Post New

US crackdown chokes off Venezuelan oil exports, reshaping global crude flows

Since then (Jan 3, Maduro snatch), Venezuela’s oil exports have plunged by roughly 75%, sharply reducing a key source of revenue for the former regime. Subsequent shipments were limited to U.S.-bound cargoes under license or crude reserved for domestic fuel production, according to shipping intelligence firm Kpler.

Tankers have recently delivered Venezuelan oil to Gulf Coast hubs including Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana, where refineries are equipped to process heavy crude. At the same time, U.S. authorities have intensified enforcement against a so-called shadow fleet moving sanctioned oil, seizing multiple tankers and diverting some to Texas waters.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/us-crackdo...

Next project, take Iranian crude off the market. Then, if "certain people" get very greedy, invent an excuse to take Iraq off line.

Steve

Steve you think out of the box which is fascinating to me despite what I' sure is some philosophical disagreement.

Question....

Do you feel it's the oil companies wanting to choke off oil production from those countries to jack up the price?

If so.....

Doesn't Trump want lower oil prices to help mid-terms and inflation?

Next project, take Iranian crude off the market. Then, if "certain people" get very greedy, invent an excuse to take Iraq off line.

I really don't understand why you think that Trump wants higher oil prices. He doesn't. He wants low oil prices. That's not his only priority, and he doesn't always do things that are smart, so he certainly might do something that has the effect of raising oil prices. But that's not something that's a goal of his policy, and he's not going to go out of his way to take an action to raise oil prices for that purpose. His preferred oil price is $50 per barrel.

On the bright side, if you're an anti-Trumper--

By choking off the international flow of a good bit of oil supply, perhaps this will encourage more development of alternative energy sources?

There's an op ed today in the NY Times which I haven't yet read, but something about how China's battery technology will basically take over the energy world.

Maybe this just pushes things further in that direction, faster.

trump has never really 'wanted' anything for voters that have served their purpose, unless there is non-coincidental benefit for himself first, friends&family next.

why waste the broad self-running rightwing propaganda machine that can state affordability is a fake word?
(and any other narrative they need to echo)
sure, it makes it a bit easier when gas is the one item trending down, but propaganda would be utilized on whatever happened to be going down. in 2024, gop voters were complaining about the lot ; cars, homes, groceries,...

trump has never really 'wanted' anything for voters that have served their purpose, unless there is non-coincidental benefit for himself first, friends&family next.

Well, that's the cynical attitude I was channeling. Neither Trump nor his Administration benefits from higher oil prices. High oil prices - and high gas prices - are disliked by the American public, and he wants the GOP to hold the House in the midterms. So other things being equal, he has no reason to want higher oil prices.

His oil company donors from the last election might prefer higher oil prices. But Trump has no reason to take their preferences into account.

Doesn't Trump want lower oil prices to help mid-terms and inflation?

Did the GOP want lower oil prices in 2008, or any time during the Bush junta?

Graph of retail gas prices, from the early 90s, from the EIA

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/leafhandler.ashx...

The Bush junta was headed by two people with close ties to the oil industry. Remember the chatter that invading Iraq would lead to dramatically *lower* prices? Remember the excuses about "WMDs", and "9/11"? All lies. Only outcome was higher prices, which was a completely predictable outcome, from disrupting Iraqi production with an invasion.

At the same time, in 2008, that prices were soaring, and the media hype and hysteria machine was in overdrive about "peak oil", Bush was tightening supply even more, by buying up more oil for the SPR.

Now, the Trump regime, having already throttled Venezuelan production, is talking about taking more oil off the market, by adding to the SPR. The SPR is redundant, because the US has more than enough domestic production to meet current needs, so why would Trump want to put more in the SPR, other than to tighten supplies on the market?

Jan 16, 2026

Trump Admin Weighs Oil Swap With Venezuela for Strategic Petroleum Reserve

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-doe-venezuela-oil-e...

Same NeoCon ideology driving now. Does Trump care about drug trafficking in Venezuela? The DEA has had it's eyes on Dulcy Rodriguez for years. Trump pardoned the coke trafficking former President of Honduras, and the meth trafficking son of an Arkansas GOP Congressman. Does Trump give a whit about Iranian demonstrators? He has suggested demonstrators in the US be shot. It's all about excuses to attack other people's oil production.

Remember how Bush leveraged the soaring price of gas in 08, to push for deregulation of the oil industry? I remember him pushing to eliminate Federal regulation of offshore production, and proposing refineries be built on military bases, to take them outside of state regulation. Now? I commented some days ago, about an advert from the API, advocating for more deregulation, that has been running constantly on TYT over the last couple weeks.

Steve

take Iranian crude off the market. PLUS: invent an excuse to take Iraq off line.

The last step: Take a lot of US refinery capacity offline by destroying "black market" ships unloading at US refineries and pipelines.

Did the GOP want lower oil prices in 2008, or any time during the Bush junta?

None of that is relevant. Trump doesn't care what the GOP wanted during the Bush period. He doesn't care what "the GOP" wants today.

You have this thesis that Trump wants higher oil prices. That he is motivated, in some way, to create higher oil prices. In another thread, you suggested this was because the oil companies donated a lot to his campaign. But Trump wouldn't care about that - there's almost nothing in his history that suggests he's inclined to "pay off" past favors if they don't serve his current interests.

Regardless of whether you think Trump is motivated by traditional political concerns or just rank graft, he has absolutely no reason to seek out higher oil prices. Traditionally, higher oil prices are deeply unpopular with voters and serve as a drag on economic growth. Plenty of past administrations have been willing to have that happen in pursuit of other policy goals (like Bush with the Iraq invasion), but the consequence of higher oil prices is generally negative for their economic policy. And on graft, Trump has virtually no personal economic interests with oil companies - he's mostly on the real estate (and now crypto) side, concentrated on all sorts of transactions in the Middle East (and with Middle East governments), which interests would be harmed by a conflict with Iran and Iraq.

Again, I just don't see any plausible explanation for why this Administration would want oil prices to go up.

This administration definitely does not want oil to go up.

All that would do is hurt the economy AND encourage development of more non-fossil fuel energy technology.

Trump is into crypto, not natural resources (as far as anyone has reported at this point).

There is no political gain to Trump by inducing higher oil prices. None.

On this I finally agree with albaby1 about something.

You have this thesis that Trump wants higher oil prices. That he is motivated, in some way, to create higher oil prices. In another thread, you suggested this was because the oil companies donated a lot to his campaign. But Trump wouldn't care about that - there's almost nothing in his history that suggests he's inclined to "pay off" past favors if they don't serve his current interests.

God on Earth Trump rolled back vehicle fuel economy regs, to increase demand for gas. He repealed the incentives for EVs, to reduce alternatives to gas powered cars. He has pulled funding for wind and solar power generation programs, to increase demand for fossil fuel generated power. The regime tried to end the Energy Star program that promoted appliance energy efficiency. This regime is all about increasing demand for fossil fuels.

All you had to do, to see this coming, was listen to Doug Burgum's (formerly Gov of ND, now Sec Interior) speech at the GOP convention, and his ringing endorsement of "gas powered cars". The overall banner was "energy domination". How do you "dominate" global energy markets? The easy way is to bomb or blockade the production of competitors.

If you don't "pay off" for past bribes received, you reduce the probability of the same parties paying more bribes in the future.

Steve

God on Earth Trump rolled back vehicle fuel economy regs, to increase demand for gas. He repealed the incentives for EVs, to reduce alternatives to gas powered cars. He has pulled funding for wind and solar power generation programs, to increase demand for fossil fuel generated power. The regime tried to end the Energy Star program that promoted appliance energy efficiency. This regime is all about increasing demand for fossil fuels.

Sure. Trump hates Green Woke stuff. So do his voters.

That doesn't mean Trump hates low oil prices. Which is voters absolutely do not hate.

If you don't "pay off" for past bribes received, you reduce the probability of the same parties paying more bribes in the future.

So? That's never been Trump's MO. If you don't honor past contracts entered into, you reduce the probability of getting future contracts. If you don't abide by past trade agreements, you reduce the probability of getting future trade agreements. Etc. Trump doesn't care. He breaks deals all the time, he abrogates promises all the time, etc.

Plus, as your earlier recitation points out, the oil companies have already got their return. I'm sure Trump quite reasonably believes that the oil companies have already been well paid in full many times over. It's the approach he takes with all his supporters who aren't happy with how much they got in return for their support - Exhibit A being the anti-abortion right, who are livid that they aren't getting the policies they want and who Trump brushes off by telling them they should be grateful not to have Democrats in charge.

So, no. I think it's still utterly implausible that Trump actually wants oil prices to go up, and that he would be motivated at all to aim towards that goal out of some sense of obligation to the oil companies. Because he never feels a sense of obligation to anyone, and he isn't really in business with the oil companies the way he is with so many other Middle East interests.

If you don't "pay off" for past bribes received, you reduce the probability of the same parties paying more bribes in the future.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/exxon-mobil/summa...

Exxon Gave Trump $65,940

Exxon gave "Kamala" - $135,142 - kudos to her for keeping Fossil Fuel Money -- btw.



Chevron gave "Kamala" $170,000 - kudos again for keeping Fossil Fuel money, btw.

Chevron gave Trump, $59,000.


Kamala was Bush and Cheney rolled into one....

I would think a man who wants heart dictator power like Trump, who also doesn't want to be impeached --- wants the MidTerms to go ok. Not sure how raising gas prices ---will help him.

That doesn't mean Trump hates low oil prices. Which is voters absolutely do not hate.

Part II of Steve’s argument is that Trump no longer needs his voters.

November elections?

What November elections?

“We shouldn’t even have an election.”
Donald Trump- 4 days ago

Oh, come on libs! He’s just making your heads explode!

Renee Good would like a word.

Part II of Steve’s argument is that Trump no longer needs his voters.

The calculus seems to be that, as long as his base sees brown people and libs being beat up on TV, he can get away with anything.

Steve

Part II of Steve’s argument is that Trump no longer needs his voters.

He doesn't need them, but he still is paying an awful lot of attention to things he think will be popular. He's obsessed with getting interest rates down. He's pivoting to affordability, even though he doesn't give a rip about it, because that's what his MAGA voters seem unhappy about.

And he absolutely doesn't want the GOP to lose the House - it diminishes his power and gives the Democrats leverage to tie up his administration in a lot of hearings and other carp.

And even if you conclude that Trump is totally done with conventional political motivations, he still has zero "grifter" interest in high oil prices, and an awful lot of "grifter" interest in avoiding chaos in the Middle East (where he has a lot of deals brewing).

Plus, Trump has nothing but a keen sense of self-preservation. He knows, at some level, that he's torn down the walls around DOJ independence. He also has to know that, should a Democrat retake the WH in 2028, the DOJ might be unleased on all of his business interests, his family, and everyone who's ever done a favor for him...in a way that makes his self-pitying delusions of "lawfare" during his interregnum seem like a gentle caress. So he has an interest in not inviting a blue wave that keeps a GOP successor out of the WH.

The calculus seems to be that, as long as his base sees brown people and libs being beat up on TV, he can get away with anything.

And if he can get away with anything, why would he do something that screws up all his business deals in the Middle East, for the benefit of oil companies he doesn't care about?

So he has an interest in not inviting a blue wave that keeps a GOP successor out of the WH.

The idea that there will be anything like a fair election in 2028 seems increasingly quaint.

And 2026 doesn’t look promising either

The idea that there will be anything like a fair election in 2028 seems increasingly quaint.

Oh, there will absolutely be something like a fair election in 2028 - though it's very possible that neither party will consider it fair, especially if it's close. We're witnessing first-hand the Founders' wisdom in not letting the federal government be in charge of federal elections. That's always been a source of frustration for good-government types who wanted to reform voting measures and reign in state practices they thought were discriminatory. But now that the rubber is hitting the road, having decentralized state governments run their own federal elections outside the thumb of whoever happens to be President is a rather nice thing to have.

It's pretty unlikely that any of the important states for the 2028 election will radically change their election processes from what they've always been. It's exceedingly likely, though, that almost all of them will change their election processes in small ways over the next three years - which small ways will be regarded by whichever party dislikes them as a monumental retreat from the core concept of fair elections. Which won't be true, but which will lead many deep partisans to conclude that the other side is cheating in a way that undermines the fairness of the elections. Even though the elections will still be as roughly fair as they always have been.

And if he can get away with anything, why would he do something that screws up all his business deals in the Middle East, for the benefit of oil companies he doesn't care about?

How many of his personal "deals" in the ME are for only licensing the "Trump" brand (laundered bribes), with other people putting up the cash for the physical developments?

Steve

How many of his personal "deals" in the ME are for only licensing the "Trump" brand (laundered bribes), with other people putting up the cash for the physical developments?

Tons. But they're still the deals that are going to make him a lot of money. It's not in his interest to see those deals disturbed by geopolitical crises. That's not to say he won't do things that might inadvertently blow up in his face, or that he won't be distracted by some other policy objective. But it means that, for the most part, he lines his own pockets more with a stable and "open for business" Middle East than one wracked by war.

So if you're predicting Trump's future action through the lens of his self-interest, it makes no sense to conclude that he would view his self-interest as including "bomb Kharg Island." Ever. It might be in the interest of the oil companies that Trump couldn't give two sharts about, but it's not in his interest.

It's not in his interest to see those deals disturbed by geopolitical crises.

In Gaza, the geopolitical crisis established the conditions that are making his development deal possible,

He also has to know that, should a Democrat retake the WH in 2028, the DOJ might be unleased on all of his business interests, his family, and everyone who's ever done a favor for him...in a way that makes his self-pitying delusions of "lawfare" during his interregnum seem like a gentle caress. So he has an interest in not inviting a blue wave that keeps a GOP successor out of the WH.

If I were that Dem in 2028, that's exactly what I would do. Not anything trumped-up (no pun intended). But going after any legit offenses? Absolutely.

Plus trying to repair all the damage he did to various agencies, and the economy. Hopefully, the tariff thing will be resolved this week (the courts are supposed to issue a ruling this week; and I can't fathom how they would deem the tariffs within POTUS authority).

In Gaza, the geopolitical crisis established the conditions that are making his development deal possible,

Sure. But that's not true of all the deals he's lined up with other countries in the region. Those deals don't benefit from new regional conflict or geopolitical crises - like the U.S. bombing Iranian oil export facilities.

Again, there just isn't a credible reason why he'd want high oil prices - or that he's want to light up Iran for the purpose of getting high oil prices.

I only keep drumming on this because I get the sense that Steve is making some of his stock investments in the oil companies based on this idea that Trump is going to be making policy choices for the deliberate purpose of popping off oil prices...and I just don't see how that tracks with anything we know about him.

So if you're predicting Trump's future action through the lens of his self-interest, it makes no sense to conclude that he would view his self-interest as including "bomb Kharg Island."

How long is his time horizon, for investing decisions? I realize he is the most perfect specimen of vigorous, virile, manhood, the world has ever seen, but he's nearly 80. What I am proposing is, for instance, the Saudi government wants something from him. A prominent Saudi company is planning a new development. The Saudi government says "God in Human Form, Trump the Magnificent, we want this. Our good buddy is planning a new kazillion dollar development. We would like to pay you $100,000,000 to license your brand (wink wink) for his development." The Saudis get what they want, and Trump the Magnificent pockets the up front $100M, rather than waiting for annual royalty payments over the life of the project, while taking credit for the entire kazillion dollar project himself.

Having already taken the Saudis to the cleaners, he can then bomb Kharg Island. Big oil sees the profit in bribing him, so they pay him more, to take out more competitors.

Steve

I get the sense that Steve is making some of his stock investments in the oil companies based on this idea that Trump is going to be making policy choices for the deliberate purpose of popping off oil prices...and I just don't see how that tracks with anything we know about him.

Yes, I am long big USian oil. Have been since the summer of 24. Our difference of opinion is what makes a market. As for how this tracks with Trump's track record, wasn't he on trial for manipulating the claimed value of his properties to, alternately inflate their value as security for loans, or understate their value to cheat on taxes? That, alone, indicates a tendency to manipulate markets for personal profit.

Steve

Having already taken the Saudis to the cleaners, he can then bomb Kharg Island.

Consequences are something he ignores--unless the Saudis decide to remove billions of dollars from investment portfolios managed by his family. So, there WILL be others telling him of possible consequences. Paying attention to the risks is something he MIGHT ignore. But that is a risk HE *might* be told could cost HIM billions--and THEN he pays attention.

How long is his time horizon, for investing decisions?

It doesn't matter much. There's nothing positive for him in driving up oil prices. He doesn't benefit from higher oil prices. He's already gotten the campaign contributions from Big Oil, and already delivered them the near-total revocation of Biden's climate agenda.

But certainly he's not going to be done with his Middle East deal-making any time before year or so. So if you believe that his actions will be driven by his sense of his own self-interest, there's no reason at all for him to do anything to intentionally increase the price of oil in the near- or intermediate-term.

That, alone, indicates a tendency to manipulate markets for personal profit.

Which doesn't indicate a tendency to manipulate completely different markets for someone else's personal profit.

Look to the markets where he's active (crypto, real estate development, finance) if you want to find where he might manipulate things for personal profit. Don't look at markets where does not have, and has never had, any stake or financial interest (oil extraction).

The syllogism doesn't work. It's too broad. You can't use a syllogism like:

1. Trump manipulates markets.
2. X is a market.
3. Therefore, Trump will manipulate the X market.

...to make any meaningful assessment of Trump's future actions.

He knows, at some level, that he's torn down the walls around DOJ independence.

You're kidding, right? The wall had gaping holes put it in under Obama (ask conservative 501c(3)s and anybody who opened their mouths). Then Joe Biden dynamited what was left of it.

There is no wall, and the democrats made it be like this.

You're kidding, right?

No. Whatever small breaches in DOJ independence might have existed prior to Trump, he's obliterated them now. No prior President would ever publicly call for individuals to be prosecuted - by name - and then have his DOJ follow up with prosecutions against them.

Dope1 - you have to realize on some level that what Trump is doing is different than past practice. Right?

Consequences are something he ignores--unless the Saudis decide to remove billions of dollars from investment portfolios managed by his family. So, there WILL be others telling him of possible consequences. Paying attention to the risks is something he MIGHT ignore. But that is a risk HE *might* be told could cost HIM billions--and THEN he pays attention.

And how much would the Saudis profit, from Trump driving oil prices back into triple digits? Make the few billion smoked in RE developments look like chump change?

oh, here's the net sifter output about God on Earth Trump's ME investments.

Donald Trump's real estate company has significant deals in the Middle East, primarily with partner
Dar Global, focusing on luxury branded hotels, golf courses, and residences in Saudi Arabia (Jeddah, Diriyah), the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (Dubai), Qatar (Doha), and Oman (Muscat). These ventures involve licensing the Trump name for high-end properties, with projects in various stages of development, expanding the brand's footprint in the Gulf region.
Key Countries & Projects:

Saudi Arabia: Trump Plaza Jeddah (apartments, townhouses, offices) and projects in Diriyah.

United Arab Emirates (UAE): A Trump hotel in Dubai and multiple golf courses.

Qatar: A Trump International Golf Club and resort in Doha.

Oman: A luxury hotel and golf course development near Muscat.

These projects typically involve local developers like Dar Global and generate revenue through brand licensing, with the Trump Organization providing its name and reputation rather than direct development, say NBC News and The New York Times.

net sifter output on the licensing fees.

Trump's Middle East licensing fees involve a combination of upfront branding fees and ongoing annual payments/management fees, with reports indicating millions in annual earnings from these deals, like $21.9 million from Saudi developer Dar Global in 2024, reflecting payments for the use of the Trump name and management services. These arrangements typically feature a developer paying the Trump Organization for the brand, sometimes with significant upfront sums, and then consistent annual payments or a share of revenue for the brand's use and ongoing management.

How the Fees Work:

Branding Fees (Upfront & Ongoing): Developers pay the Trump Organization a fee for the right to use the "Trump" name on their properties, which can include initial payments and recurring annual fees.

Management Fees: In some cases, the Trump Organization is also paid to manage the property, adding another revenue stream.

Financial Disclosures: Recent disclosures show substantial payments, with one Saudi developer alone paying nearly $22 million in licensing and branding fees in a single year.

Key Takeaway: It's not a single lump sum but a blended model of upfront fees, annual payments, and management fees, allowing the Trump brand to generate consistent income from international projects.

Apparently, most of the annual fees are, at least in part, keyed to revenue, so their is downside risk, if war scares patrons away, or the development is turned into a smoldering crater. However, the annual take is reportedly only in 8 figures. Fiddling small change for a King on Earth who is now demanding bribes in 9 or 10 figures. Reportedly, the bribe demanded from big oil in the summer of 24 was $1B.

Steve

so their is downside risk,

Yes, I know I typed "their" instead of "there".

Steve

Dope1 - you have to realize on some level that what Trump is doing is different than past practice. Right?

First off.

Obama broke that seal. It's obvious no one on this board wants to even entertain that notion and instead wants to pretend that Trump is doing something completely unprecedented in the United States. So there's no point in bothering with that; no amount of pointing out the obvious is going to make a dent.

https://lc.org/newsroom/details/030525-the-twoface...
Unequal and Unjust Prosecution

Instead of applying the FACE Act in a fair and impartial way, Biden’s DOJ had vigorously enforced the law against pro-life advocates while declining to do the same against individuals attacking pro-life pregnancy centers and churches. Under Biden, the DOJ brought criminal and civil cases against at least 50 individual pro-life advocates outside abortion facilities. Yet, since the Dobbs decision was leaked in May 2022, close to 100 pregnancy centers have been reportedly vandalized or victimized by violence, such as being spraypainted or firebombed. Biden’s DOJ only defended two of them under the FACE Act.

Secondly:

1. Is Trump behaving differently (than a traditional Republican would)?

Answer: Yes. He's got people in place who are applying the same scrutiny to left wing activists that right wing activists got in previous iterations of the DOJ. Don Lemon is going to get to lawyer up and explain why he shouldn't go to jail for storming that church. At a minimum he should be charged with Felony Conspiracy as he's admitted to comms with activists and helping them plan to disrupt religious services. Off to prison with him.

After all, if the FACE act can be used in one direction, it can be used in another.

Here's the precedent: https://www.ncregister.com/cna/six-pro-life-activi...
The U.S. Department of Justice said in a press release that the six defendants in the Nashville, Tennessee, federal trial were “each convicted of a felony conspiracy against rights and a Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act offense.”

Bye, Don. Don't drop the soap, homie!

2. Is this unprecendented?

Answer: Absolutely not. See above.

I'm not going to address any handwaving when it comes to Biden and Obama's abuse of the DOJ. They weaponized the government to go after their political enemies. You liberals have to admit to past abuses if you expect any of us to entertain your objections about Trump.

3. Is Trump going too far?

Answer: This is interesting.

left wingers can't complain about the DOJ today after cheering it on for more than a decade. Trump supporters attacked at campaign rallies (all the way back to 2015 - PA liberals sniggered at that). The FBI sending literally dozens of agents to investigate a NASCAR garage door pull while ignoring the roving Antifa riot bands.

So what we're seeing here in Game Theory: pay the other side back until the cry 'uncle' and then things can go back to normal again.

So what we're seeing here in Game Theory: pay the other side back until the cry 'uncle' and then things can go back to normal again.

You can't see the difference between a President deciding that a specific individual should be prosecuted versus presidents deciding that certain broad positions were what they wanted to prioritize. Obama and Biden, vs. Trump, decided they wanted different types of civil rights violations to be the top priorities for criminal prosecution. Democrats cared about the abortion clinic side of the FACE act, Republicans the religious institution side. This is something that has always happened with nearly all federal programs that have multiple prongs and aspects - if the Clean Air Act (for example) has EPA doing both permitting and environmental enforcement, different Administrations will think one of those functions is more important to stress than the other. But no President has ever gone so far as to say that the President should be able to point a finger at a specific person or persons and call them out for prosecution.

But it doesn't matter whether you believe that's new or business as usual. Regardless of whether you think that the current level of DOJ weaponization is new to Trump or is the same thing as what Obama, Trump1, and Biden did, there's no "going back to normal again." This is the new baseline. So Trump will very much care about whether a Republican is elected President after he leaves office, because he has to know that he's likely to be treated by the next Democratic President's DOJ the way he has his DOJ treat everyone today.

So, now - he doesn't want to precipitate a spike in gas prices.

Dope1,

I have to disagree with the notion that the DOJ was EVER "independent." (I'm not saying you believe that but why even concede that it should be?)

That's just malarkey when for example Biden wants his DOJ to do something but giving the President some measure of plausible deniability.

DOJ is not independent, it can't be, and it shouldn't be. The Attorney General is a member of the President's candidate and answers directly to Presidential authority.

DOJ just like every other part of the Executive branch is not, never was, never was intended to be, and never will be--and should NOT be--"independent" of Presidential control.

Albaby1,

You think it's better for Presidents like Obama and Biden to set up someone like Trump to be prosecuted in private and behind the scenes, and pretend they aren't doing that?

Or like Trump call it out for the public and not hide it?

You just advocated lying to the public and hypocrisy. "Trump did it IN PUBLIC!!!!!" OMG.

And it didn't start with Obama and Biden.

You don't think RFK and JFK discussed who the DOJ was going to go after???

You people (not you Dope1--I mean the leftists) are stupid beyond naivety.

Obama SPECIFICALLY went after Trump and set him up with the Russia Gate scandal after Trump was elected in 2016.

No one with a brain thinks otherwise.

The Left is proud of it, that's the only difference between the left and the right on it.

Or as albaby1 might have put it: "...but but but OBAMA DIDN'T TELL THE PUBLIC HE WAS GOING AFTER TRUMP. HE KEPT IT HIDDEN LIKE A GOOD LITTLE HYPOCRITE."

OBAMA DIDN'T TELL THE PUBLIC HE WAS GOING AFTER TRUMP. HE KEPT IT HIDDEN LIKE A GOOD LITTLE HYPOCRITE."

That’s definitely the far right position on the matter. So thanks for stating it so explicitly.

We got no proof, but stating it like that gives me a tingle up my leg, so it must be true.

Just as I thought.
You can't see the difference between a President deciding that a specific individual should be prosecuted versus presidents deciding that certain broad positions were what they wanted to prioritize

As if we just didn’t see the entire democrat party collude from the federal level to the state to get 1 guy: Trump.

And not 1mm’s worth of acknowledging anything I cited.

Normally I let you do that because I prefer to debate somewhat handicapped as it’s more challenging that way.

there's no "going back to normal again."

Indeed. You’re making the tacit admission here that we will never again have a democrat who will insist on non partisanship in the DOJ.

Now, the Trump regime, having already throttled Venezuelan production, is talking about taking more oil off the market, by adding to the SPR. The SPR is redundant, because the US has more than enough domestic production to meet current needs, so why would Trump want to put more in the SPR, other than to tighten supplies on the market?

Longish article from Fox Noise about how Biden drew down the SPR, by about 300M barrels to try to manage gas prices down, how the SPR is now largely irrelevant, due to increased domestic production, yet how God on Earth Trump intends to refill the SPR "to the top". Why would Trump want to refill storage that is irrelevant, if not to tighten supply, to push prices upward?

Trump’s energy dominance rewrites the Strategic Petroleum Reserve after Biden drawdowns

"I don't think for the security of the United States, for the economy of the United States, I don't think the SPR is as important as it was 25, 30 years ago because now we are one of the greatest oil and natural gas producers in the world," Furchtgott-Roth said.

Since returning to office, Trump has used executive authority to fast-track domestic energy production, including signing an order titled "Unleashing American Energy" aimed at rolling back regulatory barriers and accelerating permitting for oil and gas projects. The administration also moved to restart and speed reviews of liquefied natural gas export approvals, reversing the Biden-era "pause" approach and positioning U.S. natural gas exports as a centerpiece of its energy strategy.

A Trump official explained to Fox Digital in December 2025 that the administration is working to "gradually" refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with oil, while citing significant "damage" left to the reserve following the Biden administration releasing millions of barrels of oil in 2021 and 2022.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trump-s-en...

That official noting the SPR will be refilled "gradually", is telling. They are trying to signal they aren't going to be pumping 1Mbpd in, which would measurably tighten supply, but I would not be surprised if they did, particularly at the times of the year when demand, and prices, spike, just like Bush 43 did.

August 9, 2007

Bush seeks $168 mln for SPR fill in 2008 budget

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/bush-seeks-1...

May 17, 2008,

Under pressure, Bush stops adding to US petroleum reserve

Faced with a veto-proof congressional mandate to stop adding oil to America's emergency reserve, President Bush is closing the spigot. But hopes that the move would lower oil prices have so far failed to materialize.

On Friday, oil closed over $126 a barrel, up more than $2.50. Gasoline prices also hit a record Friday – $3.79 a gallon, according to the AAA car club.

The issue of filling the SPR had become a political football in recent weeks. President Bush wanted to continue filling the SPR with another 24 million barrels of oil. However, the major presidential candidates – Sens. John McCain, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Barack Obama – were all opposed. On Tuesday, Congress passed legislation mandating the president immediately halt adding to the oil reserve.

https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2008/0517/p25s1...

Steve

DOJ is not independent, it can't be, and it shouldn't be. The Attorney General is a member of the President's candidate and answers directly to Presidential authority.

All true. But Barack Obama and his "wingman" Eric Holder made no bones about openly weaponizing the power of the federal government to go after private citizens. And protect fellow democrats when it needed doing.

Who could forget the infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch?

Indeed. You’re making the tacit admission here that we will never again have a democrat who will insist on non partisanship in the DOJ.

After what Trump has done? No, I think he's broken the norm of a substantially independent DOJ for good. And he knows it, on some level - so he cares very, very much about who his successor is....

After what Trump has done?

Still not 1 micron's worth of acknowledging what went on in the previous 2 democrat administrations.

Stop with the phony "norms."

There is no such thing as "norms."

That's jargon invented by the MSM and far left/Democrats to demonize someone in the other party who is doing something said Dems/Left/MSM doesn't like.

You disagree?

Please provide the following:

1. A list of "norms." Specifically. You can't fabricate "norms" after the fact. What ARE the fucking "norms" you are even talking about?

2. Who decided what the "norms" would be? When was the vote taken?

3. Who told YOU what the "norms" are?

There. Is. NO. such. thing. as. "norms."

"Norms" means that:

1. Republicans are held far beyond the strict letter of the law. Pray outside an abortion clinic? You get federal felony charges.

You duck a subpoena from Congress? That's a year in jail. Held in contempt of Congress? You pay.
You speak out at a school board meeting? The FBI gets out their rubber glove.
Start a conservative 501(c)(3)? Prepare to have the IRS up your kazoo.

2. democrats aren't just allowed to skate, they're allowed to brazen break laws and pay zero consequences.

Riot and destroy your city? Nada. Riot and go across state lines to destroy another city? A-ok.
Assault people leaving political rallies? That's encouraged.
Assault police officers? Encouraged.
Duck subpoenas from Congress? Encouraged.
Lie to Congress? Encouraged.

Firebomb pregnancy centers? Doesn't merit an investigation. However, garage door pulls do.

There is no such thing as "norms."

That is the propaganda put out by the far right in its effort to destroy the norms.

It is the language of cultural despisers intent on destroying America and remaking it according to a fascist template:

No rules.. except those dictated by the state

No guardrails…… except those protecting the regime

No norms……… except those selected by the state.

All else is to be erased.

Rev Baloney,

You didn't answer a single question about what the "norms" are, who decided what they should be, when they were decided, and how you even know that.

So, why don't you answer a question for once in your pusillanimous life?

You're kidding, right? The wall had gaping holes put it in under Obama (ask conservative 501c(3)s and anybody who opened their mouths)

Wasn't it the 501 c 4s that surged after citizens united because you didn't have to disclose donors? There was a surge in dark money? And you want to blame Citizens United and the dark money aftermath on Obama? If there's a urge in something and someone looks at it, that's not necessarily bad, and as I remember it the 501c3s tapered off at the same time. Looking selectively again?

Dark money?

Your entire party is nothing but 'dark money'. From Act Blue to Obama turning off AVS on credit cards:
https://www.dispatch.com/story/opinion/cartoons/20...

If a campaign doesn't use AVS, it can wind up accepting contributions from phony names or from foreigners, both of which are illegal.

The 2008 Obama campaign pocketed money from "John Galt, 1957 Ayn Rand Lane, Galts Gulch CO 99999" and $174,000 from a woman in Missouri who told reporters she had given nothing and had never been billed. Presumably she would have noticed a charge of $174,000.

The democrsts are 100% a criminal organization.

"So if you're predicting Trump's future action through the lens of his self-interest, it makes no sense to conclude that he would view his self-interest as including "bomb Kharg Island." Ever. "

Every person in that Davos auditorium, listening to Trump's interminable, droning litany of lies today knows that... and can safely assume he'll TACO to preserve the deals/conflicts of interest.

He'll blow up pangas and raid 2 bit banana republics so he and his camera ready Fox Secretary of War can puff up their chests for the FoxCams... but TACO to not jeopardize his deals.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.