
Are you the same person that was trying to both sides this? You can’t compare turning over the former president’s criminal kid to a bunch of alt right trumpists and Russian loyalists with turning over the ex president’s criminal kid to lib dems, Merrick Garland and Jim Comey types. They bag this dude’s shit when he travels. You think they were going to let him let Trump keep his kid?
Edit: : we will see after The noise dies down and insiders start spilling the beans about what happened in the room. My confidence level that the national security conflict of interest was a principal consideration is very high.
It seems like you’ve been focusing a lot on opportunity in your statements, but you also have to consider motive.
After Biden’s term is up, the Republican Party is being handed full control of the U.S. government. They have the presidency, the house, and the senate. They simply do not need Biden.
Regarding Ukraine, Trump can just not send any more aid, and (illegally) stop any in-progress aid while calling it an official presidential act.
I think Trump is really weak. The instances of him taking advantage of other people relate to money, sex, power, and his ego. (In a topical sense - I don’t think he’s smart enough to get ego fulfillment from things like achieving policy goals.) He doesn’t engage in a hard push for matters of statecraft or policy goals. He leaves that to the sycophants around him. Surely they could conceive of such an idea, but even if they did try to put something like that in motion, do you think he would grant anyone in his circle enough power to carry out such a plan? And if they could carry out such a plan, I just don’t see Trump’s ego accepting help from ‘the competition’, let alone other nations viewing a Democratic-led Trump envoy with anything but suspicion. Other countries have intelligence services. They’ll be able to figure out why someone pulls a policy 180, and they’ll do whatever is best for their country.
And to your point about Trump demanding loyalty - absolutely. But from his sycophants. He doesn’t need any particular democrat to be a sycophant. I think, honestly, he’s a lazy slob who is so used to money and power carrying water for him that he just finds the next person. He doesn’t have the grit to be malevolent unless it’s for money, sex, power, or his ego.
And, for the record, I am not the ‘both sides’ person. I have no idea what that line of thought is about. For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t make that argument because I don’t think Trump loves his male children enough to care what happens to them. I believe he’d only care if something affected his public image.
More well reasoned takes.
I’m lumping the sycophants in with the leader. He is the leader. He susceptible to influence, and easy to manipulate, but give him credit. There is no way he hasn’t already had people killed. He’s had the kgb looking out for him for decades, and a lot of the people around him, too. Some of the sycophants are so shamelessly devout because they are ideological allies, some, it’s because they’re compromised. Someone, maybe, got to their families. Too loose of an end for my tastes, and I think those around Biden would see it similarly. I hope you’re right for everyone’s sake. I think you understate Trump’s role in the criminal enterprise and his willingness to use violence.