• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trump Presidency 13: The (James) Baker's Dozen

Status
Not open for further replies.
MOVING ON!

Devin Nunes is trying to act the tough guy by dragging up stuff from January 2017. Clearly this is an attempt to create a furor of RIGHTeousness by emulating the Mueller enquiry but against some shadowy "enemies". Problem is, we all know who the leakers were: Donald Trump and his team of newly-installed loudmouth japesters. Same people who can't keep their mouths shut around the office as now. So it would be amusing if Nunes was to hook his own ass on this fishing expedition.

Leak of call between Trump and Malcolm Turnbull could lead to criminal charges

...

Devin Nunes, the highest-ranking Republican member on the US House of Representatives intelligence committee, announced on Sunday he was sending eight criminal referrals to the US attorney general, William Barr.

One is aimed at finding out who leaked transcripts of the US president’s phone call with Turnbull on 28 January 2017, a call with the then Mexican president, Enrique Peña Nieto, and former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s communications with a Russian ambassador.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...lcolm-turnbull-could-lead-to-criminal-charges

ETA: Malcolm Turnbull was the Australian PM that week.
 
Last edited:
alfaniner said:
I will reiterate that even though I read The PDJT's Twitter feed every day, I do like seeing the Tweets here just to keep everything in context. And that I'd prefer to see them in "quote" paragraphs rather than cleartext as it's sometimes difficult to distinguish between the Tweets and Captain Swoop's own contributions. It would also be much easier to visually skip over the quotes for those who don't care to have to read and process the cleartext every time.
Click to expand...
I heartily support this suggestion.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Which is why the majority of the senior Trump Administration and Cabinet positions are now filled by "acting" appointees. Trump apparently likes it that way - he can then pistol-point his finger and fire and replace them much more easily. Just like he did on that TV show that disappeared into the void.
Click to expand...


Trump will not listen to his advisors - those would be the people who know better than he does about the departments they run. Malignant Narcissists such as Trump can never, ever accept that anyone knows more the they do.

Trump wanted to completely close the border. That would mean telling Nielson to break US Law with regard to asylum seekers. She will have told Trump that he cannot break the Law like that, and she was not prepared to break it for him. Its another thing that Narcissists cannot stand - others telling them they can't do stuff. Once that happened, Nielson's position became untenable - she was goneberder.
 
smartcooky said:
Trump wanted to completely close the border. That would mean telling Nielson to break US Law with regard to asylum seekers. She will have told Trump that he cannot break the Law like that, and she was not prepared to break it for him. Its another thing that Narcissists cannot stand - others telling them they can't do stuff. Once that happened, Nielson's position became untenable - she was goneberder.
Click to expand...

And then Trump will put someone in place who won't scoff at the idea.
 
The Big Dog said:
Gee, the Spittle soaked partisan democrat party idiots in Congress are weaponizing tax returns now, because orange man bad.
Click to expand...

You're really desperate, Dog. Every political party is "partisan" because that's what political parties do, namely advocate for positions that they believe are best for the country. Labeling the Dems as partisan is no different stating that water is wet.

Be careful with the adjectives you sling around, Dog, because you might just end up saying something worthwhile. :)
 
The Big Dog said:
Words mean things. He never promised to show them, full stop.
Over sell, under deliver, get called on it and blame the messenger.
Click to expand...

Someone's going to start a thread entitled "Saying 'words mean things' while being a trump supporter".

This is absolutely the last argument I would expect to have seen from someone in the maga camp. Leaving aside the obviously jokey words like covfefe and oringes which don't have meaning - clearly just slip-ups, but maintained to be actual intended words with meaning - trump is almost always deliberately ambiguous in the things that he says. Even his denials of things he has clearly stated are deliberately ambiguous. This is his way of, later, being able to explain that he didn't mean it that way.

I'd need to go and look it up, but i'm fairly sure that at some point, or several points, there have been senior GOP members asked about the things that trump's said, and their responses have been along the lines of 'don't take him so literally' or 'don't pay attention to the words he uses'...

Words mean things indeed.

But then....
- trump at an Iowa campaign rally: "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise."
- trump a month later on Good Morning America "I don’t condone violence," "I never said I was going to pay for fees."

Now, no one on this forum is going to bat an eyelid about that. It's already been pointed out by someone here that it makes no difference whether trump says 'he promises' or not, given that he's so thoroughly dishonest.
 
Stacko said:
We've reached the point of hair splitting over weather he said he promised to do something he said he would do? Is the next step stipulating that he didn't "pinky swear; cross his heart and hope to die?"
Click to expand...
Whether Dump can weather the storm remains to be seen. :) :p
 
Leftus said:
For there to be a whistleblower, there would have to be someone with the information, who was entitled to have it, and shared it without permission. The problem with that is the people who will have access to the return have subpoena power.

If the President were profiting illegally from his position,
Click to expand...

If it is violating the constitution but there is no law against it, is it illegal?
 
ponderingturtle said:
If it is violating the constitution but there is no law against it, is it illegal?
Click to expand...

If something's illegal/unconstitutional but nobody stops you from doing it is it really illegal/unconstitutional?

Hell we're lucky Trump is following the laws of nature at this point.
 
Trump Tweets

Uganda must find the kidnappers of the American Tourist and guide before people will feel safe in going there. Bring them to justice openly and quickly!
 
Trump Retweeted

Rep. Jim Jordan
@Jim_Jordan

Dems want President’s tax returns for purely political purposes!
Frightening, but shouldn’t surprise us—same folks used the IRS to target Americans for their political beliefs!

Dem Talk:
-Abolish ICE
-Borderless hemisphere
-Walls are immoral
-Illegals should vote
-Raise taxes

@POTUS action:
-Regs reduced
-Taxes cut
-Econ growing
-5 million new jobs
-Justices Gorsuch AND Kavanaugh
-Out of Iran deal
-Embassy in Jerusalem
-Hostages home from NK
-New NAFTA
 
JoeMorgue said:
If something's illegal/unconstitutional but nobody stops you from doing it is it really illegal/unconstitutional?

Hell we're lucky Trump is following the laws of nature at this point.
Click to expand...

A tree that falls in the forest does generate sound waves even if there is nothing to detect it.

Yes, it's still illegal, even if there is "No Controlling Legal Authority" to enforce said rules.
 
Leftus said:
A tree that falls in the forest does generate sound waves even if there is nothing to detect it.
Click to expand...

It may generate waves but the waves themselves aren't sound. Sound is the brain's way of perceiving those waves. So if there's nobody there to hear there is no sound.
 
Sounds is a naturally occurring phenomon and the difference between "a sound that exists" and "a sound that is heard" is mostly semantics and context and level of however the term is being used at that moment.

Laws are social construct and they don't do anything, and therefore don't exist in any meaningful level, if they aren't being... errr constructed.

Trump can act exactly the same way with exact same level of consequences if there is no law on the book that says "X" or if there is a law on the book that says "X" but nobody is enforcing it. And a difference that makes no difference isn't a difference.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom