America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,911 comments
  • 1,802,326 views
I remain confused about Giuliani's actual role and employer. Does he work for the USA (US state paid, formal government role) or for Trump (Trump paid, private role)? @Dotini mentioned Dominic Cummings (special adviser to Johnson and a primary architect of New Brexit) but I'm not aware that special advisers of that type undertake foreign "diplomacy" or any other governmental front-facing role.

The sacked US Ambassador to the Ukraine believes that one of the reasons for her dismissal was her questioning of Giuliani's role in Ukraine and his failure to go through official channels. Anyway, looks like Giuliani is another divisive figure of the Trump era who's being pushed away towards a fall.

BBC
Mr Giuliani is coming under increasing scrutiny over his work for the president. Asked by reporters on Friday if Mr Giuliani was still his lawyer, Mr Trump answered ambiguously: "I don't know. He's a very good attorney and he has been my attorney."
 
@TenEightyOne I believe Mr. Giuliani works as President Trumps personal lawyer, and is a part of the president's legal team. As far as I'm able to tell, he is not an official government employee, especially considering that he was brought on to assist Trump during the Muller Investigation. The Domonic Cummings comparison doesn't really work since, again, as far as I can tell, Mr. Cummings was brought in as a government advisor to Johnson and had a position and office specifically established for him, and is able to hire/fire other government employees that are below rank to him (or at least the aides to his fellow advisors). Giuliani has no such "Assets," in terms of governmental influence. I assume this also means, as hinted in the BBC article you linked, that when Trump no longer has any use for Giuliani, it'll be significantly easier to fire him.

Fun fact: During some research I found that Mr. Giuliani, at one point during Trumps presidential campaign, claimed that in the eight years before Obama, there was not a single successful Islamic attack on U.S. soil. What makes it funnier/sadder (depending on your outlook) was that Giuliani was the mayor of New York City when 9/11 took place.

Hell, if I were Trump, I would happily throw that man under the bus after saying something as silly as that. :lol:

Also, this Cummings fellow seems like an absolute jerk.
 
I remain confused about Giuliani's actual role and employer. Does he work for the USA (US state paid, formal government role) or for Trump (Trump paid, private role)? @Dotini mentioned Dominic Cummings (special adviser to Johnson and a primary architect of New Brexit) but I'm not aware that special advisers of that type undertake foreign "diplomacy" or any other governmental front-facing role.

The sacked US Ambassador to the Ukraine believes that one of the reasons for her dismissal was her questioning of Giuliani's role in Ukraine and his failure to go through official channels. Anyway, looks like Giuliani is another divisive figure of the Trump era who's being pushed away towards a fall.
Great question, potentially opening extended discussion. Unofficial presidential advisors with tremendous influence have unquestionably played a role in American and world history. I have no idea how long the list is. Below is the merest start.

In the 4(!) administrations of Franklin Roosevelt there was a network of unofficial advisors that later came to be called The Brain Trust. Among the many members were Harry Hopkins and Rexford Guy Tugwell. Hopkins was Roosevelt's chief diplomatic troubleshooter and liaison with Churchill and Stalin.

James F Byrnes was a key advisor aka "assistant president" to Harry Truman. Truman made some of the most extraordinary changes to American government, including what some have termed the National Security State, but that's another story.

Harry Lloyd Hopkins (August 17, 1890 – January 29, 1946) was an American social worker, the 8th Secretary of Commerce, and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's closest advisor on foreign policy during World War II. He was one of the architects of the New Deal,[1] especially the relief programs of the Works Progress Administration (WPA), which he directed and built into the largest employer in the country. In World War II, he was Roosevelt's chief diplomatic troubleshooter and liaison with Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin. He supervised the $50 billion Lend Lease program of military aid to the Allies.

Born in Iowa, Hopkins settled in New York City after he graduated from Grinnell College. He accepted a position in New York City's Bureau of Child Welfare and worked for various social work and public health organizations. He was elected president of the National Association of Social Workers in 1923. In 1931, Jesse I. Straus hired Hopkins as the executive director of New York's Temporary Emergency Relief Administration. His leadership of the program earned the attention of Roosevelt, then the governor of New York, and Roosevelt brought Hopkins into his presidential administration after his victory in the 1932 presidential election. Hopkins supervised the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the Civil Works Administration, and the Works Progress Administration. He also served as Secretary of Commerce from 1938 to 1940.

Hopkins served as an important foreign policy adviser and diplomat during World War II. He was a key policy maker in the Lend-Lease program that sent $50 billion in aid to the Allies; Winston Churchill in his memoirs devotes a veritable panegyric to this "natural leader of men" who had "a flaming soul".[2] Hopkins dealt with "priorities, production, political problems with allies, strategy—in short, with anything that might concern the president".[3] He attended the major conferences of the Allied powers, including the Cairo Conference, the Tehran Conference, the Casablanca Conference, and the Yalta Conference. His health declined after 1939 due to stomach cancer, and Hopkins died in 1946 at the age of 55.


The Kitchen Cabinet was a term used by political opponents of President of the United States Andrew Jackson to describe his ginger group, the collection of unofficial advisors he consulted in parallel to the United States Cabinet (the "parlor cabinet") following his purge of the cabinet at the end of the Eaton affair and his break with Vice President John C. Calhoun in 1831.[1][2]
 
Last edited:
In the 4(!) administrations of Franklin Roosevelt there was a network of unofficial advisors that later came to be called The Brain Trust.

Would anyone seriously suggest Rudy Giuliani could be part of a group referred to as "The Brain Trust"? :boggled:
 
One of the duties of the legislative branch is to serve as a check against abuses of the executive branch. In doing this, the legislative branch serves the People.

Correct, but its the senate, that also serves the people, that will vote on impeachment.

edit:

So what? This is doubly irrelevant.

For one, impeachment isn't a question of popular opinion; it's a duty of the job they the were elected and sworn to do.

For another, looking at it from a popularity/politics standpoint, there is zero overlap between Trump supporters and the folks who voted for the Democratic representatives who would be the driving force behind any impeachment.
If you look at it black and white you are right. However politically and strategically it isnt always the smartest move.

I'm not talking about the media or what bills he got passed. I'm taking about the impeachment witch hunt...

He actually did the things he is being accused of. You can have the opinion it isnt impeachable, but a witch hunt it is not.
 
Last edited:
Are you telling me the calls for impeachment back in November/December 2016, which was before he even took office, weren't a witch hunt?

No. there was contact between a foreign power and the Trump campaign. There just wasnt enough evidence if it was out of ignorance or coordinated. Remember that Trump refused to be interviewed in person and he did "not recall" more then 30 times in his written answers. Now tell me if an innocent person does not recall 30 answers? So hardly a witch hunt.

And secondly the current impeachment inquiry is about what he did in 2019 and not 2016.

edit: I didnt even mention the obstruction of justice.
 
Last edited:
Fun fact: During some research I found that Mr. Giuliani, at one point during Trumps presidential campaign, claimed that in the eight years before Obama, there was not a single successful Islamic attack on U.S. soil. What makes it funnier/sadder (depending on your outlook) was that Giuliani was the mayor of New York City when 9/11 took place.
jawdrop.gif


Would anyone seriously suggest Rudy Giuliani could be part of a group referred to as "The Brain Trust"? :boggled:
pomo-1-jpg.725567


Correct, but its the senate, that also serves the people, that will vote on impeachment.
Nope.

Congress investigates and potentially tries a civil officer. This investigation can begin a variety of ways, but the way it proceeds (through impeachment and the subsequent trial and acquittal or conviction) is very specific.

The lower legislative branch (the House), occupied by representatives of congressional districts throughout the country (435 voting members in total), is tasked with bringing about impeachment proceedings by levying charges (referred to as articles of impeachment) against the officer and voting, through simple majority with 218 of those voting members deciding to impeach or not. The civil officer is then impeached or not.

The upper legislative branch (the Senate), occupied by two Senators per state (100 total), is then tasked with trying the civil officer on those charges. A conviction requires 67 of those 100 members to vote guilty (a two-thirds majority) and results in removal from office.

Acquittal does not result in removal, however the impeachment remains. Though not convicted (there were 45 guilty votes, if memory serves, with a number of Republican Senators voting not guilty), Bill Clinton was still impeached.

If you look at it black and white you are right.
Nope, he's just correct. No qualifier needed.

However politically and strategically it isnt always the smartest move.
Favoring strategy in the face of these accusations, if verified, constitutes failure to serve the People.
 
View attachment 857386


pomo-1-jpg.725567



Nope.

Congress investigates and potentially tries a civil officer. This investigation can begin a variety of ways, but the way it proceeds (through impeachment and the subsequent trial and acquittal or conviction) is very specific.

The lower legislative branch (the House), occupied by representatives of congressional districts throughout the country (435 voting members in total), is tasked with bringing about impeachment proceedings by levying charges (referred to as articles of impeachment) against the officer and voting, through simple majority with 218 of those voting members deciding to impeach or not. The civil officer is then impeached or not.

The upper legislative branch (the Senate), occupied by two Senators per state (100 total), is then tasked with trying the civil officer on those charges. A conviction requires 67 of those 100 members to vote guilty (a two-thirds majority) and results in removal from office.

Acquittal does not result in removal, however the impeachment remains. Though not convicted (there were 45 guilty votes, if memory serves, with a number of Republican Senators voting not guilty), Bill Clinton was still impeached.


Nope, he's just correct. No qualifier needed.


Favoring strategy in the face of these accusations, if verified, constitutes failure to serve the People.

Thanks for the explanation. Edit: So the house will vote on impeachment and the senate on removal?

I just hope it wont help Trump on another 4 years.
 
Last edited:
I just hope it wont help Trump on another 4 years.

It's clear that there are many pro-Trump voters who are willing and able to look past his "interesting" personality and repugnant actions and who will continue to support him. The pro-Trump press spin is that attacks on Trump are attacks on them/America, a spin which strengthens and emboldens Trump (the biggest fan of pro-Trump media, yoogest, great media). I wouldn't like to bet against Trump being in the White House for another term, and to then be followed by another of the Trump clan. Probably Ivanka.
 
If the Dem Nominee is solid in the Rust Belt, Trump has no chance though especially since atleast on paper his support is slipping in those areas.
 
So the house will vote on impeachment and the senate on removal?
Article I of the Constitution holds that only the House of Representatives may impeach a civil officer and only the Senate may try the impeached and either acquit or convict, with result of conviction not exceeding removal from office and forfeit of privileges that an officer is granted upon leaving office by conventional means.

The former (impeachment) certainly doesn't guarantee the latter (removal), but the latter cannot happen without the former.

I just hope it wont help Trump on another 4 years.
As I said before, I'm not certain that's a legitimate concern. But even if it is, it's not a reason to not move forward.

Undoubtedly, there are those who see impeachment as purely partisan posturing and who will be motivated by it to support Trump, but the overwhelming majority of these people are those who have already pledged their support and who are unlikely to withdraw it. These are the same people who have pounced on the notion that it's a witch hunt and who focus on where allegations are coming from rather than the allegations themselves.
 
Well the goalposts have shifted A LOT...
(not by you but, the "investigation".

Reminds me of Kavanaugh...

This is primarily the fault of the media (all media) and its inability to convey what's going on. Liberal media made it sound like the investigation for Trump's 2016 antics was the start of the impeachment process and the conservative media branded it a witch hunt. They're taking the same position again with the 2019 inquiry. The dealings with Russia were simply an investigation to put the pieces together and see if there was any evidence. With Ukraine, there are actual witnesses that are bringing information forward that had some sort of credibility to it, there's also a recording as well. It's highly likely Trump broke the law in his dealings with Ukraine and at the very least he's absolutely guilty of obstruction of justice. There's also a committee now and a formal inquiry for impeachment.

It more or less comes down to in 2016, Trump was probably guilty but there wasn't enough concrete evidence for a conviction/impeachment. In 2019 though, there is concrete evidence, plus two witnesses, and Trump even admitted (sorta) what he did along with insinuating the whistleblower should be killed.

The same thing happened with Kavanaugh too. Was he guilty of rape? Probably, but it happened so long ago that there wasn't any evidence. I think Kavanaugh is a real slimeball, but overall the verdict was the correct one since you shouldn't be able to convict someone without a shred of evidence.
 
What Dem is strong in the rust belt?
Biden and Sanders, and to a lesser extent Warren.

Still early days though, once the field is down to the main 3 who look to be the only real chances at winning, that's when the polling will get more accurate.

I don't see that happening until after a few primaries next year though.
 
This is primarily the fault of the media (all media) and its inability to convey what's going on. Liberal media made it sound like the investigation for Trump's 2016 antics was the start of the impeachment process and the conservative media branded it a witch hunt. They're taking the same position again with the 2019 inquiry. The dealings with Russia were simply an investigation to put the pieces together and see if there was any evidence. With Ukraine, there are actual witnesses that are bringing information forward that had some sort of credibility to it, there's also a recording as well. It's highly likely Trump broke the law in his dealings with Ukraine and at the very least he's absolutely guilty of obstruction of justice. There's also a committee now and a formal inquiry for impeachment.

It more or less comes down to in 2016, Trump was probably guilty but there wasn't enough concrete evidence for a conviction/impeachment. In 2019 though, there is concrete evidence, plus two witnesses, and Trump even admitted (sorta) what he did along with insinuating the whistleblower should be killed.

The same thing happened with Kavanaugh too. Was he guilty of rape? Probably, but it happened so long ago that there wasn't any evidence. I think Kavanaugh is a real slimeball, but overall the verdict was the correct one since you shouldn't be able to convict someone without a shred of evidence.

not only the liberal media. At least they have fairly stayed consistent. The trump supporters and righting media are most guilty themselves. Trumps has shifted positions, lied and deceived all for his own purposes. Yet rightwing media and mostly his supporters fail to call him out, when he betrays his own words.

 
Has any former ally in recent memory been thrown under the bus as quickly as the Kurds? Even the Lienz Cossacks were treated better than this.
 
Dropping. Like. Flies.

Rick Perry to vacate Trump administration Secretary of Energy position by year's end.

Perry, 69, is one of Trump's original Cabinet members and recently has emerged as a central figure in the impeachment inquiry of Trump.

Perry was part of what was dubbed "the three amigos" — in addition to Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the European Union, and Kurt Volker, former envoy to Ukraine — charged with managing the U.S.-Ukraine relationship after the White House removed the core of its Ukraine policy team last spring.

Trump reportedly blamed Perry earlier this month for that now-famous call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in which Trump pressed Zelenskiy to investigate his potential political rival former Vice President Joe Biden and Biden's son.
...

And, sadly, civil rights powerhouse Rep. Elijah Cummings has passed at 68.
 
Cheeky, but accurately it’s the relative high minimum wage and unions that cause the higher unemployment rate. Allowing businesses to pay a below living wage does wonders for the unemployment rate.

Yes, there is an inverse correlation with number of jobs and a minimum required wage for those jobs. The higher the minimum, the fewer the jobs. Somehow this gets routinely ignored in minimum wage discussions, but thank you for acknowledging it.
 
Yes, there is an inverse correlation with number of jobs and a minimum required wage for those jobs. The higher the minimum, the fewer the jobs. Somehow this gets routinely ignored in minimum wage discussions, but thank you for acknowledging it.

Again it might surprise some on this forum, but in Europe I would be considered (center) right. Still left in the us political spectrum probably though.
 
Back