Printable View
The New York Times reports on some of the first actions of the Trump Presidency -items deleted from the White House website:
The Department of Labor’s report on lesbians, bisexuals, gays and transgender people in the workplace? Gone.
The White House’s exposition on the threat of climate change and efforts to combat it? Gone.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/u...bc-region&_r=0
concentration camps, work camps, and slavery camps for anybody who isn't white, male, or middle-aged (or elderly like he is...) oh, and he'll get a select number of women to grab by the pussy. about 500 from each state, who are high in the looks scale, will be rounded up.
i'd love it if he makes an executive order to allow Muslims to stay and shut those SJW fuckers up...lol. I'm not American, so it doesn't really bother me.
Made me laugh when he said he's going to make America "safe" & he's going to eradicate terrorism! Good luck chum!
Like it or not, and whether for good or bad, Trump's Presidency will have a global impact. Climate change, relations with the UK, Russia and China, what happens to NATO, are just a few examples that could have an effect, direct or indirect, on you. No matter what nationality, it should "bother" everyone...Quote:
Originally Posted by holzz
His tiny hands be reachin' across the ocean.
To me, this clearly illustrates how the trump administration functions:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
The LBGT page is likely the work of virulent anti-gay vp pence who, along with preibus, are charged with the day to day running of the government...I seriously doubt trump was even aware of that page from the labor dept
On the other hand, there's a high probability the white house page on climate was the work of trump
I wonder how many people noticed this press release that accompanied the second Executive Order President Trump signed on the 23rd of January 2017 (full text of the EO ca be accessed in the link below), the portion I have put in bold.
At a time when the anxiety over the future of pensions is growing in the UK -it has been part of the labour disputes on the London Underground and the Southern Rail franchise- it seems that pensions could become a battleground in the USA as the Trump administration takes the axe to Federal jobs -and note I am not arguing one way or the other about the size of the Federal payroll.
Presidential Memorandum Regarding the Hiring Freeze
President Trump issued a memorandum which imposes a hiring freeze on the executive branch to counter the dramatic expansion of the federal workforce in recent years and the costs attendant to that expansion.
The Federal workforce has expanded significantly during the last two Administrations, from approximately 1.8 million Federal civilian employees during the Clinton Administration to approximately 2.1 million as of 2016 (an approximately 17 percent increase). Meanwhile, Federal employee health and retirement benefits continue to be based on antiquated assumptions and require a level of generosity long since abandoned by most of the private sector. Those costs are unsustainable for the Federal government, just as they are proving to be unsustainable for state and local governments with similar health and retirement packages.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...oranda-dealing
The reality, Donald Trump - Week one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38768272
Day One: American carnage
In retrospect, this was the calmest day of them all.
With his hand resting on two Bibles - one his own, the other used by Abraham Lincoln in 1861 - Donald John Trump was sworn in as US President, the first man to hold the office without either political or military experience.
Earlier in the day, Barack Obama was captured through a window leaving a letter for his successor in the top drawer of the Oval Office desk. What did it say? We don't know and President Trump won't say.
Addressing the nation at the ceremony, President Trump spoke in fairly bleak terms of rusted-out factories, poverty-stricken families and crime-blighted cities, vowing to end "this American carnage"
"This was not a message to the American people as a whole - many of whom likely feel the past resident of the White House, Barack Obama, reflected their beliefs and their diversity," our correspondent Anthony Zurcher wrote.
"This was a speech for the angry, the frustrated, the American voters who turned out in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and Ohio to shake their fist at the status quo and take a chance on a man who was unlike any presidential politician who came before him."
As the Obamas left for a holiday in Palm Springs, a new era in politics began. Take a deep breath now...
Day Two: My crowd's bigger than your crowd
While many protests were held on inauguration day around the world, including one in Washington that spiralled into violence, Saturday 21 January saw a remarkable global expression of opposition to the Trump administration and its perceived world view.
Millions of people turned out to demonstrate at "Women's Marches" in cities around the world to make their voice heard on women's reproductive rights, gender, sexual and racial equality.
But as protests continued, President Trump gave an extraordinary press conference at the CIA headquarters, telling staff that the media had fabricated a "feud" between him and the intelligence agencies, despite previously tweeting they were acting as if the US was Nazi Germany.
Standing in front of the CIA's hallowed memorial wall, which honours agency employees who died in service, he also complained about reporting of the crowd size at his inauguration, and unflattering comparisons to the turn-out at Barack Obama's own ceremony in 2009.
What followed saw "post-truth" politics kick into high gear.
Trump dispatched his combative new press secretary Sean Spicer to lambast the media in a televised briefing.
He said no-one had any crowd estimates from the inauguration before then giving his own crowd numbers - saying that the space holding 720,000 people was full when the oath was taken. This, he claimed, "was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period. Both in person and around the globe".
He also falsely said the number of people taking Washington's subway system on the day had been higher than during Barack Obama's second inauguration in 2013.
Day Three: A fact is no longer a fact. And that's a fact.
In a television interview on Sunday, Trump counsellor Kellyanne Conway defended Spicer's inaccurate claims, thereby introducing the world to the term "alternative facts", which is how she described what he said.
"Alternative facts are not facts. They are falsehoods," NBC presenter Chuck Todd replied.
The internet, of course, delivered an outpouring of #Spicerfacts.
Meanwhile, the president himself was praising Barack Obama at a ceremony to swear in senior members of his team.
While there, he said he would soon begin negotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) with his Canadian and Mexican counterparts.
"Mexico has been terrific. The president has been really very amazing," he said.
More on Mexico was to come later in the week from the president. (Hint: They stopped being so amazing.)
Trump also finally responded to Saturday's mass protests against him.
Day Four: It's business time
The first working day of the Trump administration kicked off with meeting between the president and business leaders, during which Trump announced his aim to cut regulations for US-based businesses by 75%.
A clutch of executive actions followed. He pulled the US out of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, a key part of Obama's efforts to engage and divert attention to the Asia-Pacific. Australia swiftly said it wanted to try to keep the deal alive with a so-called 'TPP 12 minus one'.
Trump also banned federal money going to international groups which perform or provide information on abortions.
The US president's order shows he "wants to stand up for all Americans, including the unborn," his press secretary Sean Spicer said.
"As long as you live you'll never see a photograph of 7 women signing legislation about what men can do with their reproductive organs," Guardian social editor Martin Belam said on Twitter. More than 260,000 people re-tweeted his thoughts.
If the day wasn't busy enough in Trump news, a group of US ethics lawyers had filed a lawsuit against the president, alleging he is violating a constitutional ban on accepting payments from foreign governments through his hotels.
Mr Trump described the lawsuit as "totally without merit".
Oh, and he implemented a hiring freeze on some federal government workers.
Day Five: Mmmm, oil
The barrage of executive actions continued on Tuesday, with two orders signed to back controversial oil pipelines - Keystone XL and the Dakota Access project - if American steel is used.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, whose land abuts the proposed route of the Dakota Access pipeline, called Mr Trump's decision a violation of "law and tribal treaties".
Environmentalists said Trump was proving as dangerous to the climate as they had feared. Oil industry groups applauded.
Separately, Sean Spicer sparred again with reporters, this time over Trump's claims that millions of illegal voters cast ballots in the election despite no evidence suggesting so.
It was also announced the FBI Director James Comey would stay in his position under the Trump administration.
Mr Comey, of course, is blamed by many Democrats for Hillary Clinton's election loss. He announced the FBI was looking into new Clinton emails just days before the election, before soon after saying it found no evidence of criminality.
Just a reminder: it's only Tuesday.
Day Six: When torture became OK
A visit to the Department of Homeland Security saw two more executive orders signed. One calls for "a large physical barrier" - the infamous wall - to be build on the US's southern border.
The other toughened policy on illegal immigrants -"aliens" - including by withholding funding from so-called "sanctuary cities" that protect undocumented immigrants within their boundaries.
In an interview with ABC News that aired on Wednesday evening, Trump said he believed waterboarding works, stating "we have to fight fire with fire".
But Mr Trump also said he would consult Defence Secretary James Mattis and CIA director Mike Pompeo - both of whom have indicated they oppose the method - and "if they don't want to do it that's fine".
A draft executive order - that the Trump team disavows as a White House document - also surfaces. It calls for a review into whether the "black sites" programme should be reintroduced and would scrap Mr Obama's move to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
Another draft executive order emerges suggesting Trump would suspend the Syrian refugee programme and stop issuing visas from several Muslim-majority countries deemed to pose a threat to the security of the US.
White House officials declined to comment on the document.
But hey, it's almost the weekend.
And on the seventh day, Donald annoyed Mexico
Plans for an upcoming meeting between Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and Donald Trump fall apart after the US President insists Mexico must pay for the border wall.
Mr Pena Nieto cancels the meeting after Trump says it would better not be held if Mexico refuses to cough up.
The White House then suggests a new 20 percent tax on Mexican imports could fund the barrier, but this is rubbished by Mexico's Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray, who says that such a move would only shift the costs burden onto US consumers.
While the US-Mexico drama unfolds, UK Prime Minister Theresa May arrives in the US, joking that "opposites attract" and saying she wants to "renew the special relationship" between the UK and America.
Separately, former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright vows to register as Muslim if Trump creates a register of Muslim-Americans.
Day Eight: The British are coming!
On Friday morning, CNN hosted Gregg Phillips, a conspiracy theorist who has repeatedly said millions of people vote illegally in the US, and has just as often declined to provide any evidence whatsoever for that claim.
Forty-two minutes later, Trump tweeted his support for Phillips.
Thousands of people marched on Washington to protest against abortion, and Vice-President Pence became the first sitting VP to address the demonstrators, saying, "Life is winning in America."
Amid rumours that he would lift sanctions on Russia, Mr Trump hosted his first international leader when British Prime Minister Theresa May came to visit. Mr Trump joked about revoking the "special relationship" after the BBC asked him a pointed question about his stance on abortion, torture and other hot topics.
Just before close of business, he attended the swearing-in ceremony for James Mattis as Secretary of Defense. There, he announced two new executive orders: one ordering "new ships, planes, resources and tools" to build up the military, and one creating new vetting measures to combat radical Islamic terrorism.
"We only want to admit into America those who support our country and love deeply our people," he said.
Here is an interview with the lead Democrat in the House Oversight Committee. He makes some very good points and I think it's worth a read about the nature of the investigations underway and some which might be pending.
https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-trump/516741/
Schiff: You have to remember the context of this. The Russians had just interfered in the American elections in a way to help elect Donald Trump. The president of the United States, Barack Obama, then sanctions Russia for that interference. And then Trump’s team, through Flynn, reaches out to the Russian ambassador and potentially says, “Don’t worry about those sanctions. We’re going to take care of business. We’re not going to bite the hand that fed us.” That’s something that needs to be investigated. That’s hugely consequential.
And the broader context is: We’re in a competition with Russia right now. They are championing autocracy all over the world. We are promoting democracy. It is not communism vs. capitalism anymore, but it is authoritarianism vs. representative government. And it’s the Russian goal to take down Western liberal democracy. In that hugely consequential struggle, if we’re being undermined by our own administration—by General Flynn having secret talks with the Russians about undermining then-President Obama’s policy—that ought to matter to every American.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...secutor-235387
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.02c87dadec35
I'm putting this here because it's not really a policy thing and I am interested in the outcome of the Russia investigations. .
This is big news or it could be big news because a Republican congressman is saying that a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the contacts between Trump campaign and Russia. A special prosecutor is someone who is independent of the president and would have a mandate to get all of the facts. It's significant because so far Republicans have not been interested in pursuing this issue.
The relevant stuff is at the 7 minute mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MzVZE-Mk0U
In spite of the audience applause I don't see Republicans agreeing to a special prosecutor, they are more likely to back Trump if he decides to arrest the editors of the New York Times and the Washington Post and shut down those newspapers, given that they are the 'enemy of the American people'. Having already refused those papers entry to an informal briefing with Calamity Sean, President Trump has said papers should 'name their sources' on the same day Reince Prebus refused to name a source concerning allegations of the Trump team's talks with Russian government officials. Journalists in the past have gone to prison to protect their sources, so it would not be the first time. To what extent the Second Amendment has been violated I do not know, presumably the Trump team will issue legal requirements that the Media provide sources for all its stories, though surely this would also mean the phoney claims reported by Trump and Breitbart would also be subject to that law, so it could all just be the usual rhetorical crap that flows from the White House these days.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/u...democrats.html
At his confirmation hearing Sessions said he did not have contact with the Russians. He apparently did talk to Kislyak, the Russian ambassador in September. It's not clear in what capacity he spoke to Kislyak or what they spoke about. I think given the context of his comments it might not be perjury if he was not speaking to him as a Trump surrogate but rather as a member of senate armed services committee, although strictly speaking, what he said was false.
Anyhow, right now there is pressure on him to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. The leverage of him potentially perjuring himself might lead to a compromise position; appointment of a special prosecutor and mute the calls for him to resign as attorney general altogether.
Really Broncofan? The Greeks called it sophistry, using words to say more, or less than what they mean. Did Sessions meet the Russian ambassador twice in 2016? Yes. It is as simple as that. To argue he met the Ambassador in his capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee or when visiting with a delegation from the Heritage Foundation does not obscure the fact that yep, he did meet the Russian ambassador. When asked at his confirmation hearings Sessions could easily have said yes, and explained the context of the meetings but he decided to tell lies, probably because Congress is a swamp that he and Donald Trump are clearing out, or have decided is irrelevant as Trump rules by Executive Order. Not one other member of the Armed Services Committee has ever had a meeting with the Russian Ambassador, whereas members of the Foreign Relations Committee have -give that a thought for a moment. But here you are dealing with the Government's senior lawyer, and he doesn't see the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
George W Bush's chief ethics lawyer has said Jeff Sessions' denial he had contact with a Russian ambassador during the Presidential campaign was "a good way to go to jail".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7607616.html
Lock him up? Or are we back to the central theme of the Trump Presidency -'We can do what we want, and say what we want because we don't care what you think about it'.
Sessions was all for impeaching a standing president for lying to Congess - and that was just about a blow job, not working with the Russians to influence an American election and agreeing to turn a blind eye toward the Russian takeover of Ukraine.
There was an interesting take on the Trump-Russia situation on last night's edition of the BBC-2 programme Newsnight.
A Russian analyst at the Royal United Services Institute (a think-tank for the UK military) argued that Russian strategy in place is to undermine liberal democracy -much as this was the strategy during the Cold War- but whereas in the past the USSR could use existing Communist Parties to get its message across, Russia under Putin has identified alt-right, nationalist and anti-globalization parties as its next best friend, with the aim to break down large trading blocs like the EU and the free flow of capital, goods and services associated with globalization, and return the world to a network of individual nation-states which would restore Russia's status as a major power. Globalization (this is my take) has exposed Russia as a large state with rich resources but weak markets, a fact Putin cannot change in the current set-up. Crucially, Russia had not been seen as a major power in recent years. In this context, Trump is music to Russian ears because they share the same goals of economic nationalism.
However, the Russian became engaged in the US election as they have in others, because they expected Hillary Clinton to win, thus most of their interventions were not so much intended to boost the Trump campaign but oriented to smearing Clinton's reputation, with the assumption that after the election she would not be able to shake off Wikileaks and any other revelations the Russians might have thereby weakening US democracy from within. The irony is that Trump is less hostile than Clinton, but they don't really know what to do with him, and so far has not won their favour with the proposed military build-up. The analyst thinks Trump may not lift sanctions in the near future.
So do they have dirt on Trump? The view was that Hotels in Russia have long been used by the regime to spy on, and implicate foreign dignitaries in scandals, as they are ideal locations in which to practice the dark arts, and while we don't know if they do have anything scandalous it is tempting for some to think they do, and let's face it, not much happens in Russia with people like Trump that is not recorded, it is that kind of a country.
My own view is that Trump evidently wanted in on the lucrative hotel scene in Russia, particularly Moscow which has a deficit of good hotels, and this began as early as the 1980s when Gorbachev became General Secretary; apart from a marketing adventure with Trump Vodka he doesn't seem to have been very successful in Russia, the problem is like many before and since, he was dazzled and overwhelmed in the 1990s by the fabulous wealth accrued by the Oligarchs, many of whom splash the cash with gay abandon, and wanted in on that river of riches, so the 'scandal' may lie in the associations he has had with individual Russians rather than the Government, much as Paul Manafort had dodgy dealings with the president of the Ukraine, in effect laundering Yanukovich's bribes. I could of course be wrong, but I think in time we may either find out, or just be treated to a drip-drip of names nobody outside Russia has heard of, all exposing Trump as the man we know anyway, doing deals in any way they come and go to enrich himself without much regard for the background of the people he is dealing with (his problem with Felix Sater in New York is an example of this).
I'm not sure if this goes here but I've posted twice in the thought for the day section and I've now had a third thought. I look at Trump's incoherent, dangerous tweets and the more than one hundred thousand people who "like" them and wonder what is going on.
People who voted for Trump must not have thought he could make America great again but rather be harboring such a deep-seated loathing of other human beings that they would elect one of the most incompetent and corrupt members of their species to hold the most powerful office in this country.
Do they not see him tweet that Pelosi or Schumer should be investigated because they met with Russian officials at one point and see how incoherent that point is? Did Pelosi or Schumer run in elections where their opponents were hacked by the Russian government? Did they mislead Congress under oath about it? Why does he not know he cannot order investigations but that the Justice Department does it? Why can't he spell the word "tap"? Why is he tweeting about the Apprentice?
Trump supporters explain again what you like about him? Is it just the infliction of misery on others using this ignorant vessel?
Donald’s supporters always claim that he says what he thinks; but I don’t believe it. He says all the nasty, stupid shit they say to each other and are too embarrassed to say outside their fetid little bubbles. His strategy to power has been to monopolize the media with so many idiocies that real newsworthy stories get shoved aside. It’s like a denial of service attack on our attentions. Look away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GeCPanRHU0
Given Trump's office has declined to clarify his remarks, the phone-tapping allegation is most likely based on something he saw in the right-wing media, just like the 3 million illegal voters and the 'something that happened in Sweden last night'. It was apparently mentioned in a recent Breitbart report. That's all it takes for something to be an accepted fact in the right-wing parallel universe. Most of the people liking his tweets probably exist in a bubble where they only choose to see or hear things that support their pre-conceptions.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...o_be_like.html
The Gorsuch hearings have been interesting so far. I read that Franken made reference to a frozen trucker case in which Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion. The opinion is in fact absurd. Gorsuch does not believe in something called Chevron deference. Under Chevron deference, an administrative agency is allowed to interpret a statute and a court will uphold its interpretation unless the agency's interpretation is arbitrary and capricious. Gorsuch believes that deferring to an agency's interpretation invades on the province of the judiciary and that judges should be able to decide whether their interpretations are correct from a neutral rather than deferential posture. This of course seems to undercut the entire purpose of having agencies, but nevermind, let's get to his wise decision.
A trucker was operating a trailer in subzero temperatures. The truck would not move with the trailer attached and its heater was not working. The trucker waited three hours for assistance before feeling his chest and legs go numb and then decided to abandon the trailer. There is a statute that protects workers who refuse to operate machinery for health and safety reasons. The agency decided in this case that the trucker's decision to drive away without the trailer was tantamount to a refusal to operate and he should be protected by the statute. Two judges agreed but Gorsuch, applying no deference to OSHA's interpretation of a health and safety statute, decided that by driving the truck away sans trailer, he was operating the machinery. Since he was operating machinery, he could not be covered by a statute that protected people who refuse to operate machinery for safety reasons.
My point is that more than an ideological conservative Gorsuch is a thoroughly unreasonable person. Somehow a man refusing to tow a trailer that stalled his truck in subzero temperatures is not covered by a statute that protects people who refuse to operate machinery for safety reasons.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ce-now/520509/
Some strong hints from Schiff that he has direct evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump associates. A rebuke of Nunes, the chair of the house intelligence committee who shared information with Trump that he thought supported the claim that Trump was wiretapped by Obama. It didn't provide that support but it was out of bounds for him to share that information with Trump and not with the intelligence committee. It's also not clear whether the information he made public was classified which would undermine his claim to being concerned about agency leaks. Anyhow, bad behavior from the Republican Nunes, and striking confidence from Schiff, although we'll find out soon enough what he's basing it on.
This doesn't really go here but I couldn't figure out where to put it. I recommend this article.
https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...m_source=atltw
In Putin's response to these Russian protests, you see echoes of Trump's response to protests in the U.S. Actually, it's the other way around, but I am more familiar with Trump's false claims of paid protesters and all sorts of defamatory assertions about his opponents. Obviously the situation is worse in Russia, as Navalny, the organizer of the protests had to reach his audience through youtube as all of the media in Russia is state controlled.
Many protesters were arrested and various people fighting Putin's corruption have now been thrown in jail on trumped up charges. Ioffe seems encouraged that people turned out to protest throughout Russia and not just in Moscow. But when going out in the street to express opposition is an act of courage and in Russia it is, you know you have a long way to go before your country has stable institutions and a democratic government.
Even though we are miles away from ever getting this bad, the Republicans have a lot to answer for in providing cover and defense for the completely amoral Putin regime. Those who pretend that opposition to Russia is really a second-coming of McCarthyism really aren't paying attention to the people who die mysteriously, to the extraordinary corruption, and the complete blackout on all legitimate forms of media.
It's interesting that Republican supporters views on Putin changed very sharply with the ascendancy of Trump last year
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/9/12865678...lls-republican What does that say about these people?
That they have zero intellectual integrity. They can't even be honest with themselves, let alone honest with those with whom they argue.
We can't make mistakes. Go ahead Ken.
I'm Chuck.:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWl37CWjgr0
i was in austria for a few months, and this guy told me "your fear only salts the meat". i'm still trying to use it in a sentence and apply it to my everyday vocabulary. like "that video proves trump can fuck anything up. really salts my meat" does that sound right?
stay tuned as i come up with the perfect "salts my meat" use
when i first heard trump had removed steve bannon from his national security post, i was very excited. but then i learned that he will still maintain the highest security clearance in the west wing and he'll still be advising the new (but actually former) national security advisor and i got pissed again.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesoul
really salts my meat
https://i.giphy.com/9GlQodYpm2P6g.gif
That GIF Salts My Fucking Meat....Puts me right off, it does!
Jon Ossoff, a Democrat who ran in the special election in the sixth district of Georgia failed to win outright with a majority and so there will be a runoff between him and Handel. He did a lot better in each county than Hillary did on November 8, and it was a small moral victory for Democrats though not the big victory we hoped for. He also had to contend with Trump attacking him two or three times on twitter. Ossoff has lived in the district his entire life but shortly before the election moved two minutes outside the district to live with his girlfriend who is in medical school. This is enough for Republicans to call him a carpetbagger.
Republicans also seem to be mathematically challenged. I've heard a number of Republicans say that he was not able to garner a majority even with 11 Republican candidates. Dilution of the Republican field would explain why someone could win a plurality but it is not easier to win a majority simply because the rival party has many candidates. In fact, one of the reasons a majority is required is to prevent someone from winning simply because his opponents cannibalize each other's votes. So Republicans get an F in math as well as science.
http://thehill.com/policy/internatio...demarks-report
The Trump corruption scandal is something a lot of people have begun to just shrug their shoulders over. For instance, when he congratulates Erdogan for consolidating power it's not clear whether he's doing it bc he has business there or bc he admires autocrats. Despite people's collective indifference there is at least one emoluments suit wending its way through the federal courts.
The case for corruption regarding China is very strong. Ivanka recently received trademarks in China for Trump business, something Donald had tried to obtain for ten years and failed until recently. It occurred just as Donald began to have cozier relations with the Chinese. This looks exactly like Trump's concessions to China on currency manipulation and the One China policy have led to a business benefit. I still am not certain what the judicial sanction would be for violating the emoluments clause...it can be like a restraining order or injunction but the President, unless he's removed from office still has to conduct foreign policy. Does it attack the property interest one obtained through corruption?
i noticed this as well when i read the donald's tweet after hearing the news about those results. confusing at first until i realized it's the republican zero sum mentality: you didn't get the results we said you wanted, therefore you lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
if ossoff holds onto his own voters she needs to not only keep her own but also win over all 60% of republican voters who didn't choose her
also, does anyone think this tweet might have something to do with milkshakes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXfBNaMU3Sg
"How Trump Could Get Fired " article in the current issue of The New Yorker describes the forces that could end this presidency before 2020 .
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...ould-get-fired
I watched some of the Clapper and Sally Yates hearings today conducted by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee. Unless they have revealed something later on, they mostly confirmed what we already know. Michael Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador and indicated that the sanctions against the Russians for their interference in our election might be lifted, that Yates warned the W.H when Pence began telling the public otherwise. Specifically, she told them that she had information that Flynn misled Pence and that this gave the Russians compromat on Flynn, the former NSA. The white house fired Sally Yates four days later for not defending their executive order on immigration, and did not seek Flynn's resignation until about 20 days after Yates' disclosure to white house counsel when the post covered the story. In that twenty day period he continued to be involved in sensitive national security matters.
The Republicans in the hearing did their best to pretend the hearing was really about leaks, the process of unmasking, and Yates' decision not to defend Trump's executive order. Yates and Clapper were asked whether they had ever unmasked any Trump associates, to which Yates said no and Clapper said yes. Clapper explained that the process of unmasking is done in a legal way, pursuant to federal law, in which a request is made to provide the name of a U.S person who is talking to a foreign subject being surveilled. The person requesting the name of the U.S person then provides the reason they want the name unmasked and how that unmasking helps them understand the nature of the foreign agent's actions.
They were both asked whether they leaked information and both answered no.
Yates was grilled with a series of question about why she did not defend Trump's executive order. The stupidest questions were asked by Senator Kennedy, who argued that because the order is not unconstitutional until the court rules it is, she had no right to opine on its constitutionality. He is right that it is the judiciary whose judgment is binding, but if she cannot defend the order in good faith on the merits, then she did the appropriate thing. She is not allowed to provide a defense that distorts the facts or the law, so if she believes any defense of the order requires that, she was right to make her views known. Anyhow, she did a great job of fending off the partisan attempts to smear her conduct.
Disappointingly, the questions of Senators Cruz, Cornyn, and Grassley indicate that the investigation is really not being conducted in a bipartisan manner. Yates' judgment on the executive order, which was later borne out to be sound, was not the subject of the investigation, and the Republicans feigning outrage over unmasking is equally dishonest. There is no indication the unmasking process was misused. There were leaks which are the proper subject of questions but they only established that neither Clapper nor Yates leaked classified information nor authorized anyone else to do so.
Message to all you bad hombres-don't mess with the Commandante!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/u...-fbi.html?_r=0
Comey reopened the FBI Hillary email investigation 10 days before the election. Without that, she might've won. He GAVE ELECTION to Trump
Is this about Comey getting some new shit on the Russian-Trump thing?
Stavros, tonight's cable news coverage is making no sense. They were totally blindsided.
Need your insight
Anyone who believes the explanation provided by Rosenstein, Trump, and Sessions is an idiot. The handling of Hillary's emails had nothing to do with Comey's firing as it occurred BEFORE Trump decided to keep Comey on. Whether he fired Comey because Comey had the temerity to continue investigating him or because he really thinks Comey would find something is tough to say.
The rational person would say that such a guilty looking act would only be taken by someone who is about to be found out, but Trump isn't rational and has the mind of a dictator. He would object to simply being investigated. But it doesn't look good for the rule of law, that someone can be fired simply for doing their job and investigating other executive branch officials.
Not only was media blindsided, but a lot of fbi staff were blindsided I've read. It was up to Sessions and his deputy to concoct reasons to fire Comey.
Firing the head of the fbi for investigating your associates should be an impeachable offense, whether it was necessary to protect his interests or not. The reasons provided by Trump are not genuine, as he supported the inappropriate actions of Comey and was gracious in their meeting when he decided to keep him on. Without going into too much detail, even people Rosenstein cited in his memo have said that they think the reasons provided by Team Trump are pretextual (see Donald Ayer's public statements). It does not matter whether the firing was necessary to protect Trump or simply a response to Comey's perceived disloyalty for continuing to investigate Trump, it is obstruction of justice.
People are making comparisons with the Saturday night massacre in which Nixon had the Watergate special prosecutor dismissed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
At least in that case the AG and deputy AG had the integrity to resign rather than do Nixon's bidding. What are chances that any prominent Republican will take a similar stand in this case?
Comey’s fumbling public speculations during the election, although despicable, were applauded by Trump, his campaign and his supporters. Had Trump and his administration actually thought Comey’s conduct unprofessional, proving him unfit to direct the FBI, then why did Trump praise his conduct at the time and why did his administration not move to displace Comey when Trump took office in January?
In addition to this three and one-half month delay, the timing of Comey’s ousting is intriguing: 1) One day after Sally Yates made mince-meat out of Trump’s allies at her Senate hearing. 2) The very day subpoenas are to be issued in the FBI investigation into possible collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia.
If not an attempt to stall and divert the FBI investigation, at the very least Comey’s firing is another attempt to steer the media and dominate the headlines. Not sure, however, that it was well thought through.
Because of Comey’s conduct during the campaign, Trump thought Comey was in his pocket. But Comey was embarrassed by his behavior, wanted to restore his reputation, and was therefore under public pressure to conduct the current investigation with a degree of bipartisanship, if not objectivity. I think Trump just recently realized that Comey never was in his pocket.
The firing may hurt Trump temporarily in the media, but it will kill the independence of the FBI and pre-determine the results of its investigation in favor of Trump.
The keywords to use: Data Laundering and the connections between the Alfa Bank in Moscow, Cambridge Analytica (based in Cambridge, UK) and SCL with the additional claims of (illegal) Russian funding in the US election campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by flabbybody
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCL_Group
The claim is that elections can be swayed if you have as minute a degree of information on voters as you can get -in particular targeting the undecided -data miining is Cambridge Analytica's role; while SCL provides the 'fake news' stories that pump up the waverers to make them choose, and although admittedly a weak strategy consider the margins of victory in the swing states that defeated Hillary Clinton: for example in Michigan she lost by 10,704 votes, in Wisconsin she lost by 22,177 votes, in Pennsylvania 67,416 votes (see link from The Hill below). However, at least one source, without any backup argues that it is too odd that the swing states were won by margins of 1% or less, and claims
it points to some hacker having nudged these four states into Trump’s column by no more and no less than the one percent he needed, so as not to arouse suspicion by giving him too large of a win in any of the states he was supposed to lose. But if so, it’s the pattern of all of these states being won by the same one percent that stands out as suspicious, because that’s just not how numbers work to begin with
http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/...-1-margin/118/
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...s-in-all-three
The FBI has been investigating 'unusual' activity between the Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign:
The FBI is examining why a computer server for a Russian bank led by oligarchs with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin had a disproportionate interest in reaching a server used by the Trump Organization during the US presidential campaign.
-The Alfa Bank in fact is not that close to Putin, but this may be because it is one of the richest in Russia and thus has been able to evade even his grubby fingers, or it could be that this 'distant' relationship is an ideal one when the Russian President wants to use their assets for foreign adventures. Thus:
Heat Street reported last November that the FBI had sought and obtained a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court after presenting evidence "of a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks; SVB Bank and Russia's Alfa Bank."
Two months later, the BBC reported that the FBI — part of a counterintelligence task force led by the CIA — requested the FISC warrant to investigate the banks after former CIA Director John Brennan received a recording of a conversation about Kremlin money potentially going into Trump campaign coffers.
McClatchy then followed up less than week later, reporting that investigators were "examining how money may have moved from the Kremlin to covertly help Trump win." McClatchy didn't mention Alfa Bank or computer servers and couldn't independently confirm the existence of a FISC warrant.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/fbi-al...servers-2017-3
It has also been alleged that Cambridge Analytica was heavily involved in the Brexit campaign in the UK and that there are links between it and the Republican campaign against Hillary Clinton -CA initially backed Ted Cruz before switching to the eventual Republican nominee. (Warning: this is a very long article)
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...cked-democracy
There is clearly enough here to warrant the FBI investigation that began before the November 2016 election, and if it can be proved that money was passed from Russia to the Trump Campaign, that illegal data mining was used to enable the Trump campaign to target undecided voters -the assumption is that data mining in some circumstances is illegal -for example, how did Cambridge Analytica obtain Facebook data?- impeachment would surely be on the cards. However, that would depend on how the Republicans in Congress view these developments, and whether they are ready to throw their Commander-in-Chief under the bus.
And of course, there may be a lot of smoke here, but no fire. But when Comey re-opened the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email traffic, there were no complaints from the Republicans, so their sudden conversion to political morality rings hollow. The Commander-in-Chief didn't even have the balls to call Comey and speak man-to-man to tell him he was fired.