The Trump Presidency: Part 17

Status
Not open for further replies.
carlosy said:
And what would be the proper method to collect information from a different government? Or is this never an option?

I am not a US citizen, so just asking out of curiousity.
Click to expand...

Through an official request in writing to the appropriate agency. This should probably be done without any mention of potential rewards or consequences in completely unrelated areas.
 
Justice Department says they "did not and could not make out a criminal campaign finance violation."

Ok, that's nice. What if his behavior was not a campaign finance violation, but some other kind of illegal activity.


"You ran a red light and t-boned a school bus full of kids."

"I was not speeding, so unfair!"
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I think that what gets Trump supporters so worked up is not that Trump does so many obviously ****** things:
it's their perception that Dems/Libs/etc. seem to get away with their scandals whereas Trump can't seem to crime properly as to not leave obvious proof.
Click to expand...

A vague feeling that is heavily reinforced by the RW media. This is actually pretty much in line with what the reaction that I saw from Republicans about the electoral fraud in NC. The ones that I know seemed to mostly react with... "But what about all those times that Democrats were cheating? The ONLY reason the media's making a big deal of that is because Republicans did it." If they deigned to back up their claims, well... it was to cite stuff like Right-Wingers getting outraged at legitimately cast Democratic votes actually being counted in the first place and stuff that wasn't much better than that.

It's a lot like their sudden obsession with antifa. Speaking of antifa, though... I thought that this piece made for a fine read.

The Hokoana trial: Inside the 'Antifa' shooting incident the media don't want to talk about

Also, just to keep it clear, the shooting was done by a right-winger who was there to cause trouble and done to a left-winger who was acting to limit the trouble. And, well... **** Milo and right wing lack of standards.

The confusion arose because Yiannopoulos claimed in his speech inside Kane Hall that it had been one of his alt-right fans who had been shot outside the event by an antifascist, making it a reason to continue speaking: “If I stopped my event now, we are sending a clear message that they can stop our events by killing people. I am not prepared to do that," he told the audience.

Breitbart News and The Daily Caller both reported the same. The Daily Caller wound up writing a story that corrected the facts but, notably, did not explain that it was a correction of the site's previous reportage. Breitbart, meanwhile, not only never bothered to correct its reportage, but it instead (without a hint of irony) accused the UW president of changing her story about the event, and left the shooting utterly unmentioned in its subsequent reportage.
Click to expand...

Fast Eddie B said:
I can’t figure out if Kellyanne Conway is a truly reprehensible excuse for a human being, or just an actress portraying one.
Click to expand...

For practical purposes, why should we care? If, for example, a Republican senator pushes through legislation that pretty much everyone knows will hurt people and help... no one, I'm definitely not going to care whether he actually personally supports such or if he's just acting a part.

In random other news...

FEC Chair Releases Its Digest To Public After Trump Lackey Tries To Suppress It

Yet more evidence of the Party of Trump's utter disdain for the 1st Amendment.

Also... As Trump's trade war upends markets, his bailouts to farmers hit $28 billion

There's a couple quite pertinent points there, like...

If you want to know whether that's a lot of money in the grand government scheme of things, it's over double what the government ended up paying to save the U.S. automotive industry during the 2008 Great Recession. Those efforts, by both Bush and Obama, had Republicans absolutely spittle-flecked in their outrage. A chap named Mitt Romney wrote a now-famous op-ed condemning the plan; Trump and his mini-me vice president both have themselves been vocal in their opposition to that bailout.
Click to expand...

And the fact that there's no expectation for the farmers to pay the money back, unlike the auto industry. Yet... there's no right-wing outrage worth noting. All the more reason to treat the right-wing as being utterly bereft of actual principle until such time as they can actually friggin' demonstrate it in a scenario where it's not really friggin' obviously just intended to harm political opponents and rivals.

Back to the general topic of the whistleblower, though.

Team Trump worked heavily to get Trump's Saudi-Arabia calls leakfree

Calls with Putin, too, to what should be no one's surprise.

And with who else, we can wonder, for that matter, and how much has Trump outright betrayed the US in pursuit of personal gain?
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
Justice Department says they "did not and could not make out a criminal campaign finance violation."

...
Click to expand...


The reason being that they can't establish that investigating Biden would be a thing of value.


...

WHAT?
The DOJ can't estimate how much an investigation by a Federal Prosecutor into a domestic company and members of its board would cost?
It is something Federal Prosecutors do literally every day.

Even if you think this might just be Campaign Finance, their excuses are *********.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Justice Department says they "did not and could not make out a criminal campaign finance violation."

Ok, that's nice. What if his behavior was not a campaign finance violation, but some other kind of illegal activity.


"You ran a red light and t-boned a school bus full of kids."

"I was not speeding, so unfair!"
Click to expand...

Did Barr put his unrecused hand into a matter where he was directly implicated?
 
Aridas said:
Did Barr put his unrecused hand into a matter where he was directly implicated?
Click to expand...

as long as Barr insists there was no crime, there can't have been a cover-up, so there can't have been obstruction, so there can't be a need for Recusal.

The only crime Trump can commit, according to Barr, is to admit that he committed a crime.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I remain surprised at just how many worker bees there are in the White House and beyond that aren't tRump's buddies. Seems like an awful lot more people are witnesses to what's going on than I would have imagined.

Trump's probably so used to minimum wages workers around him he doesn't realize there are actually educated intelligent people that work in the WH.
Click to expand...
I'm not that fond of CNN these days but this morning they had a good piece breaking down who all the players are. I called it up from a news app on my phone & would link but not sure how on tablet. Google who's who Ukraine CNN.
 
Last edited:
I started disliking CNN right around when Trump won. I felt that they were telegraphing bias and even though I was largely sympathetic their tone bothered me. This morning's piece played it straight. It included the Ukrainians mentioned as well. I'll link if I figure out how.
 
phiwum said:
And sometimes, the fact that lots of people get the same thing wrong is no reason to regard it as right.

The apostrophe indicates missing sounds. Hence, "li'l" and not "lil'". And I don't give a damn how many go for the latter. That's not how the apostrophe works.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to think of a contraction that doesn't end with the last letter of the phrase, as in "can't," "I'd," etc.
 
Minoosh said:
I started disliking CNN right around when Trump won. I felt that they were telegraphing bias and even though I was largely sympathetic their tone bothered me. This morning's piece played it straight. It included the Ukrainians mentioned as well. I'll link if I figure out how.
Click to expand...

CNN was focused more on profiting off of Trump's outrageousness than just about any other concerns, really, since before he was President. That didn't really change, by the look of it? Multiple owners of the so called liberal media, including CNN's, I thought, outright declared that Trump, while he might be bad for the country, was great for their ratings, and thus, their profits.
 
carlosy said:
Out of curiosity, what would be the right and legal way in the following situation:

Any US president suspects one of the presidential candidates to be involved in something illegal (maybe now or in the past) and goverments of another country might have serious information on this matter and could help.

What are the correct options?

a) Do nothing and wait until after the election so that the US citizen is not a presidential candidate anymore (risking that this person could then be actually the new president)?

b) Report/inform authorities: Which ones? FBI, CIA? Risking that someone in there then suspects the president/government to seek help from another country against a presidential candidate or trying to smear his campaign?

c) Possible illegal activities of US-citizens, especially presidential candidates, are not the presidents concern.

:confused:
Click to expand...
Really, that's how you see it?

OK, why withhold the aid money?
Why not look at what is already known (or have your people look into it)?
Why isn't this something the DoJ, FBI or the CIA are charged to look into? Your rationale is seriously full of plot holes.
"Risking that someone in there then suspects the president/government to seek help from another country against a presidential candidate or trying to smear his campaign?"​
Indeed, what the hell does that even mean? How does Trump know about this supposed transgression during the Obama administration?
Then there is the option of having another country look into it, such as France?

Under no circumstances does 'it's up to Trump to uncover it" make any sense whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
Justice Department says they "did not and could not make out a criminal campaign finance violation."
Click to expand...
That's Barr tailoring a statement just broad enough to cover his ass.

I have a feeling about Barr, that he really wants credibility among his fellow lawyers. But he doesn't want it badly enough to assert himself in a way that might get him in trouble with Trump.

Reminds me, this past week someone posted about Jeff Sessions being on hand in the Senate basement. What significance would that have?
 
Minoosh said:
That's Barr tailoring a statement just broad enough to cover his ass.

I have a feeling about Barr, that he really wants credibility among his fellow lawyers. But he doesn't want it badly enough to assert himself in a way that might get him in trouble with Trump.

Reminds me, this past week someone posted about Jeff Sessions being on hand in the Senate basement. What significance would that have?
Click to expand...

From something John Dean said when discussing why people in Nixon's inner circle broke the law for him: People close to the POTUS are star-struck. It explains so many of Trump's upper echelon followers like Lindsay Graham. Barr fits the mold.
 
carlosy said:
And what would be the proper method to collect information from a different government? Or is this never an option?

I am not a US citizen, so just asking out of curiousity.
Click to expand...

You would take whatever reason you had to suspect someone to the proper authorities in that country. If it's just unfounded suspicions, I wouldn't expect much of a reaction.
 
Minoosh said:
That's Barr tailoring a statement just broad enough to cover his ass.

I have a feeling about Barr, that he really wants credibility among his fellow lawyers. But he doesn't want it badly enough to assert himself in a way that might get him in trouble with Trump.

Reminds me, this past week someone posted about Jeff Sessions being on hand in the Senate basement. What significance would that have?
Click to expand...

So he is trying to do the impossible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom