Trump II

[Schewe]

Comey acknowledged that he create those notes in his car about his conversation with Trump with the intention of getting a special counsel involved.

No, Comey said he took his notes because he thought they would be important and that Trump might lie and he would need to be able to definitively testify as to what was said. He didn't take notes to get a special council...he did say he RELEASED his note in the hope it would prompt the selection of a special council. The fact that it was his friend Mueller was poetic justice :~)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Trump isn't playing three dimensional chess...he's playing checkers while everybody else is playing chess. He's horribly out classed...

[Alan Klein]

No, Comey said he took his notes because he thought they would be important and that Trump might lie and he would need to be able to definitively testify as to what was said. He didn't take notes to get a special council...he did say he RELEASED his note in the hope it would prompt the selection of a special council. The fact that it was his friend Mueller was poetic justice :~)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Trump isn't playing three dimensional chess...he's playing checkers while everybody else is playing chess. He's horribly out classed...

OK, so he released his notes to get a special counsel.  Of course, who is he to decide there should be a special counsel?  That makes his note taking somewhat suspicious as if he planned the whole thing.  But that's beside my point.  It has nothing to do with why Trump said he had tapes.  The main issue is he knew that Comey was going to testify before congress, special counsel or not.  He also knew that their discussion about Flynn would come out.  He wanted to make sure that Comey didn't embellish that or anything else so Trump told the world he had the tapes.  Comey said trump said he "hoped" he'd consider Flynn.  And Comey said that although he felt funny Trump never really pushed him.  I don't see lying on either side.  Things were discussed but not obstruction of justice seems to be on the table.  It's just there now because collusion with Russia seems to be off the table and the Democrats are looking for something, anything.

[Alan Klein]

Nice bluff Trump, now you are in for some pure misery....

If Mueller goes on a witch hunt and  investigates more than obstruction and Russian collusion or if anything leaks from his staff about his investigations such as Trump tax records, Trump will try to fire him, and rightly so. 

[kers]

If Mueller goes on a witch hunt and  investigates more than obstruction and Russian collusion or if anything leaks from his staff about his investigations such as Trump tax records, Trump will try to fire him, and rightly so.

I do not think Trump will fire another FBI head, without being sacked himself.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

First, it is pretty much agreed on both sides that Trump did not collude with the Russians.

Joe,

Nobody knows, but I think it is unlikely that he do that willingly. However, he does keep piling on strange behavior in relation to Russian connections and a somewhat questionable choice of advisors (e.g. Manafort). Maybe Trump is just a fool who keeps digging when in a hole ...

So the fact that the Dems are now pushing obstruction of justice into the collusion probe bags the question, how could Trump obstruct an investigation that had no merits to begin with?  If the collusion investigation was not going to go anywhere, how could one obstruct that?

As far as I've understood, the collusion that is being investigated is that between members of the campaign staff and Russia, not necessarily or exclusively Trump himself.

Furthermore, considering no one now thinks he colluded, it can be assumed Trump is innocent of this charge.  If he is innocent, he would have known he was innocent, so why would he even bother to try and obstruct.  It makes no sense. 

That's the trouble with such investigations, dig deep enough and (initially innocent) things start surfacing that fit a suspect situation. Add to that Trump's behavior, e.g. obstructing justice (possibly just out of stupidity), and a new (more serious?) investigation is born.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

I do not think Trump will fire another FBI head, without being sacked himself.

Maybe you're right.  But then again Presidents don't get "sacked".  They have to be impeached  by the House and convicted by the Senate and Congress is all Republican.  I think if Mueller goes on a witch hunt investigating everything about Trump, the president will pull the plug.  If someone friend or foe, becomes a problem for Trump, he's not shy about getting rid of them.  Think of Flynn, and the people he was suppose to hire like Christie and Giuliani.  Even ex-wives.  "You're fired."

[Alan Klein]

I find this whole situation to be rather amusing, the irony is just so thick. 

First, it is pretty much agreed on both sides that Trump did not collude with the Russians.  So the fact that the Dems are now pushing obstruction of justice into the collusion probe bags the question, how could Trump obstruct an investigation that had no merits to begin with?  If the collusion investigation was not going to go anywhere, how could one obstruct that? 

Furthermore, considering no one now thinks he colluded, it can be assumed Trump is innocent of this charge.  If he is innocent, he would have known he was innocent, so why would he even bother to try and obstruct.  It makes no sense. 

Of course some here will say a lot about Trump makes no sense and that he did it just to do it.  That argument could be valid, but if Trump is truly innocent of collusion, it is not one the overall electorate will not buy into.  It will be very much like Benghazi.  Did Hillary make decisions that likely made a bad situation worse, yes, but, was she guilty of anything, no.  So the public did not care. 

However, the real funny thing about all of this is that the Dems and Pelosi are doubling down on obstruction, even after being walloped in the recent special elections.  The Dems nationwide have become branded as the party of witch hunters, which certainly played a big roll in causing Ossoff to loose. 

Even after a small, but notable, group of Dems called for Pelosi to step down and new leadership to take over (even Schumer is in the crosshairs), directly due to the recent losses and lack of any positive branding, I still see no evidence of anyone in a leadership position in the party trying to develop an actual message other then, "resist, resist, resist, obstruction, obstruction, obstruction, impeach, impeach, impeach!" 

Now I certainly don't agree with Trump on everything, but one thing I have to is, "it would be a very, very sad day for Republicans" if Nancy Pelosi steps down.   

Joe:  I think the obstruction charge has to do with Flynn, not Russian collusion, that Trump tried to get Comey to stop any investigation of Flynn and "let him go".  That's what the whole testimony was about with Comey's notes in the middle of the night.  But your point is the same.  Trump "hoped" that Comey would just move on regarding Flynn which is a hard thing to pin obstruction of justice on. So there's no "there" there.

Trump did ask Comey and other officials to publicly announce that he was not being investigated when they told him he wasn't.  He wanted the cloud over him to be removed so he could go on governing and dealing with the Russians as he saw fit and not constrained by the "cloud".  But again, there's no obstruction in that case either as asking someone to public acknowledge what they are not doing anyway is not obstruction.

[Alan Klein]

I would not necessarily call him a fool, but inexperienced.  If he did obstruct out of stupidity (inexperience), I doubt it will get very far and he will more then likely be given a pass by the overall public. 

Aside from Trump, I can't help but notice the Democratic party is imploding right now, primarily due to a lack of any clear positive messaging, and that the leaders really don't seem to care. 

2018 could be brutal for the Dems if this keeps up.   

The Dems are hoping the constraint barrage will pay off for them.  It may.  A lot depends on timing and what else Trump and the republican congress do between now and the 2018 election.  The problem though for them is that if the republicans do get something done, yet the Dems are still "crying wolf" about how bad Trump is, the public is going to realize it was all just BS on the Dems side.  Trump's low rating will start to reverse and go up as the public realizes the Dems are playing a "get Trump" game. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I would not necessarily call him a fool, but inexperienced.

Someone who seems incapable of learning from his mistakes and keeps repeating them is a fool, IMHO of course.

Cheers,
Bart

[Robert Roaldi]

I find this whole situation to be rather amusing, the irony is just so thick. 

First, it is pretty much agreed on both sides that Trump did not collude with the Russians.  So the fact that the Dems are now pushing obstruction of justice into the collusion probe bags the question, how could Trump obstruct an investigation that had no merits to begin with?  If the collusion investigation was not going to go anywhere, how could one obstruct that? 

Furthermore, considering no one now thinks he colluded, it can be assumed Trump is innocent of this charge.  If he is innocent, he would have known he was innocent, so why would he even bother to try and obstruct.  It makes no sense. 

Of course some here will say a lot about Trump makes no sense and that he did it just to do it.  That argument could be valid, but if Trump is truly innocent of collusion, it is not one the overall electorate will not buy into.  It will be very much like Benghazi.  Did Hillary make decisions that likely made a bad situation worse, yes, but, was she guilty of anything, no.  So the public did not care. 

However, the real funny thing about all of this is that the Dems and Pelosi are doubling down on obstruction, even after being walloped in the recent special elections.  The Dems nationwide have become branded as the party of witch hunters, which certainly played a big roll in causing Ossoff to loose. 

Even after a small, but notable, group of Dems called for Pelosi to step down and new leadership to take over (even Schumer is in the crosshairs), directly due to the recent losses and lack of any positive branding, I still see no evidence of anyone in a leadership position in the party trying to develop an actual message other then, "resist, resist, resist, obstruction, obstruction, obstruction, impeach, impeach, impeach!" 

Now I certainly don't agree with Trump on everything, but one thing I have to is, "it would be a very, very sad day for Republicans" if Nancy Pelosi steps down.

From an outsider, this seems to be standard operating procedure in American politics, and it has been going on for a while now. All I remember from the past 8 years is Republicans stalling budgets and bringing government to a standstill during the Obama administration. Did anyone expect the gloves to come off now? All I see is two rhetorically armed camps firing at each other incessantly, who both seem to have forgotten that they are there to make life better for citizens, but I might be a hopeless romantic. And the polarized rhetoric is so over the top that it plays like farce. Obama has been called "socialist", which is laughably silly, while the Republican belief in the free market only extends as far as the latest boutique tax cut or corporate subsidy for their job-creator-industry du jour. My understanding was that the electorate was sick of all this nonsense, and that's why they elected Trump. So far, I'm not seeing any improvement.

[Alan Klein]

Yes, the whole Flynn thing, forgot about that. 

To be honest, I'm not really paying attention to it anymore.  It clearly looks like a witch hunt and the Dems are just being so negative for the sake of being negative. 

Unfortunately for them, people don't get excited and vote on negatives.  Sure, maybe the bases do, but they are a small part of the overall electorate. 

Yeah, they're pretty much beating a dead horse with the Russian collusion.  So they picked up the obstruction business.  If Mueller keeps going and plays games, he (and the Dems) will look for something else when obstruction ends as it too doesn't pass the smell test.  But Trump is evil and they have to get him.  Smart Dems are starting to talk about jobs and other things that the people really care about.  But the left has too much invested in attacking Trump.   I think I'm going to send a contribution to Pelosi's re-election fund.  We need democrats who go for the throat. 

[Schewe]

I do not think Trump will fire another FBI head, without being sacked himself.

Just to be clear, Mueller is not currently head of the FBI, he's a special council to the Justice Department. Mueller WAS head of the FBI for 12 years under Bush and Obama and Trump was rumored to have met with him about the FBI opening but Trump nominated Christopher A. Wray for the position of FBI Director. Also, while Trump might think he could fire Mueller, he can't. Only the acting DOJ director can and he said he would only fire Mueller for cause.

So Trump has made his bed...

[Schewe]

So, about that idea of hiring a businessman to be president, how's that working' out? Well, according to the CNBC Global CFO Council which  is an elite group of chief financial officers from public and private companies, it ain't working' very well...

We asked CFOs to describe Trump’s management style, and it’s not pretty: Survey

If you had to describe President Donald Trump's management style in one word, what would it be? That's the open-ended question we asked the members of the CNBC Global CFO Council in our quarterly survey. Here are their responses, in alphabetical order:

Antagonistic
Arrogant
Authoritarian
Autocratic
Business-style
Chaos
Chaotic (4 CFOs gave this response)
Clueless
Confusing
Dictatorial
Directive
Disjointed
Disruptive
Divisive
Erratic (2 CFOs)
Fluid
Hubristic
Incompetent
Narcissistic
Obnoxious
Reactive
Reckless (2 CFOs)
Self-absorbed
Terrible
There are no words
Unconventional
Unpredictable (2 CFOs)
Volatile



Responses to the CNBC Global CFO Survey are anonymous. Thirty-five of the 39 CFOs who completed the survey responded to this question.

The CNBC Global CFO Council represents some of the largest public and private companies in the world, collectively managing more than $4 trillion in market capitalization across a wide variety of sectors. The quarterly CFO Council poll was conducted from June 2–16.

The responses help to explain why CFOs are significantly more pessimistic now than they were three months ago about Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress' ability to enact key agenda items into law by the end of the year.

As a group, CFOs are 44 percent confident that corporate tax reform will get done in 2017. They were 59 percent confident in February. Confidence in overseas cash repatriation fell from 63 percent in February to 48 percent, and expectations for a large infrastructure plan fell from 58 percent to 49 percent.

Making good on the Trump agenda

Meanwhile, some of Trump's recent accomplishments have been met with concern and outright opposition. Fifty-nine percent of CFOs say they are somewhat concerned that the president's recent confrontation with Germany over trade imbalances could lead to a trade war between the two countries or between the United States and the European Union. Another 5 percent are "very concerned."

The charts (which are dynamic and can't be reposted) offer a pretty dim view that "professional" business people hold for Trump as president. Heck NONE of the companies actually supported the United States' decision to withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord.

So, this is what happens when you put a "Chaotic, Erratic, Reckless, Unpredictable" businessman with zero experience governing in the White House. Sadly, it's gonna get worse before it gets better :~(

[Schewe]

Furthermore, considering no one now thinks he colluded, it can be assumed Trump is innocent of this charge.  If he is innocent, he would have known he was innocent, so why would he even bother to try and obstruct.  It makes no sense. 

While it's likely Trump did NOT personally collude with the Russians, that can't be said for members of the Trump campaign. And Flynn is just the tip of that spear...think of Kushner meeting with the head of a banned Russian bank, why? Think of the plan to use Russian intelligence facilities to talk with Russia, why? Why did Carter Page travel to Russia with the permission of the Trump campaign? Why, of all the potential countries to meet with was Russia the one country that so many Trump people met with and then forget to mention those meetings on their security forms?

Why, if nobody is guilty of collusion does everybody scurry around acting guilty?

As for why Trump would go out on a limb for Flynn and try to get him off, one wonders what Flynn may have to say about the campaign and it's activities. What would Flynn have to say that would be worth immunity?

Also, to be clear, of those entities investigating the Russians and possible collusion, as far as I know, nobody has actually said there's zero evidence of collusion...as far as I can recall they've been tight lipped because the investigation is on going. We won't really know if there's any evidence until the investigation is over...and now that Mueller is involved and his all star line up of investigators, if there is any evidence, they will find it.

I'm far more convinced Mueller will run an honest and exhaustive investigation and get to the truth. I can live with whatever they determine. If the Trump campaign didn't collude, they didn't collude and we can all move on. If they did, and anybody broke a law, they should pay for their crimes.

In any event, we need to learn EXACTY what Russia did, how they did it and figure out a way to absolutely prevent Russia or any other bad actor from interfering ever again. Can we at least all agree with that?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... figure out a way to absolutely prevent Russia or any other bad actor from interfering ever again. Can we at least all agree with that?

Sure. And while we are at it, why don't we find a cure for cancer and eradicate poverty as well?   

[Alan Klein]

So, about that idea of hiring a businessman to be president, how's that working' out? Well, according to the CNBC Global CFO Council which  is an elite group of chief financial officers from public and private companies, it ain't working' very well...

We asked CFOs to describe Trump’s management style, and it’s not pretty: Survey

The charts (which are dynamic and can't be reposted) offer a pretty dim view that "professional" business people hold for Trump as president. Heck NONE of the companies actually supported the United States' decision to withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord.

So, this is what happens when you put a "Chaotic, Erratic, Reckless, Unpredictable" businessman with zero experience governing in the White House. Sadly, it's gonna get worse before it gets better :~(

Who of them is a billionaire and President?  In any case, when things get even better next year, they'll be singing praises.  Meanwhile the stock market and their stocks are doing 15% better than before the election.  And they don't care about Paris.  What they want is for him to pass a rule that will allow overseas profits back in the US at 15% tax instead of 35%.  These people are CFO's, Chief Financial Officers.  They're only concerned with the bottom line.  They really don't care about carbon. 

I think it's interesting that they indicated Chaotic, Erratic, Reckless, Unpredictable the most.  That fits in what I was saying before.  Foreign nations have to be careful.  They don't know what he will do. That puts them on the defensive where we want them to be. 

[Alan Klein]

Trump signs law to make VA more accountable for vets’ care.  So he's getting things done that he campaigned on.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-signs-historic-bill-to-transform-va/2017/06/23/da366ab4-582f-11e7-840b-512026319da7_story.html

[Schewe]

Sure. And while we are at it, why don't we find a cure for cancer and eradicate poverty as well?   

I'm down with that but with Trump's proposd budget it's unlikey to happen don't ya think? Funny how the wealthiest country in the world can't afford universal healthcare and refuses to deal with income disparity.

As your Trupster would tweet SAD!

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

House panel wants formal response from Trump on Comey tapes
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-house-idUSKBN19E2A1

QUOTE Fri Jun 23, 2017 | 3:07pm EDT  "The head of the U.S. House of Representatives' Russia investigation said on Friday he wanted a formal response from President Donald Trump to a request for records about conversations with fired FBI Director James Comey.

The House panel said on June 9 it had written to Don McGahn, the White House counsel, asking about the existence of any recordings or memos covering Comey's conversations with Trump and asked that copies of the materials be provided to the panel by June 23.

Trump wrote on Twitter on Thursday, a day before the deadline, that he did not know if there were recordings of his conversations with Comey, but he did not make or have any such recordings.

Republican Representative Mike Conaway, who is leading the House Intelligence Committee's investigation, told reporters Friday morning that Trump's tweet was not a sufficient response."

For Alan, for copyright reasons, not the full report was copied here. Follow the link as provided, to read the latest version in full.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Funny how the wealthiest country in the world can't afford universal healthcare and refuses to deal with income disparity...

That's precisely what makes it the wealthiest