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

5,515 posts in this topic

In before excretus drops another load and tells everyone to calm down and stop suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome again.

 

5cc43cc430c15_fark_1VfDqIlEhIZRWu3EB7L37

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the meantime, the Trump team orchestrated a human rights atrocity that We The People will be unraveling for years to come. Thankfully, per usual, the courts have stepped in to tell Mango Mussolini et. al. that they have to put some fire under their britches. (If your instinct is to parse the words "human rights atrocity," you're on the wrong side of this. You think about that.)

 

Quote

A federal judge in California gave the Trump administration six months to identify potentially thousands of additional migrant families separated before the controversial "zero tolerance" immigration enforcement policy officially went into effect.

U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw last summer ordered the government to reunify more than 2,800 children who were separated from their parents after crossing the southern border, a policy that drew widespread criticism and was ultimately reversed by President Donald Trump.
 

But, at the time Sabraw issued his order, it was not publicly known that the administration had secretly run a pilot project in Texas during the previous year where thousands more families may have been separated. After the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General released a report showing the extent of the pilot project, Sabraw ruled in March that those families were also part of the ongoing class-action lawsuit.
 

Justice Department attorneys argued finding that many family separations would require officials in multiple federal agencies to pore through every case file of migrant children who passed through their care because there was no electronic database tracking the separated families. All that work, Justice argued, could take up to two years.
 

ACLU attorneys blasted that request, arguing the government was able to work far more quickly to identify — and reunify — the first round of separated families. They estimated the work could be completed in three months.
 

"It’s not rocket science," ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said during a court hearing last week. "You flip through the pages and you can easily find whether there was separation or not within minutes."

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlexTr said:

In the meantime, the Trump team orchestrated a human rights atrocity that We The People will be unraveling for years to come. Thankfully, per usual, the courts have stepped in to tell Mango Mussolini et. al. that they have to put some fire under their britches. (If your instinct is to parse the words "human rights atrocity," you're on the wrong side of this. You think about that.)

 

 

 

Ever since I found out the ACLU defended the "right" to distribute child pornography...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fromm said:

 

Ever since I found out the ACLU defended the "right" to distribute child pornography...

 

Well, that's a new one for me. How's about a link there, bud?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Wiki

 

Quote

The Arizona chapter of the ACLU believes that production of child pornography should be illegal, but that possessing it is protected by the right to privacy. "Our policy is that possessing even pornographic material about children should not itself be a crime. The way to deal with this issue is to prosecute the makers of child pornography for exploiting minors."

 

They do not defend distribution or production.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@fraufruit I wondered why Findus had not returned. It's okay, @Findus. You could have just said you had made a mistake. I disagree with the ACLU on that one, by the way. I thought you were alluding to the 14 year old who was charged inappropriately with child porn distribution after sending a sexy pic of herself to another teen, but that case also didn't assert what you said so I decided I was wrong and it must be a different case.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, AlexTr said:

@fraufruit I wondered why Findus had not returned. It's okay, @Findus. You could have just said you had made a mistake. I disagree with the ACLU on that one, by the way. I thought you were alluding to the 14 year old who was charged inappropriately with child porn distribution after sending a sexy pic of herself to another teen, but that case also didn't assert what you said so I decided I was wrong and it must be a different case.

 

Sorry, I meant @Fromm.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Findus said:

Phew, AlexTr. Was doubting my sanity for a minute there...

 

 

I am sure you lost hours of sleep over it.:lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

President Donald Trump went on a 90-minute extended rant during his rally in Wisconsin on Saturday night, programmed against the White House Correspondents Dinner that he refused to attend. During his unhinged monologue, the president said many ridiculous things that will sap your will to continue living in this nightmare dystopia, including: accusing mothers and doctors of executing newborns, calling the media “sick” and ex-FBI officials “scum,” claiming credit for the “sick” idea of sending undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities, and doing an impression of the Saudi king’s accent. Oh, and, of course, there were “Lock her up!” chants.

Speaking about abortion, Trump brought up a lie he’s been touting for a while: that newborn babies are “executed” by their mothers and doctors. He accused Democrats of “aggressively pushing extreme late-term abortion, allowing children to be ripped from their mothers’ womb right up until the moment of birth.”

Then, he went even further, saying, “The baby is born, the mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. I don’t think so.”

Never mind that what he said was patently, demonstrably false. It doesn’t matter because Trump’s goal (and the goal of anti-choice activists) is to strip women of bodily autonomy by any means necessary. And yes, that includes lying about women going through the harrowing experience of having a baby who cannot survive outside the womb.

Trump also engaged in his typical name-calling, this time saying the media are “sick people” who say he won’t leave office “at the end of six years.” Wait, does the president not know that terms are four years each, or can he not do simple math?

No matter, because it’s time to move on to his next victims: leaders in the FBI and Department of Justice. “If you look at what’s happened with the scum that’s leaving the very top of government… these were dirty cops,” Trump said. “These were dirty players… They’re just leaving because they got caught like nobody ever got caught.”

The president also said he was “proud” of his “sick” idea to ship undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities.

“Democrats also support sanctuary cities that release thousands of dangerous criminal aliens onto our streets. In fact, they like the criminal aliens so much that when we are forced to release them into our country… we give them as many as they can handle,” Trump said, adding, “We’re sending many of them to sanctuary cities, thank you very much… They’re not too happy about it. I’m proud to tell you that was actually my sick idea.”

But, as The Daily Beast noted, the White House has never publicly announced such a policy is in action.

Speaking about America’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, Trump talked about his defense of Saudi King Salman in the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. “I said, King, We are losing our ass defending you, King, and you have a lot of money,” Trump claimed he said to Salman. He then mimicked Salman’s accent, saying, “Why would you be calling me? No one’s ever made such a call before.” To which Trump said he answered, “That’s ’cause they were stupid!”

 

Before the rally, Trump promised it would be “very positive,” unlike the White House Correspondents Dinner. Glad to see he fulfilled that promise. Now I’m going to go drown myself in the ocean.

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem. If you want to quash a subpoena, you have to sue for an injunction against the entity that filed the subpoena. You do not sue the entity subpoenaed. Who are these lawyers?

 

Quote

President Donald Trump and several members of his family sued Deutsche Bank and Capital One on Monday seeking to prevent them from responding to congressional subpoenas for information about the president's finances.

 

The House Intelligence and Financial Services committees have issued subpoenas to several banks as part of their investigations of alleged foreign influence on U.S. elections.

...
The suit alleges that Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff and Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters, both D-Calif., have refused to provide the Trumps with copies of the subpoenas, "preventing them from even knowing, let alone negotiating, the subpoenas' scope or breadth."
 

It seeks a declaratory judgment that the subpoenas are invalid and unenforceable and a permanent injunction to quash the subpoenas.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on the Deutsche Bank/Capital One debacle...

 

Trump sues Deutsche Bank and Capital One over Democrat subpoenas

 

Quote

US President Donald Trump has sued two banks in a bid to stop them handing over his financial records to Congress.

The lawsuit against Deutsche Bank and Capital One was filed after Democrat-led committees issued subpoenas for information on his finances.

His three eldest children and the Trump Organisation joined the lawsuit, which argues there are no legitimate grounds for investigating his business affairs.

Leading Democrats said they would not be deterred by the blocking attempt.

A Deutsche Bank spokeswoman told the New York Times: "We remain committed to providing appropriate information to all authorized investigations"

There was no immediate comment from Capital One.

"No legitimate grounds for investigating his business affairs..." Is he really that stupid ?

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, lisa13 said:

is it really so stupid?

 

this kind of response seems to work pretty splendidly for him so far :/

 

I was just thinking roughly the same thing. I believe that some part of Trump's ability to tell lie after lie and make obfuscation after obfuscation that his supporters believe and support is certainly the failed idea that "being a regular person" or rather not being "one of the elites" is mostly predicated on being dumb enough to believe that rich people, no matter how they became rich, are somehow better than normal people. A person with intellectual discernment sees that this has been mere propaganda from the GOP for decades (remember the Contract with America - that was breached by the GOP nearly from day one). 

 

There can be no other rationale. Whereas previously Americans abhorred a liar and a con man, now they seek to promote it and emulate it. Simultaneously dumber and more corrupt, the US has reached near bottom.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Wulfrun said:

"No legitimate grounds for investigating his business affairs..."

 

On the other hand, if he is being permanently audited by the IRS as he claims, there are plenty of legitimate grounds.

 

1

Share this post


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

 

On the other hand, if he is being permanently audited by the IRS as he claims, there are plenty of legitimate grounds.

 

Maybe the IRS should read the article from the NYT, Deutsche Bank’s history of lending and providing accounts to Mr. Trump I'd think Deutsche Bank would be rather embarrassed by its content

 

"Mr. Trump told Deutsche Bank his net worth was about $3 billion, but when bank employees reviewed his finances, they concluded he was worth about $788 million", yet they still loaned him more money...

3

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