The 2018 Trump Presidency thread

[Captain.Heroin]

^ hahaha, ah.

Perhaps they should not.

 

[mal3volent]

The NFL crafted this new policy in part to appease Trump and avoid any critical tweets from the White House

this kind of behavior is sickening. you don't appease the president in hopes of not being the target of ridicule, that's why it's not a dictatorship.
standing up for ones opinions is the same as standing up for ones way of life. if you change one you gotta change the other, otherwise your a sniveling hypocrite.
they had it coming imo.

p.s. get the thugs off the field. kapernick too, what a clown.

get the thugs out of the White House first.

 

[JGrimez]

The NFL thing couldn't be because they're hemorrhaging ratings and money?

Let me try this post again.
Latest stories:

-<SNIP>
-Republic House resolution for a second special counsel
-FBI agents wanting to be subpoenad to testify against their corrupt bosses
-Kushner permanent security clearance granted
-FBI agent Pientka to testify against McCabe in Flynn probe
-NFL BTFO - teams to be fined if players kneel
-Obama former chief of staff coldly exploiting Sandy Hook for gun control (leaked emails hmm)
-Halper linked to dossier
-Trump on the MAGA offensive with articles everywhere
-Avenatti MIA (blamed on family "medical issues")
-Caputo claims of second possible spy attempt in Trump campaign
-Twitter declared public forum!! Huge for anti-censorship lobby

 

[Roger&Me]

The NFL thing couldn't be because they're hemorrhaging ratings and money?

Let me try this post again.
Latest stories:

-new Hillary emails

-Republic House resolution for a second special counsel

-FBI agents wanting to be subpoenad to testify against their corrupt bosses

-Kushner permanent security clearance granted

-[other stuff . . . ]

Talk about a giant plate of nothingburgers.

-"buttery males!" 8) Honestly, it'd be really nice if we could just stop talking about Hillary, considering that she is no longer actively involved in American politics. She's just a private citizen now, like you or me. I get it, you don't like her. You hate her face and her nasally, condescending voice. I wasn't all that crazy about those things either. But whether Hillary did anything wrong is totally immaterial to our discussion about Trump. There's even a name for the technique you keep using: whataboutism. It's the attempt to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the opponent's argument. Curiously, and, I trust, coincidentally, whataboutism was also traditionally a staple of Soviet and Russian propaganda.

-The House Intel Committee is a partisan circus. If you want to get a sense of what's actually going on, watch the Senate Intel Committee. It's still largely bipartisan and is tasked with most of the serious oversight of the intelligence community. And it's chaired by a lifelong Republican from the fine state of North Carolina.

-The (notoriously partisan) Daily Caller reported "numerous" agents want to testify against Comey and McCabe. Cool beans. Those two dudes were at the top of the entire Federal Bureau of Investigation and had roughly 35,000 agents working under them. Both men were widely respected within the Bureau, Comey especially. And that comes straight from the horse's mouth: my buddy who is employed at FBI. Not to mention the same thing was widely reported in the media, and basically had long been public knowledge.

-First of all, security clearances for political appointees have always been kind of a joke, they're routinely issued to cabinet members and cabinet-level officials who would never be issued clearances to serve as agents of FBI, CIA, NSA, DNI, etc. And, even so, Kushner probably still could've found a TS/SCI clearance in a Cracker Jack box sooner than they issued one to him. Because he lied on an SF-86 form: a big-ass felony, and one that he'll still risk being subjected to criminal liability for committing, despite being issued the clearance. Well, at least until the statute of limitations runs out for that crime (3 years from its discovery iirc). Lying on an SF-86 isn't a little made-up crime used to pick on people, either. It's a huge crime concerning national security. It's essentially procuring, by fraud, access to our nation's most valuable secrets.

-[maybe later . . . ]

 

[Cream Gravy?]

^Re;Kushner. I've been looking into SF-86. In fact I've read the whole god damn long ass form. It's a serious gosh dang thing. If someone like him can get away with lying on it, I sure feel sad about our national security status.

 

[Roger&Me]

^Re;Kushner. I've been looking into SF-86. In fact I've read the whole god damn long ass form. It's a serious gosh dang thing. If someone like him can get away with lying on it, I sure feel sad about our national security status.

The SF-86 is more than a serious document, it's the lone gateway to a clandestine world of staggering proportions. It grants access to the innermost sanctum of the US government, where we keep secrets that are worth (literally) billions of dollars, if not more. The intelligence community is basically a law of its own, for exactly that reason. Small mistakes ruin careers and willful bad acts land people in supermax federal prison for the rest of their lives, staring at a beige concrete walls and eating Nutraloaf with their fingers. Don't ever lie on one of those forms (and remember: even the most embarrassing or potentially compromising admissions are usually forgiven, the government really just wants you to fess up to everything so it has all the info in advance).

 

[JGrimez]

^in order to stay on topic, I moved all my questions for you into the Clinton thread.

Honestly, it'd be really nice if we could just stop talking about Hillary, considering that she is no longer actively involved in American politics. She's just a private citizen now, like you or me. I get it, you don't like her. You hate her face and her nasally, condescending voice. I wasn't all that crazy about those things either. But whether Hillary did anything wrong is totally immaterial to our discussion about Trump. There's even a name for the technique you keep using: whataboutism. It's the attempt to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the opponent's argument. Curiously, and, I trust, coincidentally, whataboutism was also traditionally a staple of Soviet and Russian propaganda.

I'm sorry but whataboutism is a fabricated term people use when you point out their hypocrisy.
And the reason the Clinton email scandal is important is because of the precedent.
Serious question: if Trump was found to be housing SAPs and classified information on a private server then should he be indicted? Of course he should, and the Left would be foaming at the mouth to charge, impeach and jail him. But.....Clinton walked away scot-free. So tell me, does the law apply equally for everyone? Or do powerful people that we like get a free pass? (mod please don't delete this, it's important. I'm not picking on Hillary, I'm making a point about the law and how it should be followed).
Roger&Me - once again there are some questions for you waiting to be answered in the Clinton thread.

Both men were widely respected within the Bureau, Comey especially. And that comes straight from the horse's mouth: my buddy who is employed at FBI.

Ask your buddy if he was cool with how Comey handled the email investigation and failed to do his job and recommend charges. Also ask him if he's cool with Comey leaking classified information to the media, along with taking part in a coup to remove an incoming president. Even though there is a bifurcation currently in the intelligence community, I would not go so far as to say "both men were widely respected". They've both been disgraced and fired. That's the best-case scenario for them as they should probably be charged.

It grants access to the innermost sanctum of the US government, where we keep secrets that are worth (literally) billions of dollars, if not more. The intelligence community is basically a law of its own, for exactly that reason. Small mistakes ruin careers and willful bad acts land people in supermax federal prison for the rest of their lives, staring at a beige concrete walls and eating Nutraloaf with their fingers. Don't ever lie on one of those forms (and remember: even the most embarrassing or potentially compromising admissions are usually forgiven, the government really just wants you to fess up to everything so it has all the info in advance).

What would happen to Kushner if he took some of those state secrets and put them on an unsecured private server for 3 months?
I guess no serious prosecutor would touch that one LOL

 

[cduggles]

[url="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email-trump-kushner-bannon.html]At Least 6 White House Advisers Used Private Email Accounts[/url]

Hellooooooo...

 

[Captain.Heroin]

The NFL thing couldn't be because they're hemorrhaging ratings and money?

Haemorrhaging ratings and money, wait, you're talking about Trump, right?

The SF-86 is more than a serious document, it's the lone gateway to a clandestine world of staggering proportions. It grants access to the innermost sanctum of the US government, where we keep secrets that are worth (literally) billions of dollars, if not more. The intelligence community is basically a law of its own, for exactly that reason. Small mistakes ruin careers and willful bad acts land people in supermax federal prison for the rest of their lives, staring at a beige concrete walls and eating Nutraloaf with their fingers. Don't ever lie on one of those forms (and remember: even the most embarrassing or potentially compromising admissions are usually forgiven, the government really just wants you to fess up to everything so it has all the info in advance).

So what's the point of having information if you're not going to use it for your own personal advantage?

Did anyone really think anything less would happen if we stuck a money-hungry businessman into office?

This is exactly what the American people wanted, and they got it. I'm happy for America.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Ask your buddy if he was cool with how Comey handled the email investigation

I don't care what Rog's "buddy" thinks about it. Comey belongs in prison next to Trump, Kushner, McConnell, Sessions, Ryan, Giuliani, etc.

Shove them all in there and toss one twitter-capable phone in and watch them tear each other apart just to send a 128 character SOS message to a world that no longer cares about them...

 

[JGrimez]

At Least 6 White House Advisers Used Private Email Accounts

Hellooooooo...

This isn't about a private email account.
It's not illegal to use private email.
For example Colin Powell used a private email address but it still went through the State Department's servers.
It's ok for officials to do this if they're emailing regarding non-governmental affairs.
But as soon as you conduct government business on a separate, private server that you've set up is when it becomes illegal.
Because now Congress has no oversight on what you're doing and it circumvents FOIA laws so operating without transparency.
That's bad enough but then if someone put classified information onto that server - that's really, really bad.

I don't care what Rog's "buddy" thinks about it. Comey belongs in prison next to Trump, Kushner, McConnell, Sessions, Ryan, Giuliani, etc.

Well yeah Comey committed obstruction of justice, mishandled classified information, perjured himself etc.
Trump I haven't seen any evidence of committing jail-able crimes. I'm open to hearing new information though

Haemorrhaging ratings and money, wait, you're talking about Trump, right?

Let me know when he starts abusing the presidency to enrich himself

 

[JGrimez]

TRUMP SIGNS ORDERS MAKING IT EASIER TO FIRE POORLY PERFORMING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES; UNIONS OUTRAGED
By Kevin Ryan

President Donald Trump has signed executive orders today that will make it easier for the federal government to fire employees it considers to be poor performers. The orders:

• Reduce the length of time that an employee can be retained using a “performance improvement period,” currently ranging from 60 to 120 days depending on the agency. The new length will be 30 days for all agencies.
• Encourage agencies to prioritize performance over seniority when they consider layoffs.
• Encourage agencies to fire employees rather than suspend them for egregious misconduct.
• Restrict how much on-the-job time federal employees can spend on labor union duties.

“These executive orders will make it easier for agencies to remove poor-performing employees and ensure that taxpayer dollars are more efficiently used,” said Andrew Bremberg, head of Mr. Trump’s domestic policy council. The orders deliver on a promise made by President Trump in his State of the Union address.

Union representatives say the sweeping changes are a “direct assault” on the rights of millions of workers and would deprive their members of key labor rights, and would not rule out lawsuits to stop enforcement of the measures. There are 2 million federal workers across the country.

SOURCE: https://www.wsj.com/…/trump-issues-orders-making-it-easier-…

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Let me know when he starts abusing the presidency to enrich himself

Him & Kushner have been doing this since election night bro

He had Cohen take 6 figure sums for "access to president"...

You'd have to keep the head buried deeply in the sand to keep someone from hearing about it.

 

[JGrimez]

OK I thought he was losing money.
Let me know when you decide which one it is..

 

[Roger&Me]

Ask your buddy if he was cool with how Comey handled the email investigation and failed to do his job and recommend charges.

I've talked to him about it because naturally I was curious to hear his opinion on that stuff. And, of course, he didn't think Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted, because nobody who actually understands the law and the facts of that case would think that. And I trust his opinion because he's an AGC at the bureau, not a field agent, and his entire job basically consists of deciding whether people can or should be charged with crimes (two separate questions).

But even if Comey/FBI had recommended charges, you'd have to get a prosecutor at DOJ to agree to take the case. Which probably would not have been possible, because it really, actually was a weak case. And prosecutors are allowed to decline to prosecute cases: that's their right. You can't force an attorney to take a case that they don't want to take. They're even allowed to decline to prosecute cases for expressly political reasons. This notion that prosecutors should be totally blind to political considerations is utterly bizarre: in most states, district attorneys are elected officials. Meaning they literally are politicians. Prosecutors at DOJ aren't elected, but they serve the executive branch, which is an explicitly political branch -- they aren't just allowed to consider the political ramifications of cases, they are required to.

And let's assume that Comey had recommended charges and you also managed to find a prosecutor at DOJ who would agree to take the case. Well, you'd still have to get the consent of a Grand Jury to bring felony charges. Ultimately, we make the decision whether to bring felony charges. You and me. Just regular-ass everyday people. You're exaggerating Comey's importance in all of this. Also, you seem to totally misunderstand the motivations of DOJ. It's really the exct opposite of what you think. I promise you, if the case against Clinton were actually winnable, prosecutors at DOJ would be jumping at the bit to bring it against her. Seriously. If you put Hillary Clinton in prison, that would instantly make you one of the most famous lawyers in the entire world. It would be the apex achievement of your professional life, hands down. You could publish a ghostwritten memoir and spend the rest of your life collecting checks while you lay on the beach.

It's like you expect prosecutors at DOJ to have some kind of anti-prosecution bias. No. They put people in prison for a living. They're biased in favor of bringing any charges they can, so long as those charges are likely to result in a guilty verdict at trial or force the defendant into a plea deal to avoid a trial in the first place.

taking part in a coup to remove an incoming president.

The last time I checked, President Trump has not been removed from office. In fact, he's been doing all sorts of presidenting lately. He's been presidenting up a damn storm.

But if a lawful investigation ends up revealing wrongdoing by Trump and the people decide to impeach him, that's not a coup. That's just democracy working exactly the way it's supposed to. Winning an election doesn't make you king for 4 years, it just makes you the temporary head of the executive branch who is allowed to serve for up to 4 years if the people decide to allow you to. Everybody else in the country still has the right to fuck with the president and obstruct him in all sorts of lawful ways. People in some positions even have the obligation to obstruct the president. That's just how democracy works: power is pitted against power so that competing motivations balance each other out, and nobody has the ability to exercise power without somebody else exercising a competing power to obstruct it.

But even if a mean prosecutor with a grudge decides to indict Trump (which won't happen, impeachment is the worst fate he'll suffer -- and even that is unlikely), that's still just democracy working the way it's supposed to. If a prosecutor with the authority to prosecute Trump thinks that Trump broke the law, that prosecutor could decide to bring a case against him, so long as that prosecutor acquires the consent of a Grand Jury. The prosecutor would possess the right to bring the case -- that right is a piece of property which belongs to the prosecutor, and only a Grand Jury possesses the right to deny the prosecutor the ability to exercise it. But Trump, in turn, would possess a corollary right to defend himself against any charges, publicly, in a court of law. And if the charges were bunk and he'd done nothing wrong, he could avail himself of that opportunity to prove his innocence in front of everyone and settle the matter for good. Trump would also, at all times, possess the right to speak freely and defend himself in the court of public opinion.

None of that would be unfair to Trump in the slightest.

Even though there is a bifurcation currently in the intelligence community, I would not go so far as to say "both men were widely respected". They've both been disgraced and fired. That's the best-case scenario for them as they should probably be charged.

Both men absolutely were widely respected within FBI. Absolutely. There was strong consensus within the Bureau that both were honorable men and served with integrity. It's laughable to suggest that their reputations within FBI were poor. That's just simply false. And, for the record, they weren't "disgraced and fired," they were fired as part of Trump's spastic attempt to unlawfully obstruct a legitimate investigation into his potential wrongdoing.

And there's no "bifurcation" in the intelligence community regarding Trump. Aside from like 5 or 6 agents at FBI's NYFO, basically nobody in the IC likes Trump. It's a world based on rules and discipline, and Trump doesn't follow rules and he has no discipline. Not to mention that time he stood in front of CIA's Wall of Stars and all but smeared shit all over it -- yacking on about "fake news" and the size of his inauguration crowd, totally and completely unmindful of the fact that every star on the wall behind him represents an individual human being who sacrificed their life while serving our country. There are no words for that kind of shit. Fuck Trump.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

OK I thought he was losing money.
Let me know when you decide which one it is..

Kushner lost 500 million on one bad business deal when the housing bubble burst.

You can fundraise all you want to, you'll still be broke.

 

[Roger&Me]

Kushner lost 500 million on one bad business deal when the housing bubble burst.

You can fundraise all you want to, you'll still be broke.

Well, the US treasury currently has $74 billion in it. But don't worry, we got these people protecting it:

Louise Linton, especially, looks like the frugal type to me.

 

[Roger&Me]

The leather gloves, alone, probably cost more than most BLers make in a month.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Well, the US treasury currently has $74 billion in it.

And we're nationally in 20 trillion in debt.

So really all that $$$ is earmarked and not really ours.

 

[Roger&Me]

The GDP of the United States in 2016 was $18.57 trillion. We're really not in that much debt at all relative to how much we produce, and being in debt actually allows us to spend more than we could otherwise -- which benefits us in lots of ways. Plus, it was lent to us by China, which is barely even a real country and will probably have another Cultural Revolution-type schizophrenic episode in a few years and dissolve anyway D).