Trump's Presidency: Is this the next domino to fall?

5,537 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, AlexTr said:

@balticus You just cannot get it done without the gratuitous ad hominem, can you. 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest Trump supporters.

 

 


 

Quote

 

...It’s been more than 20 years since the Oklahoma City bombing, an attack carried out by Timothy McVeigh that left 168 dead. McVeigh sympathized with armed right-wing militia groups, which at the time, were surging in membership. But armed militias have long been active on the fringes of American society and continue to rise today. Special correspondent P.J. Tobia reports.

For Hill and his group, the 2008 election was their defining moment, the one that signaled the U.S. was on the wrong track. They believed Obama wanted to restrict gun rights and forever alter their way of life.

Yvette DeMaria said she and her husband were looking for “like minds” and found the Georgia Security Force through Facebook and a pastor friend who had traveled to Gatlinburg, Tennessee, with the militia to help out after fires in the Smoky Mountains devastated the region. That act of charity had moved her.

Even before Obama was elected, the DeMarias felt the country was heading down the wrong path, with the military and law enforcement no longer cherished or revered. Yvette DeMaria said she believes protesters have been allowed to get out of control after police shootings.

Political correctness has run amok, she said, with politicians and the courts carving out constitutional protections that strayed far from the intent of the nation’s forefathers. She laments, for example, the legalization of same-sex marriage and the transgender bathroom issue, believing they amount to a war on her Christian faith.

“We cannot be silent anymore. We have voices. We need to rise up. We need to speak up. We need to find like minds,” Yvette DeMaria said. “We’re going to church every Sunday — but Monday through Saturday, what are we doing?”

She and her husband found their mission and some like-minded people in the militia, which is part of the Three Percenters movement. It derives its name from the belief that just 3 percent of the colonists rose up to fight the British. They have vowed to resist any government that infringes on the U.S. Constitution.

While focused on training, the militia is also social.

In the woods, they use hand signals and walkie-talkies to alert the others to where and how many enemies are lurking, They then navigate obstacles made of firehoses, logs and scraps of wood, metal and string to eliminate the threats.

The first two runs are “dry fire” exercises; the guns aren’t loaded. The last exercise of the day involves live rounds in their weapons — from AR-15s to handguns. After the targets are riddled with holes, the militia members gather around a fire at a campsite a short walk away to enjoy music and a barbecue.

For Hill, a paralegal by day, the Trump election was a defining moment to be celebrated.

“We’re being called Trump militia. It’s something I’m probably going to wear as a badge now,” Hill said. “I feel a connection to President Trump.”


 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trump flagrantly lies to reporters while explaining why he doesn't plan to comply with subpoenas from Congress: "I have been the most transparent president and administration in the history of our country by far." His tax returns couldn't be immediately reached for comment.

 

 

Comedy gold :lol::lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another day in the Trump administration.

 

Quote

The White House has signaled that it will assert executive privilege to block McGahn and others from testifying.

But Trump allowed McGahn to speak to special counsel Robert Muellerand permitted the release of the special counsel’s redacted report without asserting executive privilege, a decision that could make it hard to justify the new argument in court.

“It’s unlikely that the White House would prevail in blocking any testimony of Don McGahn on the basis of executive privilege,” said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who is a frequent contributor to The Hill.

“The problem for the White House is that the areas that Congress is most interested in were covered in detail by the special counsel,” Turley added.

Trump on Wednesday signaled he will take a hard line on all of the Democratic probes, vowing to reporters that he would fight “all the subpoenas” and saying he would take any effort to impeach him to the Supreme Court.


Which anyone with knowledge of the process knows will not pass muster with any SCOTUS.
 

Quote

Legally, the text of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the House of Representatives possesses the "sole" power to impeach and the Senate possesses the "sole power to try all impeachments." When Judge Walter Nixon tried to appeal his impeachment and conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that the procedures that the Senate followed were defective, the Rehnquist Court unanimously rejected that effort.

 

The parties do not offer evidence of a single word in the history of the Constitutional Convention or in contemporary commentary that even alludes to the possibility of judicial review in the context of the impeachment powers.

 

Chief Justice William Rehnquist even speculated about the problem of judicial review of a presidential impeachment.

 

We agree with the Court of Appeals that opening the door of judicial review to the procedures used by the Senate in trying impeachments would "expose the political life of the country to months, or perhaps years, of chaos." . . . This lack of finality would manifest itself most dramatically if the President were impeached. The legitimacy of any successor, and hence his effectiveness, would be impaired severely, not merely while the judicial process was running its course, but during any retrial that a differently constituted Senate might conduct if its first judgment of conviction were invalidated.

 

The modern Court does not often seem inclined to invoke the political question doctrine, but here at least the justices were willing to admit that the Constitution had committed this question into the hands of the legislature, not the judiciary.

 

Perhaps there are circumstances that might tempt the justices to assert judicial supremacy over impeachments as well. After all, the Court is fond of reminding us that it is emphatically a judicial task to say what the law is, and what if Congress seemed to be riding roughshod over the Constitution in how it used the impeachment power? Imagine a Congress willing to impeach a president on grounds that no reasonable person could think constitutes an impeachable offense. Donald Trump apparently prefers to eat his steaks well-done with ketchup. To be sure, this is a grievous offense, but presumably no one thinks it is a high crime or misdemeanor. Imagine further that two-thirds of the Senate is willing convict such a president with no semblance of a trial. "Convict first, go through due process second," declares the Senate majority leader. The Court might well think that such a Congress has badly abused its constitutional powers and is not even making a pretense of adhering to a good-faith interpretation of the Constitution. Maybe a Court confronted with such a runaway Congress would be tempted to ride to the president's rescue and discover the limits to the political question doctrine.

 

But that's when politics comes into play. A Congress willing to impeach and remove a sitting president on the pretext that he routinely dishonors his steaks could hardly be trusted to sit idly by while the justices attempted to reinstall that president in the White House. If a Court were to attempt to intervene in such a scenario, the justices might well find themselves next on the chopping block. The justices might at this point recall the words of Chief Justice Salmon Chase when the Court was asked to order the president not to enforce the Reconstruction Acts in Mississippi after the Civil War.

 

Suppose the bill filed and the injunction prayed for allowed. If the President refuse obedience, it is needless to observe that the court is without power to enforce its process. If, on the other hand, the President complies with the order of the court and refuses to execute the acts of Congress, is it not clear that a collision may occur between the executive and legislative departments of the government? May not the House of Representatives impeach the President for such refusal? And in that case could this court interfere, in behalf of the President, thus endangered by compliance with its mandate, and restrain by injunction the Senate of the United States from sitting as a court of impeachment? Would the strange spectacle be offered to the public world of an attempt by this court to arrest proceedings in that court?

 

"These questions answer themselves," Chase observed. Indeed. Sorry, Mr. President, you are on your own on this one.


 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear...

 

 

Comey Report out in 2 weeks. 

 

Adm. Rogers of the NSA is a hero.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Deutsche Bank has begun to provide documents on financing for some of President Donald Trump's projects to New York State authorities, a source familiar with the matter told AFP on Wednesday.

In mid-March, New York Attorney General Letitia James subpoenaed the German bank, demanding records related to loans and lines of credit granted to the Trump Organization.

The money was intended to finance projects such as Trump hotels in Washington, DC, Miami and Chicago, another source told AFP last month on the condition of anonymity.

It was unclear whether Deutsche Bank had provided all the documents requested.

"We remain committed to cooperating with authorized investigations," a bank spokesman told AFP, while declining to comment on a CNN report that the company was handing over the documents.

James' office also declined to comment on the status of the documents regarding financing for the Trump Organization, the holding company that has been run by Trump's sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr since he entered the White House.

New York authorities also wanted records related to the Trump Organization's failed attempt in 2014 to buy the Buffalo Bills football team, the source said on condition of anonymity.

James demanded the information from Deutsche Bank after Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen testified before Congress, saying among other things that Trump wildly inflated his net worth in order to secure loans from Deutsche Bank.

Deutsche Bank was one of the few major banks to continue to lend to Trump following the bankruptcies of his casinos and other businesses in the 1990s. The German bank in recent years has loaned Trump more than $300 million.

That put the bank at the center of investigations and congressional scrutiny.

When opposition Democrats took control of the House of Representatives in January, they sought information on interest rates granted to the Trump Organization, as well as details on a huge Russian money laundering case that earned Deutsche Bank a $630 million fine in January 2017.

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Former Vice President Joe Biden announced his 2020 presidential bid on Thursday morning with a video warning that four more years of President Trump would “forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation.”

Trump responded in a tweet.

“Welcome to the race Sleepy Joe,” the president wrote. “I only hope you have the intelligence, long in doubt, to wage a successful primary campaign. It will be nasty — you will be dealing with people who truly have some very sick & demented ideas. But if you make it, I will see you at the Starting Gate!”...

 

the rest

The name calling is just so juvenile but I guess his supporters approve.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, fraufruit said:

The name calling is just so juvenile but I guess his supporters approve.

 

Approve? They aren't intellectually capable of doing any better themselves. They think that's what makes him great - so many not-so-clever zingers. Pathetic.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even one person at Fox News gets it -

 

 

Quote

 

Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano fired off one of his sharpest critiques yet of President Donald Trump based on allegations outlined in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report. 

In a column on the Fox News website and in an accompanying video, Napolitano lit into Trump’s claim that he was exonerated by the Mueller report. 

“Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump,” Napolitano wrote, and listed them:  

“Why not charge him?” Napolitano asked in his video. “Because the attorney general of the United States would’ve blocked such a charge.”

Before the report’s release, Attorney General William Barr said last month that Trump did not obstruct justice based on the information Mueller’s team laid out in the report. 

However, Napolitano said, Barr used an extremely narrow definition of obstruction that’s at odds with “the nearly universal view of law enforcement.”

Barr, he said, is wrong ― and added that obstruction as a crime is almost never completed and doesn’t have to be successful to lead to criminal charges. A redacted copy of Mueller’s report showed that reported attempts to hamper the Russia investigation were thwarted by aides who did not fulfill Trump’s requests.

Now, Napolitano said, it’s up to House Democrats to decide if they should impeach Trump ― but noted that they might be looking at how Republicans suffered politically during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.  

“I’m disappointed in the behavior of the president,” Napolitano said in his video. “His job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States to uphold and enforce federal law. Not to violate it.” 

He said if Trump violated the law to save a life, he could have a moral defense.

“But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable,” he wrote on the website.  

Read his full column and watch the video here. 

 

 

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

The Democratic chairman of the House Oversight Committee accused the Trump administration of a "massive, unprecedented, and growing pattern of obstruction" for ordering federal employees not to comply with congressional investigations.

"Both President Trump and Attorney General Barr are now openly ordering federal employees to ignore congressional subpoenas and simply not show up - without any assertion of a valid legal privilege," U.S. Representative Elijah Cummings said in a statement.

The Justice Department on Wednesday rebuffed the House Oversight and Reform Committee, which had sought to interview an official involved in the Trump administration's decision to put a citizenship question on the 2020 U.S. Census.

The department said John Gore, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division, would not participate in a deposition scheduled for Thursday if he could not have a Justice Department lawyer at his side. The committee had offered to allow a lawyer to sit in a different room.

Cummings said the subpoena issued to Gore was adopted on a bipartisan basis and that there was no privilege asserted by the White House or Justice Department that would preclude him from appearing.

"This is a massive, unprecedented, and growing pattern of obstruction," Cummings said, warning the federal employees to "think very carefully about their own legal interests" in refusing to comply with the panel's requests.

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I saw that report of the Fox News opinion contributor in the Guardian this morning. Curiously, no mention yet on either NYT, slate or lawfareblog. Are they still trying to figure out how Murdoch could have approved this?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're likely just following longstanding policies of not giving that outlet, a regular purveyor of lies and disinformation, air.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump withdraws from UN Arms Trade Treaty

 

 

Quote

 

Donald Trump’s decision to pull the United States from the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty could lead the country into future foreign wars and exacerbate the immigration crisis at the southern border with Mexico, critics have claimed.

Speaking at the annual convention of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in Indianapolis, the president said he was withdrawing US support from the accord because it gave a degree of US sovereignty to other countries.

But some critics decried the move, saying it would create more problems, rather than solve them.

“If you look at it downstream, I think it creates real risk that the we are drawn into conflicts that are filled with guns manufactured and sold in the United States to these entities,” Kris Brown, the president of the national gun safety group Brady, told The Independent.

Ms Brown explained the UN Arms Trade Treaty was designed to forbid the sale of firearms to dangerous foreign actors and human rights abusers, and that the deal was supported by 100 countries across the world, including America’s European allies.

Pulling out of the deal essentially allows the sale of US firearms to foreign actors, which could then be used in wars that threaten American interests abroad, and then pull the US into those conflicts.

“We’ve seen this movie before many times over,” Ms Brown said.

During his speech on Friday, the president said that he decided to remove America’s signature from the treaty because he believed the deal hands over some sovereignty to foreign decision makers.

That announcement represented a major policy victory to the NRA, which broke its own record for campaign spending to support the former reality television star in 2016.

“We will never allow foreign bureaucrats to trample on your Second Amendment freedom,” Mr Trump said. “I’m officially announcing today that the United States will be revoking the effect of America’s signature from this badly misguided treaty.”

 

 

the rest

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's this -

 

Quote

 

President Donald Trump approved payment of a $2 million bill presented by North Korea to cover its care of comatose American Otto Warmbier, a college student who died shortly after being returned home from 17 months in a North Korean prison, the Washington Post reported on Thursday.

The Post said an invoice was handed to State Department envoy Joseph Yun hours before Warmbier, 22, was flown out of Pyongyang in a coma on June 13, 2017. Warmbier died six days later.

The U.S. envoy, who was sent to retrieve Warmbier, signed an agreement to pay the medical bill on instructions passed down from Trump, the Post reported, citing two unidentified people familiar with the situation.

"We do not comment on hostage negotiations, which is why they have been so successful during this administration," White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told Reuters.

Yun also told Reuters he could not comment on diplomatic exchanges. But in an interview with CNN on Thursday, he said he was given broad orders to secure Warmbier's release and he understood the instructions came directly from Trump.

"Yes, my orders were completely: do whatever you can to get Otto back," he told CNN. Yun said he understood that money had been exchanged in previous releases of U.S. prisoners and was justified as "hospital costs," but he gave no further details.

Representatives for the State Department did not respond to a request for comment.

 

 

And then there's this-

 

 

Quote

 

A report Kim Jong Un demanded from the U.S. and President Donald Trump approved $2M for hospitalization costs of Otto Warmbier weighed on Trump Friday morning. He took to Twitter:

No money was paid to North Korea for Otto Warmbier, not two Million dollars, not anything else. This is not the Obama Administration that paid 1.8 Billion Dollars for four hostages, or gave five terrorist hostages plus, who soon went back to battle, for traitor Sgt. Bergdah!

“President Donald J. Trump is the greatest hostage negotiator that I know of in the history of the United States. 20 hostages, many in impossible circumstances, have been released in last two years! No money was paid.” Cheif Hostage Negotiator, USA!

 

 
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

President Donald Trump opened a fresh line of attack Friday against his leading White House rival Joe Biden, saying the 76-year-old Democrat is "making me look very young" and vibrant by comparison.

"I'm the youngest person. I am a young, vibrant man," a smiling Trump, age 72, told reporters at the White House when asked how old is too old to serve as commander in chief.

"I look at Joe, I don't know about him," he said of Biden, who launched his 2020 presidential bid Thursday with direct attacks on Trump's character and controversial performance in office.

"I would never say anyone is too old, but I know they're all making me look very young both in terms of age and I think in terms of energy."

When Trump was asked how he would beat Biden, whose working-class appeal could help him win back states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that Trump snatched from Democrats in 2016, the president was succinct: "I think we beat him easily."

Trump is the oldest-ever US president, but he is three and a half years younger than Biden, who is leading the crowded Democratic field of candidates seeking the party's nomination next year.

The president is also five years younger than Bernie Sanders, the US senator who is second in polling for the Democratic nomination.

Of the 20 Democrats in the running, 10 are under age 50. Three of those are half Biden's age or younger.

Despite Trump's assertions of youthful vigor and health, he does have a weight problem.

In February, Trump was declared healthy by his doctor.

The lifelong real estate dealer has confounded health experts with his penchant for junk food and avoidance of strenuous exercise. He weighs 243 pounds (110 kg), his doctor said after an annual examination, which would put him in the category of mildly obese.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, fraufruit said:

The lifelong real estate dealer has confounded health experts with his penchant for junk food and avoidance of strenuous exercise. He weighs 243 pounds (110 kg), his doctor said after an annual examination, which would put him in the category of mildly obese.

243 pounds in his left ass cheek maybe.

 

fat_pos.jpg.c7aebe5bc84e1828680aaec12288

The guy's gut is so big he can't even keep his back straight in his riser shoes. He weighs 300 easily, if not 350.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought about the what made you laugh today thread but it  fits better here

 

rgu0yjy974921.jpg.6e66a35e74e86e19e35911

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now