The Trump Presidency

[Quantum Quack]

It is a strategy that Trump employed from the start of his campaign....deflect criticism towards Hillary. Build the Hillary Clinton hate club...What we saw was just Trump doing what he does best ( gaining "success" from someone else's failure)...just a pity he chose McCain to highlight his influence.

Trump only wins because others fail... weak self esteem 101

 

[Quantum Quack]

more evidence of wooo wooo...

How much/many inexplicables do you need?
Trump ain't going no where no matter how bad his administration is....

 

[iceaura]

Hm. Once a war against NK was not on the wish list of the deep state, he was not cornered to start it. But if it goes against Iran, where the war is on the wish list, he will be cornered? Ok, this cannot be excluded as a possibility. Remember how great became Trump for all the Anti-Trumpers in the media once he bombed Syria.

Trump really likes being praised in the media, so in addition to ramping up the drone strikes and so forth more bombing of something is likely. But nothing oil and Russian, or oil and Russian allied - so Iran, otherwise an obvious target, is let's guess not the most likely.
He could well be cornered into nuking NK yet - especially if fatboy over there is somehow fooled into thinking Trump is only bluffing, and will never back up his big mouth.
Because it's not the "deep state minus the military industrial complex, Big Oil, and the Pentagon" (your idea of a deep state) that will corner him: it's one of these enemies, by accident.
Accident is how the nuclear war you say you rank above all other considerations will start. And Trump is an accident looking for someplace to happen.

Once that's all what is worth to be mentioned, it looks like the hopes of the Clinton-fans to obtain something sufficient for impeachment are dead?

There are plenty of Clinton foes who want to impeach Trump. Cross your fingers; because Trump's agenda - the Republican agenda - is aimed at you like a shotgun. And right now it's winning, still.

 

[Schmelzer]

Cross your fingers; because Trump's agenda - the Republican agenda - is aimed at you like a shotgun. And right now it's winning, still.

As if the Democratic agenda is not aimed at me like a shotgun. This is not the point at all.

What makes the difference is who is using more harmful means. Openly supporting fascist and islamistic terrorism all other Eurasia to weaken Eurasia as a whole, permament low level warfare everywhere, which is what the Democrats favor, or Big Military budget, and from time to time a small war against a weak country, which is somehow in conflict with CIA over controlling the local drug cartels, which is what Republicans prefer?

 

[iceaura]

What makes the difference is who is using more harmful means.

Trump will. Already is.

Openly supporting fascist and islamistic terrorism all other Eurasia to weaken Eurasia as a whole, permament low level warfare everywhere, which is what the Democrats favor, or Big Military budget, and from time to time a small war against a weak country, which is somehow in conflict with CIA over controlling the local drug cartels, which is what Republicans prefer?

Uh, no, that's now how things are. You are confused by having given credence to the Republican revision of history and induced amnesia.

The CIA drug cartels are largely Republican in backing and origin, historically and now, and the source of much low level semi-permanent war. The Iraq War was not small, not in conflict with any CIA bad stuff (the opposite), and an example of the Republican agenda (as is the US military involvement in the Middle East generally). The Iraq invasion and occupation is the primary cause of this Libyan and Syrian bad stuff as well as its own horrorshow, and it was Republican. So is the US alliance with Saudi Arabia, the source of much terrorism support, and much of the US support of Israel, with all of those issues.

The big Trump military budget will be used, as it always has been, to fight wars everywhere. Including your back yard, quite likely, and with nukes, in Trump's case (if we can't get a leash on him).

 

[Schmelzer]

I see a misunderstanding about what I have attributed to the Republicans, I was obviously not precise enough, so let's correct the misunderstood part:

"and from time to time a small war against a weak country, where the local government is somehow in conflict with CIA over controlling the local drug cartels or whatever else".

So I never tried to question that the CIA-run drug cartels have Republican backings. The Iraq war itself was small enough, two weeks or so iirc. That the US appeared unable (or unwilling) to fight the resulting terrorism is another question, but war against local terrorism is also small war. I would also like to clarify that, without doubt, supporting terrorism is something they like above. But there was a shift in the Obama years to make this the main, most important way to reach US political aims. All the major actions started in this time (Libya, Syria, Ukraine) were of this type. Instead, the main actions of W, Afghanistan and Iraq, were open uses of US army.

Again, these are in no way fundamental disagreements, these are more differences on the tactical level (in the big geopolitical picture). So, there is no contradiction with Obama continuing above open wars, and W preparing terrorism in Libya and Syria or fascism in the Ukraine. But the question is if it makes a difference at all. And so even small differences in degree matter.

The big Trump military budget will be used, as it always has been, to fight wars everywhere. Including your back yard, quite likely, and with nukes, in Trump's case (if we can't get a leash on him).

My own back yard is clearly and obviously more endangered by Clinton than by Trump. Just for information. But this is not the reason for my actual preference. Which is based on the big picture, you know, multipolar vs. unipolar.

 

[Bells]

I even heard from my mother on this point, today.

There are a few things, there, though; I just can't get them all laid out neatly.

(1) Old-school partisan politics. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went off earlier today about how Comey's testimony means Mueller isn't pursuing an obstruction case. The logic isn't quite there, but it's easy to see what he's doing. The problem is that such politicking has been of dubious effect in recent years. Still, he's just looking for a way to rally faithful Republicans while not stooping to open advocacy. Sen. McCain might well have attempted something similar. It should occur to them—well, okay, at least Mr. Graham—rather quite shortly that such maneuvers just aren't going to work.

(2) Tit for tat. There is a weird, vague idea among conservatives that comes out from time to time, and it's like they're stuck on their own demonization of liberals, cynically demanding some manner of quota; it goes, approximately, that since "we" just did "the right thing", now "you" have to do an equivalent "right thing". A test, for instance, would be whether or not Republicans, having impeached removed President Trump, would expect pursuit of President Pence's exposure and culpability to stop. Well, you know, unless we throw Hillary Clinton in prison, along the way. But they won't do all the right thing without stopping to demand new incentive along the way. Think of it this way: One reason Republicans have trouble thinking of civil rights outside a context of accusing quotas is that quotas are all they can come up with.

(3) Cheap politicking. If we attend closely, it is easy to notice several Republicans trying to lead into their discussion of Trump troubles by reminding of old accusations against Democrats, and, you know, that's such a mess it would be easy for anyone to get flustered and confused in the middle of it all.

(4) Crackpottery. There is underneath all this a bizarre and desperate attempt to turn this all back to Hillary Clinton; quite literally, a conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton colluded and continues to work with Russians to discredit President Trump and Republicans.​

Age and senility are tempting; so is age, the changing weather, and the idea of an antihistamine. Substantively speaking, though, the question of fuck-all's wrong with McCain is even more fascinating once we skip past the medical.

I thought about this as well, but while there was all of that in what he was trying to ask, there was also something very very wrong with how he was asking it. In that he made absolutely no sense.

He was confused, incoherent and seemed to have no idea of who was who and could not understand the actual subjects he was bringing up. If this was a case of the points you raised, he would have some form of support from right wing media. A check today saw that they were equally confused and it seems it is the one thing the left and right agree on.. McCain made no sense whatsoever.

From Redstate:

“You’re going to have to help me out here,” said Senator John McCain to former FBI Director James Comey today during Capitol Hill hearings. And that is exactly what everyone who listened to his line of questioning was thinking. Take, for example, the faces of the other Senators listening.

Here’s Senator Rubio’s face in case you couldn’t see it:

Okay, but what was it that Senator McCain said that confused everyone? It’s hard to describe it exactly. It’s sort of the whole thing.

On the surface it would be a rather typical question. Why did you do X for Democrats but do Y for a Republican. I mean, I think that’s what the gist was. Although he seemed to think Hillary was being investigated about … Russia? Whatever the case, it obviously didn’t work and he definitely seemed to be completely confused.​

That message is pretty much everywhere in right wing media. I won't deny that he was trying to push the 4 points you raised. But he was so incoherent and confused that he even lost the people who would be championing those 4 points, to the point that they had no idea what the hell he was on about either.

I literally thought he was having a stroke on live TV. That kind of incoherent rambling can be a symptom of a bleed in the brain if one does not suffer from dementia... Even a minor one. Especially in the absence of drugs and alcohol. Or his age is starting to show, late night, as he tried to claim.. Means that he is no longer in a position to be where he is, being able to vote for things that affect other people, if staying up to 1:00am the night before means that he becomes a rambling and incoherent mess with zero understanding of any issues being discussed the next day.

 

[wellwisher]

Trump from the beginning claimed that Comey told him, on three occasions, he was not under investigation for the Russian probe. Comey admitted this in his testimony, yesterday. The question becomes, why did he tell this to Trump, but then refuse to make a public statement about what he said to Trump in private? The approach Comey took, kept the Democratic narrative alive, instead of nip it in the bud. Comey bought the Democrats time to weave the illusion until it was a meme. Comey was part of the swamp. I would guess this why Trump asked Comey about loyalty? His loyalty was not with Trump, but with the Democrats. He was fired.

The real scam going on is to distract everyone, so they lose track of the ball. There is a large push to address Russian interference, and then associate this to Trump. The question is, if the Russians were doing all this hacking and interference, did they get into Hillary's server before it was erased? If the Russians are so devious and good at hacking, one would assume a private server, would be an easy target.

Say we work under the assumption the Russians did hack Hillary server, and Hillary learned about this via intelligence agencies, what would be Hillary's best defense agains her information getting out? First of all, she would need to get lawyers to erase anything damming so there is no data for comparison. Secondly, she would also need to find a way to discredit the Russians, before they could release any materials. If the Russian are portrayed as liars and scammers, she could deny everything easier in the arena of public opinion. Purging the server would also make it harder for the Russians to be taken seriously.

It would also be a good idea to have another scapegoat, to take the attention off of you. This is where Trump comes in. Comey tells Trump you are not under investigation, but he refuses to say this publicly, until the smoke screen is in full gear. My advice to Trump and anyone looking for justice is to place the public eye back on the ball. Ee need to compare motivations; Trump versus Hillary.

Comey's public statement, prior to the election, to pardon Hillary, based on lack of intent, was unusual, since the FBI director is not a prosecutor but r more like a policeman who gather evidence for the prosecutor. This was not Comey's job but was the job of the justice department. The question is did Obama and his Justice department know about Comey's press conference in advance? The press knew and had plenty of time to set up the cameras. why did the Obama Administration feel the need to buffer themselves? Why did they allow a break in the chain of command that would allow Hillary to get off so easy? Picture if this has been Trump.

My guess is classified US government business was on Hillary's server, including interaction with Obama. Both Obama and Hillary needed to nip the investigation in the bud, before anyone asked the right questions. We may need to investigate the loudest Democrats and Republicans for their roll in the cover up.

Trump's hands are sort of tied because the Democrats were able to get AG Sessions to recuse himself from any Hillary and Russian investigation. Trump wen along out of good will. Again this was a good strategy, if the idea was to cover something up. This now makes it harder for Trump to get on the offense. Trump may need to reassign Sessions; supreme court justice, and get a new AG. I would put someone like Ted Cruz as the new AG, since he can drill deep.

 

[Kittamaru]

Trump wen along out of good will.

This alone proves how fucking delusional you are... what, in the history of fucking EVER, has Trump done out of "good will"?

His goddamn organization stole from funds meant for St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital (<- Link), for fucks sake...

Per Eric Trump:

The best part about all this, according to Eric Trump, is the charity's efficiency: Because he can get his family's golf course for free and have most of the other costs donated, virtually all the money contributed will go toward helping kids with cancer. "We get to use our assets 100% free of charge," Trump tells Forbes.

Then the truth comes out...

In reviewing filings from the Eric Trump Foundation and other charities, it's clear that the course wasn't free--that the Trump Organization received payments for its use, part of more than $1.2 million that has no documented recipients past the Trump Organization. Golf charity experts say the listed expenses defy any reasonable cost justification for a one-day golf tournament.


Additionally, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, which has come under previous scrutiny for self-dealing and advancing the interests of its namesake rather than those of charity, apparently used the Eric Trump Foundation to funnel $100,000 in donations into revenue for the Trump Organization.

And while donors to the Eric Trump Foundation were told their money was going to help sick kids, more than $500,000 was re-donated to other charities, many of which were connected to Trump family members or interests, including at least four groups that subsequently paid to hold golf tournaments at Trump courses.

Add onto it:

The president was never known for giving his foundation much money, and from 2009 to 2014, he didn't give it anything at all. Outsiders still donated, though, allowing Trump to dole out their money to a smattering of more than 200 charities as if it were his own, with many of the donations helping his business interests.

So, not only does Trump not support his own charitable organizations... he actually PROFITS from them.

That, my dear gullible Wellwisher, is pretty much the antithesis of "good will".

 

[Bells]

Trump from the beginning claimed that Comey told him, on three occasions, he was not under investigation for the Russian probe. Comey admitted this in his testimony, yesterday. The question becomes, why did he tell this to Trump, but then refuse to make a public statement about what he said to Trump in private?

Because if the situation changed, he would then be forced to retract that earlier comment about Trump not being under investigation. The investigation is ongoing, is still fluid and if they find evidence that Trump was colluding with Russia, then they would have to investigate, so it makes zero sense to publicly declare he was not under investigation, when that could change at any given time.

The approach Comey took, kept the Democratic narrative alive, instead of nip it in the bud.

Actually the approach Comey took with Clinton, helped Trump win the election, because he had rushed to make a public statement, when he then retracted and corrected on the eve of the election, by which point the damage was done.. Would you have preferred he did the same thing with Trump?

If you are a sadist, perhaps....

There is also the fact that the Clinton investigation had ended months before, and when the whole thing on her assistant's laptop became known, Comey stupidly released a public letter about it, thereby destroying her political chances, and he then had to retract and correct. The investigation with Trump's campaign and the Russia interference is still ongoing. So why would he rule out something that is not yet known at this stage of the investigation? Does that make sense to you?

His loyalty was not with Trump, but with the Democrats. He was fired.

His loyalty is to the law. Not with Trump. Had he declared loyalty to Trump, then he should have been fired.

He was fired for.. What were the various reasons cited as that day wore on?

1) Trump announces via twitter that it was because of recommendations from the AG and assistant AG upon his request..
2) White House then declare it was on recommendation of assistant AG, who had started working in that position only a few weeks prior and had somehow managed to convince Trump to fire Comey..
3) Trump then mumbles something about because of what Comey did just before the election about Clinton..
4) White House and VP then say it is because of Comey's performance and with Trump as backup singer, declare because he had lost all confidence of the FBI..
5) Rumors swirl about the Russia investigation and Flynn.. Trump then confirms in interview, declaring his spokespeople at White House, his assistants, his Chief of Staff, his VP.. all to be liars because he declared he fired Comey on his own because of the Russia thing and because Comey was not shutting that investigation died..

In short, he was fired for not breaking the law and doing Trump's whim..

In other words, he was fired in a way that has Trump harking back and channeling Nixon..

The real scam going on is to distract everyone, so they lose track of the ball. There is a large push to address Russian interference, and then associate this to Trump.

Well let's see..

Trump appointed a National Security advisor that was being payed by Russia and Turkey to serve their best interest in the US Government and did not declare it, nor did he declare contact with Russia.. In short, Trump hired a foreign agent who was receiving money to look out for the interest of foreign and hostile nations to the US..

Trump then appointed an AG who had various contacts with Russia during the campaign that was also not declared..

Trump hired a campaign manager during the campaign who received millions of dollars from the Kremlin for acting as their stooge in the Ukraine..

Trump appointed his son-in-law, to various roles in the White House, including giving him national security clearance.. The very same son in law who contacted the Russian embassy and ambassador and attempted to have a private line to the Kremlin installed in the Russian embassy...

Trump invited Russia to hack into his opponents computers to help him win and did so publicly.

Do you see the one and only constant that connects all of these things? Trump.

The question is, if the Russians were doing all this hacking and interference, did they get into Hillary's server before it was erased? If the Russians are so devious and good at hacking, one would assume a private server, would be an easy target.

Clinton's server probably had better security.

Say we work under the assumption the Russians did hack Hillary server, and Hillary learned about this via intelligence agencies, what would be Hillary's best defense agains her information getting out? First of all, she would need to get lawyers to erase anything damming so there is no data for comparison. Secondly, she would also need to find a way to discredit the Russians, before they could release any materials. If the Russian are portrayed as liars and scammers, she could deny everything easier in the arena of public opinion. Purging the server would also make it harder for the Russians to be taken seriously.

It wasn't her server they hacked. Remember? Or are you just attempting to rewrite history again?

It would also be a good idea to have another scapegoat, to take the attention off of you. This is where Trump comes in. Comey tells Trump you are not under investigation, but he refuses to say this publicly, until the smoke screen is in full gear. My advice to Trump and anyone looking for justice is to place the public eye back on the ball. Ee need to compare motivations; Trump versus Hillary.

And who did Comey publicly help days prior to the election? Certainly wasn't Hillary. He helped Trump. Or are you forgetting his public letter, advising of new evidence in the Clinton divulging classified info via Huma's emails again, which turned out to be wrong, resulting in Comey belatedly retracting, but the damage to Clinton was already done and had Trump crowing about thanking Comey for helping him at his rallies?

Forgotten all of that?

Comey's public statement, prior to the election, to pardon Hillary, based on lack of intent, was unusual, since the FBI director is not a prosecutor but r more like a policeman who gather evidence for the prosecutor. This was not Comey's job but was the job of the justice department. The question is did Obama and his Justice department know about Comey's press conference in advance? The press knew and had plenty of time to set up the cameras. why did the Obama Administration feel the need to buffer themselves? Why did they allow a break in the chain of command that would allow Hillary to get off so easy? Picture if this has been Trump.

Oh wait, no.. rewriting history again and downright lying.

My guess is classified US government business was on Hillary's server, including interaction with Obama. Both Obama and Hillary needed to nip the investigation in the bud, before anyone asked the right questions. We may need to investigate the loudest Democrats and Republicans for their roll in the cover up.

More bullshit. Really, are you channeling McCain at this point?

Trump's hands are sort of tied because the Democrats were able to get AG Sessions to recuse himself from any Hillary and Russian investigation.

Sessions had to recuse himself because he was a part of the investigation.

Trump wen along out of good will. Again this was a good strategy, if the idea was to cover something up. This now makes it harder for Trump to get on the offense. Trump may need to reassign Sessions; supreme court justice, and get a new AG. I would put someone like Ted Cruz as the new AG, since he can drill deep.

Trump cannot "get on the offense" because he keeps undermining his own staff, VP and White House by having them say one thing in public, before he then comes out and says the complete opposite, making them all look like fools and liars.

And if Trump gets rid of Sessions as his AG, then he will look even more guilty with even more to hide. The only reason Trump has tied hands is because he tied his tiny little hands himself, then set them in concrete for good measure and because of his tweeting, is not looking for a large body of water to go swimming in. In short, Trump's undoing is self inflicted.

 

[joepistole]

Trump from the beginning claimed that Comey told him, on three occasions, he was not under investigation for the Russian probe. Comey admitted this in his testimony, yesterday.

And, one of those three times began before Trump entered office, when Comey informed Trump of the then uncorroborated dossier which alleged Trump had been compromised by Russia. Since then the dossier has been partially corroborated.

Comey didn't say that Trump isn't now under FBI investigation. In fact, he implicated Trump is now under investigation by the recently appointed special prosecutor when he said the special prosecutor will decide if Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice. Comey clearly elucidated a prima facie case of obstruction of justice and abused of power.

The question becomes, why did he tell this to Trump, but then refuse to make a public statement about what he said to Trump in private? The approach Comey took, kept the Democratic narrative alive, instead of nip it in the bud. Comey bought the Democrats time to weave the illusion until it was a meme. Comey was part of the swamp. I would guess this why Trump asked Comey about loyalty? His loyalty was not with Trump, but with the Democrats. He was fired.

Why is that a question? Trump asked Comey, and he answered. It's not Comey's job to be a partisan. It's not Comey's job to prove a negative. It's not Comey's job to be a political pawn. It's not Comey's job to nip Trump's political problems in the bud. You see comrade Wellwisher, we have a long tradition in The United States of a non politicized judicial system, and I find it deeply disturbing that you and your right-wing fascist cohorts continue their attempts to politicize our judicial system.

Just because Comey is a good and honest law abiding citizen, it doesn't make him part of the "swamp", nor does it make him a Democrat. It just makes him a good and honest law abiding citizen. Comey is a Republican: a long standing Republican who has served in Republican and Democratic administrations with a strong record of speaking truth to power.

Comey swore an oath of allegiance to the US Constitution as all public servants are required to do. Unlike your beloved Nazi Germany, and unfortunately for people like you, in this country we don't swear loyalty to individuals. Trump was wrong to demand a personal pledge of loyalty from Comey. Comey's loyalty was and is to the US Constitution.

The real scam going on is to distract everyone, so they lose track of the ball. There is a large push to address Russian interference, and then associate this to Trump. The question is, if ta faciahe Russians were doing all this hacking and interference, did they get into Hillary's server before it was erased? If the Russians are so devious and good at hacking, one would assume a private server, would be an easy target.

No, the real scam is what it has always been. It's Trump and people like you who enable him. Trump has a long history of scamming people, e.g. Trump University, and all the people he has screwed over the years. That's how he secured the Republican nomination.

There is no if here. Russia did hack the US election, and swamped people like you with fake news. And has been proven to you many times, per the FBI there is no evidence Hillary's server was ever hacked by anyone, much less Russia.

How would Russia know about Hillary's private email server, if the US government didn't know about her private email server?

Using Hillary as a distraction has worked for Republicans for decades. But Hillary is no longer a public servant. You folks need to man up and stop using Hillary as a crutch. She isn't a public servant and she isn't running for office. It's high time you folks stood on your own two feed and stop scapegoating others for your many failures.

Say we work under the assumption the Russians did hack Hillary server, and Hillary learned about this via intelligence agencies, what would be Hillary's best defense agains her information getting out? First of all, she would need to get lawyers to erase anything damming so there is no data for comparison. Secondly, she would also need to find a way to discredit the Russians, before they could release any materials. If the Russian are portrayed as liars and scammers, she could deny everything easier in the arena of public opinion. Purging the server would also make it harder for the Russians to be taken seriously.

How is Hillary relevant here? Another Hillary conspiracy ain't gonna help you here comrade. And has been pointed out to you many times, the nation's best IT folks have examined Hillary's server and found no evidence it was ever hacked by anyone much less the Russians.

Two, we do know Democratic and Republican servers were hacked. But Russia only chose to dump the stolen information from Democratic servers just before the election.

The unfounded right-wing Hillary conspiracy theories of the last 30 years will not work for you comrade. You need to stop using Hillary as a crutch, as a diversion.

It would also be a good idea to have another scapegoat, to take the attention off of you. This is where Trump comes in. Comey tells Trump you are not under investigation, but he refuses to say this publicly, until the smoke screen is in full gear. My advice to Trump and anyone looking for justice is to place the public eye back on the ball. Ee need to compare motivations; Trump versus Hillary.

How do you come up with this crap? You need to layoff the unfounded conspiracy crap comrade, and you need some fact and reason. But you cannot do that, can you?

Comey's public statement, prior to the election, to pardon Hillary, based on lack of intent, was unusual, since the FBI director is not a prosecutor but r more like a policeman who gather evidence for the prosecutor. This was not Comey's job but was the job of the justice department. The question is did Obama and his Justice department know about Comey's press conference in advance? The press knew and had plenty of time to set up the cameras. why did the Obama Administration feel the need to buffer themselves? Why did they allow a break in the chain of command that would allow Hillary to get off so easy? Picture if this has been Trump.

Except Comey has never pardoned Hillary. Comey doesn't have, nor has he ever had, the power to pardon anyone. Oops.

Unfortunately for you and you fellow right-wing fascist cohorts we don't throw people in jail because you find them to be politically inconvenient. You need evidence, and after an through investigation, the FBI investigation found they had none.

My guess is classified US government business was on Hillary's server, including interaction with Obama. Both Obama and Hillary needed to nip the investigation in the bud, before anyone asked the right questions. We may need to investigate the loudest Democrats and Republicans for their roll in the cover up.

More unfounded Hillary conspiracies aren't gonna cut it comrade. Republicans need to stand up on their own two feet and be fully accountable for their many transgressions. Hillary is no longer a civil servant. Republicans control all branches of government. You need to stop blaming Democrats, and layoff all the many unfounded Hillary conspiracies you have used over the last 30 years.

Trump's hands are sort of tied because the Democrats were able to get AG Sessions to recuse himself from any Hillary and Russian investigation. Trump wen along out of good will. Again this was a good strategy, if the idea was to cover something up. This now makes it harder for Trump to get on the offense. Trump may need to reassign Sessions; supreme court justice, and get a new AG. I would put someone like Ted Cruz as the new AG, since he can drill deep.

AG Sessions made the decision to recuse himself, and it was the right thing to do. How can he credibly conduct an investigation of himself? How would you like it if Hillary investigated herself? Would you find that a credible investigation?

You want a politicized system of justice as you just declared. That's one of the reasons you fascists are so very dangerous to our democracy. Politicized justice is a big step towards autocracy. It's a big step toward becoming a banana republic.

 

[Kittamaru]

I will say, it is telling that so many high profile law firms wanted NOTHING to do with trying to defend Trump... many of which state concerns about "never being paid" as one of the reasons...

Yep, Trump is totally a stand up guy... even LAWYERS are afraid he'll screw them over!

 

[joepistole]

James Clapper the former Director of National Intelligence says the Russia probe exceeds the reach of Watergate. And, he's correct. Our democracy is at stake here. Our democratic institutions are under attack both externally and internally. Clapper correctly asserts that Trump has attacked the very institutions which support our democracy, e.g. intelligence operations, the free press, and our judicial system while his Russian buddy systematically attacks our election systems and processes.

Make no mistake our democracy and way of life is under attack from within and without.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Trump states he is fully prepared to give testimony under oath that would refute Comey's allegations...

"US President Donald Trump has denied he told then-FBI chief James Comey he hoped an investigation into a former national security adviser could be let go, adding he was "100 per cent" willing to give his version of events under oath."
www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-10/trump-100-per-cent-willing-to-speak-under-oath-on-comey/8606896
​

Given that Trump is so good at incriminating himself I think having him undergo examination under oath would be a great idea!

 

[Quantum Quack]

Qatar debacle:
My bet is that Trump is behind it, by revealing - read "leaking", classified intel to the Saudis (during his big meeting), not realizing how the Saudis would react.
So far Tillerson is working overtime attempting to contain the fall out with little success.

 

[Tiassa]

#bullshit | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

Trump states he is fully prepared to give testimony under oath that would refute Comey's allegations...

Well, that's how we're taking it, but he didn't actually make any sense:

REPORTER: [Comey] said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of those events?

TRUMP: 100 percent. I didn't say…

REPORTER: Under oath?

TRUMP: I hardly know the man. I'm not going to say, "I want you to pledge allegiance." Who would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? I mean think of it, I hardly know the man. It doesn't make sense. No, I didn't say that and I didn't say the other.

REPORTER: So if [Special Counsel] Robert Mueller wanted to speak with you about that, you would be willing to talk to him?

TRUMP: I would be glad to tell him exactly what I just told you.​

Notice he doesn't say he will talk to Robert Mueller while under oath.

And, you know, look, I know it sounds really, really weird, or even pedantic and petty, but—

REPORTER: Under oath?

TRUMP: I hardly know the man. I'm not going to say, "I want you to pledge allegiance." Who would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? I mean think of it, I hardly know the man. It doesn't make sense. No, I didn't say that and I didn't say the other.​

—learn that maneuver. It's really hard to explain because it involves what seems like it should be a really obvious change of subject, but this is actually something conservatives do very well. But when the reporter tried to confirm that Donald Trump would speak under oath, the president changed the subject.

Once you get the hang of it, though, I promise, it's all over Beltway Republican rhetoric. And it comes from business, from sales, so of course Donald Trump knows how to do it. Most of us do, in truth, but for some people it's more of a reliable gimmick than a neurotic symptom.

And, yes, it's all over Sciforums, too. You know that feeling, sometimes, when a conservative is doing that clueless bit akin to a sibling looking anywhere but where you point and saying, "What? What are you talking about? I don't see anything!" Yeah. We have a few come through here trying that. The thing is that it's kind of like armchair sports chatter. I mean, if winning the Cup comes down to something so bloody obvious as drunk dude's rant over in the corner ... yeah, he's the genius that can think of what Skip and the crew can't figure out on the field. That is to say, a certain lack of sophistication seems far more natural and therefore less inappropriate, say, at a back corner discussion board than in the White House.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath?

couldn't help it... sorry!
It has so many associations to the famous Hans Christian Andersen story "The Emperor's new clothes" Don't ask me why....

Perhaps Comey is the little boy who gets a slap over the head for telling the world about how small the Presidents ...uhm.... hands are...

 

[iceaura]

So I never tried to question that the CIA-run drug cartels have Republican backings.

All the CIA stuff you don't like in Clinton's hands - the coups, the regime changes, etc - has been central to Republican foreign policy. The low level semi-permanent war you don't like is Republican foreign policy.

The Iraq war itself was small enough, two weeks or so iirc. That the US appeared unable (or unwilling) to fight the resulting terrorism is another question, but war against local terrorism is also small war.

Now you're delusional.
To repeat: All the war stuff you don't like is modern Republican foreign policy. The most likely result of electing a Republican Congress and President is greater reliance on military force of all kinds, in foreign policy - including terrorism support, of course.
This quote reveals a basic confusion:

What makes the difference is who is using more harmful means. Openly supporting fascist and islamistic terrorism all other Eurasia to weaken Eurasia as a whole, permament low level warfare everywhere, which is what the Democrats favor, or Big Military budget, and from time to time a small war against a weak country, which is somehow in conflict with CIA over controlling the local drug cartels, which is what Republicans prefer?

Here's a sensible rewrite:
" What makes the difference is who is using more harmful means. Openly supporting fascist and islamistic terrorism all other Eurasia to weaken Eurasia as a whole, permament low level warfare everywhere, a Big Military budget, and from time to time a small war against a weak country, which is somehow in conflict with CIA over controlling the local drug cartels, is what Republicans prefer. "

The new wrinkle with Trump is his willingness to threaten the use of nukes, and his apparently unstable accident prone nature. That was once something you claimed to wish to avoid at all costs - your bottomline deal breaking attribute.

 

[Quantum Quack]

To me as an Aussie spectator, I see a man who has been granted Presidential executive authority ONLY and I mean ONLY because he is prepared to pledge under oath his support , defense and protection of the constitution of the USA to the best of his ability.
Subsequently with in a very short time he threatens that constitution and cries foul because the judiciary ban his ban and he has been at odds with the constitution attempting to avoid it's provisions and intent ever since.
He immediately attempts to overrule the constitution after pledging allegiance to it.

He lied at his inauguration and therefore is permanently undeserving of the executive powers he would have got if he had spoken true.

The reason I bring this up :
Once a person perpetrates such an awful fraud.. nothing can be found to redeem him/her later ( there is no redemption).
Compensation is the only option available as the harm has already occurred.

It is IMO, intolerable that a man can commit such a fundamental fraud upon an electorate in such a fundamental way and still retain the executive power that the people have entrusted him with.

It has nothing to do with politics.

However it is the politics that will allow such a fraud to continue being perpetrated.

 

[joepistole]

To me as an Aussie spectator, I see a man who has been granted Presidential executive authority ONLY and I mean ONLY because he is prepared to pledge under oath his support , defense and protection of the constitution of the USA to the best of his ability.
Subsequently with in a very short time he threatens that constitution and cries foul because the judiciary ban his ban and he has been at odds with the constitution attempting to avoid it's provisions and intent ever since.
He immediately attempts to overrule the constitution after pledging allegiance to it.

He lied at his inauguration and therefore is permanently undeserving of the executive powers he would have got if he had spoken true.

The reason I bring this up :
Once a person perpetrates such an awful fraud.. nothing can be found to redeem him/her later ( there is no redemption).
Compensation is the only option available as the harm has already occurred.

It is IMO, intolerable that a man can commit such a fundamental fraud upon an electorate in such a fundamental way and still retain the executive power that the people have entrusted him with.

It has nothing to do with politics.

However it is the politics that will allow such a fraud to continue being perpetrated.

Trump is a trumped-up POTUS.