Thoughts on the Trump presidency

[najaB]

I doubt it’ll fade - the BBC will quite rightly want to recover their costs (and possibly now have a claim for defamation themselves -Though I suspect in that front it would be wise to let sleeping rabid dogs lie)

They (the BBC) would likely have to wait until he demits office in any case as bringing a suit against the person holding the office of POTUS wouldn't be a good look, and would likely result in capricious tariffs being imposed on the UK.

 

[brad465]

Could be a setback for Trump in his libel case against the BBC.

Judge rules Trump must hand over financial records sought by BBC in defamation case

The judge grants a motion to compel the release of files held by the Donald J Trump Revocable Trust.

www.bbc.co.uk

In other news, Trump drops his lawsuit....

(That hasn't happened yet by the way, but I suspect he's going to let this fade away)

This reminds me of the QI episode Justice, where they did an item on defamation, centred around Alan Davies allegedly having a small *****. Stephen Fry explained that if you want to defame someone, come up with an accusation that someone would never sue for, because they'd end up having to release embarrassing information.

In Trump's case this is even worse for him, because he himself initiated the legal action and is now being ordered to release information that would be far more damaging to him than if he just kept his mouth shut, even if he was genuinely defamed with that documentary.

 

[dorsetdesiro]

More of the usual ranting & rambling diatribe from the Dear Orange Leader at last night's press dinner, slurring about "fake news" etc.

Word is going round he's on the downward decline healthwise (hasn't he been since 2016 or even before that??) and looking irreversible, make of it what you will.

He could possibly expire without facing prosecutions etc.

 

[swt_passenger]

Has anyone been following the case of the Lincoln memorial reflecting pool ‘vandalism’. He’s exaggerated that to the nth degree, (notable for a “300 yard cut” that extended in length every few days), and his tame lawyers have piled in with those media briefings against an accused individual, and it just seems to me it’s a completely fabricated accusation.

 

[DelW]

Has anyone been following the case of the Lincoln memorial reflecting pool ‘vandalism’. He’s exaggerated that to the nth degree, (notable for a “300 yard cut” that extended in length every few days), and his tame lawyers have piled in with those media briefings against an accused individual, and it just seems to me it’s a completely fabricated accusation.

At different times 100ft, 250ft, 300ft, 350ft, and 300yds. As usual, Trump just invents a random number that he thinks sounds impressive.

It will be interesting to see what happens when any of the cases reaches a court. There's no evidence of anyone carrying out the supposed vandalism, despite lots of cameras around the area, and the accused seem only to have touched material that had already peeled up. But I'd have no faith in American justice if they come up against a Trump appointed judge.

Touch a piece of pond liner: 10 years in jail (potentially)
Trash the Capitol and physically attack senators or police: presidential pardon
Trump's world.

 

[SuspectUsual]

And now Trump is saying that Lebron James "might be racist". He's seriously unwell

 

[najaB]

It will be interesting to see what happens when any of the cases reaches a court. There's no evidence of anyone carrying out the supposed vandalism, despite lots of cameras around the area, and the accused seem only to have touched material that had already peeled up.

It's also instructive that the contractor is apparently fixing the lining as a warranty repair, which lends strong credence to the idea that the liner wasn't applied correctly in the first place.

 

[Harpo]

It's also instructive that the contractor is apparently fixing the lining as a warranty repair, which lends strong credence to the idea that the liner wasn't applied correctly in the first place.

….or maybe it suggests that a supplier doesn’t want the risk of Trump turning on them?

 

[najaB]

….or maybe it suggests that a supplier doesn’t want the risk of Trump turning on them?

In which case their best course of action would be to say "The lining was 100% perfect. Nobody's ever seen a lining like it. It must have been damaged by those radical left, Antifa vandals."

By letting it be known publicly that they are even considering doing the repairs under warranty they are directly undercutting DJT's position.

 

[SuspectUsual]

By letting it be known publicly that they are even considering doing the repairs under warranty they are directly undercutting DJT's position

Undermining Trump’s statement that it was lefty vandalism in exchange for saying the installation wasn’t done correctly may not be great for business

 

[najaB]

Undermining Trump’s statement that it was lefty vandalism in exchange for saying the installation wasn’t done correctly may not be great for business

Indeed. They've got two good reasons to say it was vandals - staying on DJT's good side, and advertising quality work - so I'm somewhat surprised that they're being honest enough to admit that it was a rush job.

Edit: In another "big-tech is always listening" moment, this showed up on my Facebook feed:

Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10164632113579308&set=a.10152578621889308

I'm open to the idea that it looks worse than it actually is because of sediment, but that really doesn't look like the lining was uniformly applied. And there's no sign of any sizable gash, be it 200 feet, 350 feet, or 300 yards long.

 

[dorsetdesiro]

Oh dear, looks like tarmac like a runway for Trump's grifted Kuwaiti AF1 to land on!

 

[DelW]

Oh dear, looks like tarmac like a runway for Trump's grifted Kuwaiti AF1 to land on!

Qatari not Kuwaiti, though it makes no real difference.

Considering the lining was claimed to last a hundred years, going from "American flag blue" to dirty grey in a few weeks is not a good look.

 

[najaB]

The price of oil sank more than 9% on Monday on hopes that a pause in attacks between US and Iran could help lead to a resolution to the conflict.

Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil, dipped below $88 a barrel, marking a sharp turnaround from last week when it had risen above $100.

The fall came after the US ambassador to the UN said attacks on Iran had been halted for a second night in a row to give "talks some space".

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyj834jn5lo

I can't imagine that anyone made any money by short-trading oil over the last week or so.

 

[The exile]

Indeed. They've got two good reasons to say it was vandals - staying on DJT's good side, and advertising quality work - so I'm somewhat surprised that they're being honest enough to admit that it was a rush job.

Someone is perhaps following Sir Humphrey’s sage advice: “Always tell the press everything… that they can find out for themselves’ (That was, at least, the gist - I’m sure the original was pithier)

 

[Annetts key]

Someone is perhaps following Sir Humphrey’s sage advice: “Always tell the press everything… that they can find out for themselves’ (That was, at least, the gist - I’m sure the original was pithier)

Quite frankly, if the U.S. used the British system where the "higher level" civil service staff were a permanent professional civil service, rather than a politically appointed civil service, it's possible that the U.S. government would be in less of a mess. Trump (or any of his 'appointees') would not then have been able to dismiss so many knowledgeable and experienced staff... At least, not so easily.

 

[najaB]

Quite frankly, if the U.S. used the British system where the "higher level" civil service staff were a permanent professional civil service, rather than a politically appointed civil service, it's possible that the U.S. government would be in less of a mess. Trump (or any of his 'appointees') would not then have been able to dismiss so many knowledgeable and experienced staff... At least, not so easily.

Ah, but they did have such a system. While the heads of departments and agencies are mostly political appointments, the fact that they have to go through a senate confirmation process means (in theory at least) that there is a check on the power of the Executive to appoint completely unsuitable people into head of agency roles. In addition there was a law in place that prevented the President from firing non-political roles (think department heads and the senior staff) who most commonly have worked their way up through the organisation and have that critical institutional knowledge.

I say "did have" because the GOP-controlled Senate has declined to use its power over appointments, and the law against executive meddling in the senior agency staff was recently struck down by a Supreme Court ruling:

In a landmark 6-3 decision (Trump v. Slaughter), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the president can fire leaders of independent regulatory agencies without cause. The decision explicitly overrules the 90-year-old precedent Humphrey’s Executor, significantly expanding presidential control over the executive branch.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jul 2026 ==

President Donald Trump has ordered that the Smithsonian Museum of American History post signs telling visitors its exhibits are presenting inaccurate information.

Trump issued an executive order on Friday ordering that the "warning" signs be placed in front of the museum informing visitors that they are about to be subjected to "inaccurate information presented in the Museum."

The decision comes on the heels of a July 4 report from the White House that ruled the Smithsonian “cannot be trusted to tell America’s story honestly and in a way that is inspiring, unifying, and worthy of our great republic.”

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...arning-signs-smithsonian-museum-b3021508.html

Seems very "Ministry of Truth" to me.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Quite frankly, if the U.S. used the British system where the "higher level" civil service staff were a permanent professional civil service, rather than a politically appointed civil service, it's possible that the U.S. government would be in less of a mess.

The US should have copied the British but, instead, the British copied the US. The senior civil service is now political.

the law against executive meddling in the senior agency staff was recently struck down by a Supreme Court ruling

Sadly, this level of political interference from the judiciary is something else that the British are now copying from the US.

 

[The exile]

The US should have copied the British but, instead, the British copied the US. The senior civil service is now political.


Sadly, this level of political interference from the judiciary is something else that the British are now copying from the US.

It’s an unfortunately side-effect (or is it in fact an inevitable consequence?) of the call for “accountability”.

 

[najaB]

Did anyone else view highlights of DJT's speech at the White House correspondent's dinner last Friday? It was painful.

 

[brad465]

Did anyone else view highlights of DJT's speech at the White House correspondent's dinner last Friday? It was painful.

Plenty of sundowning in it.

 

[Strathclyder]

Did anyone else view highlights of DJT's speech at the White House correspondent's dinner last Friday? It was painful.

Was it the usual self-martyring tripe, petulant whinging and all-round nonsensical ramblings of a mentally decrepit despot bent on dying in office? If so, I won't be missing much by not watching it. Sticking forks in my ears and eyes would be a better use of my time.

 

[najaB]

Was it the usual self-martyring tripe, petulant whinging and all-round nonsensical ramblings of a mentally decrepit despot bent on dying in office? If so, I won't be missing much by not watching it. Sticking forks in my ears and eyes would be a better use of my time.

To his credit he realised that he wasn't speaking at a MAGA rally so didn't roll out all of the top hits, which made things far worse because he had to come up with somewhat original material. Which fell flatter than the flattest thing ever.

Over the weekend the second attempt at the White House Correspondents' Dinner went underway, after the first attempt earlier in the year was called off due to an active shooter situation.

Despite this, the President didn't seem to use the extended rehearsal time to make his speech make any more sense.

To his credit, he did manage a couple of somewhat funny jokes, in among the rambling.

 

[dosxuk]

Sadly, this level of political interference from the judiciary is something else that the British are now copying from the US.

I would disagree here - I'd say it's more that people are wanting the judiciary to get involved in things they would normally not decide on. Generally when they make a decision which causes furore, in amongst the detail is "this is what we found when we looked at the specific wording of the law, and if the law gets changed then all this is moot" type messages. They're very clear that their job is to uphold and clarify the meaning of the words that have been approved by parliament, and if those decisions go against what the public or politicians think it should be, there's already established processes for changing and clarifying that. And they're right - look at how quick the Government can act to pass a one line bill to allow them to do something when they want to.

Politicians hiding behind the "well, we agree with you, we think things should change, but the judiciary are stopping us" are the problem - but then "well, I agree with you, but quite a lot of people don't, and it'll be really difficult to get any sort of change through parliament because we don't have the votes" doesn't sell as well in a 30s TikTok post.

 

[Purple Train]

I would disagree here - I'd say it's more that people are wanting the judiciary to get involved in things they would normally not decide on. Generally when they make a decision which causes furore, in amongst the detail is "this is what we found when we looked at the specific wording of the law, and if the law gets changed then all this is moot" type messages. They're very clear that their job is to uphold and clarify the meaning of the words that have been approved by parliament, and if those decisions go against what the public or politicians think it should be, there's already established processes for changing and clarifying that. And they're right - look at how quick the Government can act to pass a one line bill to allow them to do something when they want to.

Politicians hiding behind the "well, we agree with you, we think things should change, but the judiciary are stopping us" are the problem - but then "well, I agree with you, but quite a lot of people don't, and it'll be really difficult to get any sort of change through parliament because we don't have the votes" doesn't sell as well in a 30s TikTok post.

Very well said. I'm not saying the judiciary is perfect or saintly, but I think it does come in for some unnecessary criticism at times. Probably a by-product of the politicised judiciary in the States, which has to be up there with Burger King as one of the worst things invented by man.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Generally when they make a decision which causes furore, in amongst the detail is "this is what we found when we looked at the specific wording of the law, and if the law gets changed then all this is moot" type messages. They're very clear that their job is to uphold and clarify the meaning of the words that have been approved by parliament, and if those decisions go against what the public or politicians think it should be, there's already established processes for changing and clarifying that.

I'm not saying the judiciary is perfect or saintly, but I think it does come in for some unnecessary criticism at times.

Until quite recently I would probably have agreed with you both. But I am becoming increasingly troubled by some of the decisions being made by the UK judiciary and the links that those judges have to others. Dame Victoria Sharp and her brother is a notable example, but certainly not the only one.

Some of the decisions in the various Palestine Action cases are very odd and underhand and it's very hard for me to escape making the conclusion that there are political shenanigans behind them.

Geoffrey Robinson KC explains it better than I:

You may not sympathise with the Elbit four’s methods. But you should be outraged by their treatment under the law | Geoffrey Robertson

The jurors who found the pro-Palestine activists guilty of criminal damage had no idea their verdict would be treated as a verdict on terrorism, says Geoffrey Robertson KC

www.theguardian.com

The first group of defendants underwent not one, but two trials. At their first, they faced several charges, the gravest being aggravated burglary. Their leading counsel, Rajiv Menon KC, took to the floor to remind the jury of their historical right to acquit, and invited them to weigh the use to which the drones were being put. The judge, Mr Justice Johnson, referred Menon to the high court to be tried for the crime of contempt of court for breaching his order not to mention the jury’s right to acquit. The jury, however, went on to acquit the defendants of aggravated burglary. But they could not come to a majority decision on any of the remaining charges.

The prosecution decided that the defendants must face a retrial. This proceeded with the same Mr Justice Johnson presiding on the charges the first jury could not resolve: criminal damage, an offence ordinarily met with a fine or a sentence of 18 months or so. At this point, the four had already spent more than 18 months in pretrial detention. The second jury convicted the Elbit four of criminal damage.

One defendant was also convicted of grievous bodily harm without intent, having injured a female police officer with a sledgehammer. He said, and the jury must have accepted that, disoriented by the Pava pepper spray the officer had just deployed, he had swung the hammer to shield a co-defendant, accidentally hitting the police officer. His sentence nonetheless was seven years and eight months.

How does damaging property earn nearly eight years? At a secret hearing during the first trial, Mr Justice Johnson had ruled that the protest carried a “terrorist connection”. This was unprecedented in the history of direct action trials. His reasoning was that the defendants’ purpose was to “influence” the British government – which is the purpose of almost every political protest ever mounted. The judge’s ruling was kept secret from both the jury and the public, and the UK press was barred from reporting on it.

 

[ainsworth74]

Until quite recently I would probably have agreed with you both. But I am becoming increasingly troubled by some of the decisions being made by the UK judiciary and the links that those judges have to others. Dame Victoria Sharp and her brother is a notable example, but certainly not the only one.

Some of the decisions in the various Palestine Action cases are very odd and underhand and it's very hard for me to escape making the conclusion that there are political shenanigans behind them.

Geoffrey Robinson KC explains it better than I:

You may not sympathise with the Elbit four’s methods. But you should be outraged by their treatment under the law | Geoffrey Robertson

The jurors who found the pro-Palestine activists guilty of criminal damage had no idea their verdict would be treated as a verdict on terrorism, says Geoffrey Robertson KC

www.theguardian.com

Yes, no problem personally throwing the book at the Elbit thugs (and as far as I'm concerned thugs is what they are) but if the State wanted them to receive terrorism sentences then the State should have charged them with terrorism offences and had to put to proof that they were terrorists within the legal requirements of that branch of law.

Instead thanks to a slight of hand slipped into the Sentencing Act 2020 (Section 69 I think specifically) now a variety of offences can be be considered terrorism even when the State has not charged them as such. Crackers. I wait for any Government of any stripe to repeal this absurd provision. I fear I will wait a long time however...

But that's the extent of my sympathy for them. Ram raid an arms factory and start waving sledgehammers at security guards and police and then fracture a police officers spine? Nah, get in the bin. Not the terrorist bin. But the bin nonetheless.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yes, no problem personally throwing the book at the Elbit thugs (and as far as I'm concerned thugs is what they are) but if the State wanted them to receive terrorism sentences then the State should have charged them with terrorism offences

It’s the way they’ve gone after their defence barrister for having the temerity to point out that juries can acquit according to conscience that really bothers me. It’s a fundamental part of the UK judicial system and they seem determined to try and eradicate it.

The judge who approved that prosecution, Nicklin, was also the one who somehow managed to decide that the Daily Mail hadn’t been hacking Prince Harry’s phones. But I’m sure it’s all above board.

They probably were thugs but the first jury couldn’t reach a conclusion. It seems like the defence barrister pointing out the right to acquit may have swayed it. Going after him is clearly, in my opinion, judicial politicking and judicial retribution.

There’s also the appeal against the terrorism proscription, with the learned judge in that case saying that it’s not like the Suffragette movement because the Suffragettes didn’t do any criminal damage. Erm, say what?

Not to mention some of Silas Reid’s more questionable pronouncements during the various Extinction Rebellion trials. He’s another one who tried to have people done for contempt of court for pointing out that juries are free to acquit according to conscience. And, weirdly, despite the controversy, he kept being allocated to more of the Extinction Rebellion trials. I don’t see how that isn’t anything other than a deliberate political choice by the judiciary.

I don’t have any sympathy for either group, but how the judiciary are so blatantly (in my opinion) acting under political instruction should scare all of us.

And don’t even get me started on the trans case. Five of Britain’s most conservative judges, one of whom sits on the Church synod, decide that Parliament didn’t really mean what they said in Hansard that they meant. Nobody is ever going to convince me that that wasn’t a political decision.

In my honest opinion, the only difference now between the UK and the US is that the US judiciary are open about their politics.

 

[najaB]

And don’t even get me started on the trans case. Five of Britain’s most conservative judges, one of whom sits on the Church synod, decide that Parliament didn’t really mean what they said in Hansard that they meant. Nobody is ever going to convince me that that wasn’t a political decision.

Taking that as fact, then it's more important than ever to ensure that the legislature is populated by people who put people's right to exist ahead of ideology, and who will make the intent of law clear and explicit.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Aug 2026 ==

By letting it be known publicly that they are even considering doing the repairs under warranty they are directly undercutting DJT's position.

So...

The Department of Justice has dropped their case against the former Olympian who they had charged with criminally damaging the Reflecting Pool lining, admitting that the installation was flawed:

DOJ is seeking to dismiss charges against the Olympic canoeist David Hearn after admitting that the damage he was charged with causing at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool "was the result of flawed installation by the contractor."

 

[dorsetdesiro]

There's a viral video clip going round of Lindsey Graham's funeral service, a bloke was seen grimacing in disgust behind the Orange Oaf likely being flatulent as he dozed off