Impeach, Indict, 25th Amendment, Vote--REPEAT! 6

Adam Schiff @RepAdamSchiff | 3:44 PM · Feb 13, 2020:
Trump abused his power to coerce Ukraine into announcing investigations for his personal benefit by freezing military aid.
Now, he's using his powers to coerce states to stop investigations into him and his businesses.
Different corrupt purpose, same corrupt President.

Quote Tweet
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 2h
I’m seeing Governor Cuomo today at The White House.
He must understand that National Security far exceeds politics.
New York must stop all of its unnecessary lawsuits & harrassment, start cleaning itself up, and lowering taxes.
Build relationships, but don’t bring Fredo!

NY AG, Letitia James responds to Trump's malignant narcissism, aka his quid pro quo shakedown attempt against New Yorkers and attack on Gov. Cuomo.

NY AG James
@NewYorkStateAG

When you stop violating the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, we will stand down.

Until then, we have a duty and responsibility to defend the Constitution and the rule of law.

BTW, I file the lawsuits, not the Governor.

OUCH!

Benjamin Wittes @benjaminwittes | 1:28 PM · Feb 14, 2020:

The NYT actually misses the critical point about its own reporting in this story: in reviewing the Flynn case, Barr isn’t simply conducting a review of the decisions of career prosecutors in DC. He’s conducting a review of the decisions made by Robert Mueller.

Barr continues his unrelenting campaign of politicizing cases in which the president is personally invested.
https://nytimes.com/2020/02/14/us/politics/michael-flynn-prosecutors-barr.html

And let's be clear: Mueller did not charge Flynn (and his son) with a variety of crimes on which they were extremely vulnerable because Flynn agreed to a plea deal in which he plead to a charge--a deal he now wants out of.

If Mueller were still around, Flynn would face the logical consequences of seeking to void his plea deal. With Mueller no longer on the scene and Barr actively second-guessing his decisions, we will have to see what unfolds.

Susan Rice tells Bolton that withholding testimony is 'inconceivable' (CNN)

Former national security adviser Susan Rice did not mince words in telling her former Trump administration counterpart John Bolton what she would have done about testifying as part of the impeachment process.

"I thought a lot about if I had been in that position how would I have approached it, and I'll be honest: It's inconceivable to me that if I had firsthand knowledge of gross abuse of presidential power that I would withhold my testimony from a constitutional accountability process," said Rice...

Trump doing Putin's bidding, spreading misinformation about Russian election meddling. The impeached Occupant of the Oval Office continues to perform impeachable acts. Yep, he learned his lesson, Susan Collins, thanks to your and your senate colleagues' spineless votes not to convict.

https://youtu.be/ZC3qPXK0Ms8

And now he's now purging the intelligence community (for the second time in his administration). https://www.wired.com/story/trump-hollowed-out-us-national-security-vacancies-ac...

>2 Limelite: we have a duty and responsibility to defend the Constitution and the rule of law.

...except when we're ordering state employees not to cooperate with the enforcement of immigration law.

>6 Carnophile:

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." Dr. M L King, Letter from a Birmingham Jail

Trump refuses to do the first. The State of NY and AG James, among others, are doing the second.

>7 Limelite: I like how "the rule of law" means ignoring the law unless you agree with it.

>8 Carnophile:

That's not what Limelite said.

Yes, it is.

>8 Carnophile: >10 Carnophile:

I won't ask you how much you despise Tubman, King, Parks, Gandhi, Tutu, and Mandela for their universal disregard for obeying laws they "didn't like." I think we know how you feel. I'm sure it's safe to surmise how you feel about similar people who made history in this country by disobeying unjust laws.

You are opposed to the 1862 Emancipation Proclamation because of illegal presidential overreach by executive order rather than waiting for Congressional legislative action? But the secessionist states were fully justified and on the right side of the law when they upheld legal slavery, right?

1919-1920 are black years in American history to you because the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote? They should have stayed home and remained voiceless to keep you happy?

How do you feel about the Bonus Army march in 1932 when the Great Depression caused many to starve? Enjoyed the resolution, did you?

Of course the 1965 Civil Rights Act that passed following so much civil disobedience at lunch counters, voting booths, and public schools frosts your ass? Folks should respect "separate but equal" as long as separate means no access to the ballot box, and equal means white men get to decide what that means?

And in your opinion, I expect the 18 year-old traitors who burned their draft cards that turned them into cannon fodder to be sacrificed in Vietnam's rice paddies before their own government allowed them to vote should all have been shot in 1971? How can refusing to fight for your country in a bogus war be anything but anti-American?

Sure you live in the right country?

>11 Limelite:

And isn't the very existence of the great USA based on people disobeying the unjust laws imposed on them by the then colonial government?

Yoshi Toranaga: "There are no 'mitigating circumstances' when it comes to rebellion against a sovereign lord."

John Blackthorne: "Unless you win."

>11 Limelite: I like how you're saying that disobeying unjust laws is the same thing as respecting the rule of law.

>14 Carnophile:

I like how you're saying you think all laws are just, only because they're laws.

Miss anti-miscegenation laws much?

You must really despise Donald Trump who never met a law he thought he should obey.

>15 Limelite: you must really despise Donald Trump to be so totally blind to what he is doing: every time a court strikes down one of his policies, he goes through the appeal process LEGALLY instead of just using his phone and pen like the previous President bragged about.

Has he pardoned Stone? Manafort? No, he's allowing the legal process to do its job.

You're literate, you can read, go beyond the hysterical rantings of the media and find out the truth for yourself. Please.

>15 Limelite: I like how you're saying you think all laws are just, only because they're laws.

I said no such thing. Unjust laws should be disobeyed. I'm not the one yapping about the rule of law.

Stop brazenly lying about what I said. You're forced to lie because that's all you've got.

>16 fuzzi:
You promised to block me. I'm disappointed in you. Please go back to blocking me.

>17 Carnophile:
You have the same modus operandi as Trump.
You make a statement.
Then you deny ever having done so.
I know what comes next. Do you?

Funny -- all I hear you doing is yapping.

>18 Limelite: you're still blocked. I just wanted to confirm what someone else said that you said.

I prefer to verify instead of just believing hearsay.

>19 Limelite:

You are lying.

If not, then quote where I said "all laws are just".

Cory Brettschneider wrote this for Politico today, concerning Constitutional limits ~

Why President Trump Can’t Pardon Roger Stone

Many scholars agree that once a president has been impeached, he or she loses the power to pardon anyone for criminal offenses connected to the articles of impeachment. Less noticed is that even after the Senate’s failure to convict the president, he or she does not regain this power.

If someone has been accused of a crime but found not guilty, are they no longer allowed to do their job?

If I were accused of a crime and found not guilty, I would be very upset with people who would insist that I lose rights just because of an unproven accusation.

Go ahead and be upset but the Constitution is what it is. As the article points out, it's a limited time limitation since it only applies while the President is in office and it only affects a small part of his job.

ETA: I'd be in favor of a Constitutional amendment to remove the pardon power from the President or at least limit it by allowing a veto by Congress.

The article goes into depth about the Founding Fathers' arguments on the issue, and gives good background for the opinion.

>22 2wonderY: Why President Trump Can’t Pardon Roger Stone

Many scholars agree that once a president has been impeached, he or she loses the power to pardon anyone for criminal offenses connected to the articles of impeachment.

LOL!!! Stone's alleged crimes have to do with the "Russia" thing, not the "Ukraine" thing for which the President was impeached!!!

LEFTISTS, AT LEAST THE ONES AT POLITICO, ARE SO STUPID THEY CAN’T EVEN KEEP THEIR SCANDALS STRAIGHT! Or maybe they assume that's true of their readers.

>26 Carnophile:

"Crowdstrike"
In a word.

"Paul Manafort"
In two words.

"Ukrainian oligarch, Firtash"
In three words.

"Roger Stone Manafort partners"
In four words.

"Roger Stone Repub. Party moneyman"
In five words.

"Ukrainian oligarchs' millions funneled to Republicans"
In six words.

"Roger Stone heads Repub money laundering scheme"
In seven words.

"Millions of illegal Ukrainian money goes to McConnell"
In eight words.

"Millions Ukrainian oligarch gas pipe line money to Trump"
In nine words.

"Manafort, Firtash install Viktor Yanukovych head of Ukraine, protecting corruption"
In ten words.

"Trump, Stone, Manafort, Firtash, Yanukovich business arrangement helps fund inauguration celebrations"
In eleven words

"Stone, Manafort, Firtash, Yanukovich money laundering for Republicans builds factory McConnell's KY"
In twelve words.

"Zelensky election spells the end of corrupt Trump business agreements with Ukrainian oligarchs"
In thirteen words.

"Zelensky election spells end of corrupt gas pipeline cash going to Republican political coffers"
In fourteen words.

"Trump phones Zelensky to extort him into restoring corrupt cash flow and utters word, 'Crowdstrike'"
In fifteen words.

Didja keep up?

Where's the part where Stone was convicted of something that had to do with Trump's "Ukraine" impeachment?

Surely you can answer such a specific question?

(from Politico)
_________________________

...

OPINION | Law and Order |
Why President Trump Can’t Pardon Roger Stone
| The Constitution and the Framers sought to protect the republic from a scenario like this.

... "The limit on pardons for co-conspirators wouldn’t affect many of the president’s pardons. Pardoning convicted criminals like former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich might be ill-advised, but it is still permitted. By contrast, pardoning longtime adviser Roger Stone would not be permitted, as his crimes relate directly to the impeachment case.

"Stone was convicted on seven criminal counts centered around allegations that he had lied to Congress during his September 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee as part of the Mueller investigation. The investigation of Stone relates to the charges that the president abused power by soliciting foreign intervention into our election and that he obstructed justice in trying to hide that 'high crime and misdemeanor.' The best evidence that Stone is tied to those charges is his own self-described role as a protector of the president. “I will never roll on (Trump),” Stone declared in one of many statements. That makes him exactly the type of person Madison had envisioned while limiting the president’s pardon power.

"It is true that the Stone investigation concerned Russian involvement in the election and that the House charges focused on the more recent Ukraine accusation. But the articles of impeachment focused on the accusation of “abuse of power,” and it is that general high crime at play in Ukraine and elsewhere that links the impeachment and Stone.

"Inevitably, some will argue that an impeached president should regain the power to grant clemency to his alleged co-conspirators in cases of acquittal by the Senate. That ignores not only the framers’ clear intent, but also the plain text of the Constitution.

"The framers deliberately used the phrase “cases of impeachment,” not “conviction.” One reason why is simple: A president convicted by the Senate would be removed from office, and thus unable to pardon anyone. As such, there would be no reason for the Constitution to curb a convicted president’s pardon power. No exception to the pardon power needs to be granted, because no such power exists." ...

...

>24 jjwilson61: laughable nonsense

>25 2wonderY: laughable nonsense

>27 Limelite: laughable nonsense

_______________________________________________

People who try to read the Constitution just to get out it their own partisan heart's-desire are people who'll stop at nothing in the practice of the arts of construction. But to any fair, honest and reasonably intelligent reader of English, the following,

Article II, Section 2.
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

means the president's pardon power is not limited in any cases of offenses against the United States except those of impeachment.

Note the interesting fact that, as written, the framers are specifying the types of offenses, not some set of limiting conditions on the the president as a person or this just-given legal authority itself to grant pardons--and, thus, clearly presumed to remain so until and unless he dies, resigns, i.e. leaves office voluntarily, or, lastly, is physically incapacitated or is removed from office (impeached and convicted)

We know this is their point and meaning also when we read the following with plain good sense because, otherwise, it wouldn't be consistent with the above--as it is when both are correctly understood:

Article I, Section 3.
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

To hold the general scope of the pardon-power itself to be abridged merely by the president's having been impeached, yet not convicted, is to make hash of the import of Article I's section three as cited above, since there, the text makes clear that judgement in the trial phase--i.e. the Senate--goes no further upon conviction than the president's removal and, by the Senate's discretion, the choice to invoke or not the president's disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.

The (essentially) same set of men drafted, debated, and adopted both Article II, section 2 and Article I, section3, above. Had the framers intended anything of the sort of absurd construction being promoted here and elsewhere in press opinion articles by Trump's mob of critics , they could have easily made themselves clear. They typically wrote and thought far, far better than most of even the most illustrious of our time's political writers and philosophers. But they wrote and they intended nothing of the kind in these laughably idiotic versions of the meanings in II, section 2 and I, section3.

We have truly gone through the fucking Looking Glass with this ridiculous bullshit.

As for the view that,

"The framers deliberately used the phrase 'cases of impeachment,' not 'conviction.' One reason why is simple: A president convicted by the Senate would be removed from office, and thus unable to pardon anyone. As such, there would be no reason for the Constitution to curb a convicted president’s pardon power. No exception to the pardon power needs to be granted, because no such power exists." ...

Perhaps it had occurred to the Framers that, with regard to the president's "pardoning-power", there'd never ever arise a case in which the "impeached" but "unconvicted" office-holder would need or require "pardoning" since, in law, as they'd have well understood, pardoning presupposing in and of itself de jure "guilt", and so, conviction, then, without conviction, there'd have been no penalty applied, no removal from office, no loss of salary or rights. In such a case, what is to be "pardoned" in the first place? If the pardon power is not granted to cases of impeachment, while the term pardon itself implies and presupposes a due-process conviction, it must mean that federal impeachments which lead to such convictions are the exception to the president's otherwise unlimited federal criminal pardon power.

In other words, the author, Corey Brettschneider*, professor of political science at Brown University and visiting professor of law at Fordham Law School has just committed the very kind of reasoning-error he rebukes in the last of the paragraphs cited above from his article.

The evident state of the reasoning-skills in some of the nation's presigious law-school professoriate is appalling.

______________________

* author of The Oath and the Office: A Guide To the Constitution For Future Presidents

_____________________

(God help us!)

_______________________________________________

See also this article critical of Corey Brettschnieder's argument: (Law and Crime.dot.com)
Legal Scholars: Argument That Trump Can’t Pardon Roger Stone Is Wrong
by Matt Naham | 1:33 pm, February 27th, 2020

>26 Carnophile: I had hoped that someone would jump in with a defense of the article, but it does appear that the impeachment and Roger Stone's conviction are on two different subjects. My only excuse is that with all of Trump's scandals they tend to run together.

ETA: Did the obstruction charge include any of Mueller's findings?

>29 proximity1: To hold the general scope of the pardon-power itself to be abridged merely by the president's having been impeached, yet not convicted, is to make hash of the import of Article I's section three

Good point, thank you for that.

>30 jjwilson61: Thank you for that too. For your question, Stone's convictions were all "lying under oath" type stuff. They did arise from Mueller's investigation; none of them had to do with Ukraine.

>28 Carnophile:

Fascinating the lengths Trumpists will go to defend a convicted felon on the grounds that he didn't become one in one particular criminal enterprise but another (look away) as if that's the be-all and end-all of what is still criminal activity by the Trump mob of pick-you-favorite betrayer, launderer, fixer, liar, fraudster, etc. etc. etc. who worked for him and that he directed to act for him.

Study harder and it will come to you how Stone is involved in Ukranian crime. Shelter Island mentality is a doomed strategy when the reality-based world sees and knows the truth. Some folks would call that mentality deliberate stupidity. I'm kind.

>32 Limelite: Some folks would call that mentality deliberate stupidity.

...said the person who predicted Mueller would get Trump.

And I notice you still haven't answered my question from #28.

Mueller did get Trump.. He destroyed his Russian treachery mob. Count 'em up. They're all in jail, except for his s-i-l and himself who -- oh, yeah, you forgot -- himself who can't be indicted.

Of course, Barr's redacted mischaracterized plot summary has him in trouble now. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/486219-judge-orders-doj-to-hand-ove...
But criminal enterprise directed by Trump is fine with you. Especially if it's for his personal profit either monetarily or politically -- oh, yeah, I forgot that, too -- all his endeavors as president have been for his self-aggrandizement in bank account and voting base appeasement.

Roger Stone's felonies are a minor distraction compared to Trumps' entire record of total corruption. Rudy Julie-Annie's are, too.

And, oh dear, it looks like even Republicans want to get to the bottom of trump's defrauding the government with his golf trip expenses, hotel bookings, and his Federal income tax evasion. Suddenly, they want to see his tax returns. All those Republican lemmings who voted not to convict the Impeached Orange One are finding hell to pay in their home states for that. Even Lindsey Graham is quaking in his re-election boots. https://www.thewellnews.com/could-the-s-c-primary-be-a-harbinger-of-a-very-bad-y...
As for Mitch McConnell: "In a recent poll by Morning Consult McConnell garnered a rating of 34 percent approval and 52 percent disapproval — lowest of all 100 senators."

In the bio lab. I've seen pithed frogs with more sensibility than Donald Trump and the Republicans in the US Senate ever possessed.

Look around, it's gonna be "BYE*DON 2020." Then the law will settle several scores, if the news out of the Southern District of NY, from FL, and from several women around the country are indicators of his future. From the looks of things NY alone wants to take down the whole fam damily.

>34 Limelite: Mueller did get Trump.. He destroyed his Russian treachery mob.

You were predicting he'd get Trump, not people associated with Trump. In fact, you predicted that Mueller's investigation would result in Trump "dying in prison."

And you still haven't answered my question from #28.

Gee, I guess that prediction from over two years ago that hasn't come to be in your personal required timeline for results disqualifies me from being your god. In which case, you might as well quit begging me to answer your question as if you were a Chosen Person.

I answered your question. It's your fault if you don't like the answer. Too bad. If you can't handle the truth, it's best not to ask because you're never goiing to be happy that it doesn't conform to your desired answer.

You'll like Donald Trump's answers to questions better than mine, seeing how in his own mind he's the infallible genius on everything because his gut is his oracle, despite his pattern of revealing "truth." 1)Deny. 2)Get caught. 3)Admit. 4)Assert it wasn't wrong, anyway 'cause, "I did/said it. I'm infallible."

And around the stable genius circle he goes.

About that gut instinct of Trump's, it's a mighty big gut so he must be right.

> 36 I answered your question.

No, you didn't. Here, I'll ask it again:

Where's the part where Stone was convicted of something that had to do with Trump's "Ukraine" impeachment?

I answered your question. It's your fault if you don't like the answer. Too bad. If you can't handle the truth, it's best not to ask because you're never goiing to be happy that it doesn't conform to your desired answer.

>38 Limelite: I answered your question.

How is lying going to help here?

Which charge(s) that Stone was convicted of involved the Ukraine/Biden thing?

>39 Carnophile:
I answered your question. It's your fault if you don't like the answer. Too bad.

>39 Carnophile: "Which charge(s) that Stone was convicted of involved the Ukraine/Biden thing?"

>40 Limelite: "I answered your question. It's your fault if you don't like the answer."

Here the only "answer" you offered to that question:

"Study harder. The answer may come to you." ...

Some answer. Your claim stands exposed as a flat out lie.

Also from you (https://www.librarything.com/topic/285289#6392636 Feb 24, 2018, 6:27pm )

"Thread by thread, Mueller is untangling the skein of corruption, collusion, and cover-up. Members of DJT's family will be going down soon."

That didn't happen.

... "And a little history lesson. Nixon was impeached and was an unindicted co-conspirator who was forced out of office NOT because he personally broke into the Watergate."

You don't know shit about your "little history lesson." Nixon was not impeached.

>40 Limelite: We've reached the point where you have effectively admitted that you can't answer the question.

>42 Carnophile:
It's your fault if you don't like the answer. Too bad.

We've reached the point where you've either jumped the shark, or demonstrated enough symptomatic obsessive behavior that professional intervention is called for.

In the future, remember that the key is to not make claims you haven't verified.

Ooohhh, a comment Nazi! Run a soup kitchen, too?
Who died and made you the Internet Boss?

In the future, remember that the key is not to make claims you can't verify.

PBS: Read the full charges against Trump confidant Roger Stone:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-charges-against-trump-confid...

This links to the indictment, in which I did a word search. Strangely, the indictment does not contain the words "Ukraine," "Ukrainian," or "Biden."

>45 Limelite:

"Who died and made you (Carnophile) the Internet Boss?"

LOL! Uh, apparently, you did! LMFAO!!!!

Well, The Boss is either me or Bruce Springsteen.

Nancy Pelosi: Oracle of the Hill

Trump is self-impeaching again with his continued corruption in the office of president. Yesterday the Orange Shitegibbon said, "Anyone who wants a (Covid19) test can get one." Today at this afternoon's press conference, the suddenly mealy mouthed president made Pitiful Pence take the mic to announce the lie. "We're keeping the tests for those who most need them." Who's that?

In NYC, patients who want to be tested can't get them, even if the hospital sees and evaluates them in the ER. Tests are reserved for people so sick they are admits at Presbyterian Hospital. Others are screened with flu virus and broad spectrum virus panels, but not Covid19 virus. If there's no sign of respiratory distress and no comorbidities present, then all others are sent home.

With today's press conference, how much you wanna bet Trump and Pence both wish they could get a touch of the pneumonia, if only to avoid the press for 10 days or so. Will Cadet Bone Spurs take the bullet for the BIGGEST point loss in the NYSE EVER. Or will the Twit-in-Chief find his thumbs paralyzed? Largest percentage drop in value since 1987. Biggest down day in history. Trump presided over the previous biggest down day last week. Now he has two historic stock market crashes to his credit. But he won't take responsibility for them being the result of his tariff war, his non-trade treaty with China, and his colossal f*ck up of the pandemic.

Looks like, as with the last Re-flub-i-can president, Trump will preside over a second Great Recession of the 21st C. What was a 41% probability in January is now a 67% probability of economic recession in March 2020. No doubt history will repeat when another Democratic president will pull the country back from the economic abyss caused by an ignoramus Republican in the WH.

Even the Fed can't stop the bleeding, not even with fund rate down to zero. Trump's promised 3-5% annual growth, necessary to sustain his tax cut from 2 years ago is now a full-blown recession. The market crashed, losing a record 3000 points today. "The index of 30 bellwether companies fell more than 2,000 points and with one day left of trading last week was down nearly 30% since hitting an all-time high earlier this year." https://www.valueline.com/Markets/Daily_Updates/Stock_Market_Today__March_16,_20... Add the 12% the S&P fell today, making a loss approaching half their combined valuations -- nearly 42%. Stocks, credit, gold, oil, the dollar -- all tumbling.

House discussion of investigation into Trump's lies about the country's health crisis response and his cover-up of his suppression and countering of subordinates who pushed for more decisive response has created a situation that threatens our security because his statements created confusion and misinformation, delayed preparation, and prevented federal emergency funding. Not to mention that he championed and encouraged conspiracy theories and anti-factual messages to be publicized by his minions at Faux News and on the radio.

The Evidence from Trump's Mouth

Dismantled Obama's pandemic task force in HHS so I can give big tax handouts to corporations and the rich! Covid10 epidemic? It's a hoax! Democrats conspiring to undermine my reelection! Muzzle the CDC scientists who don't serve as my echo chamber! Cut their budget $1.36 billion! Everything is contained! Virus under tremendous control! I've saved thousands of lives! Go out and attend my rallies! No travel to and from countries that don't have my golf course resorts! Test kits for anyone who wants them! I take no responsibility for killing Obama's pandemic task force! I didn't do it! I don't know anything about that! That's a nasty question!! I only tried to bribe that German scientist for exclusive vaccine for USA. So what?

https://www.chicagotribune.com/election-2020/ct-trump-democrats-coronavirus-hoax...

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/3/12/21175034/coronavirus-covid-19-t...

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gags-top-us-coronavirus-official-history-c...

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-travel-ban-european/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/3/14/21177509/coronavirus-trump-cov...

https://buzzflash.com/articles/pbs-reporter-yamiche-alcindor-challenges-trump-to...

https://youtu.be/V6Bv5t9vvLs

https://bipartisanreport.com/2020/03/16/trump-busted-trying-to-bribe-foreign-ent...

So how do his cult followers feel about this: The airline industry wants a BAILOUT. How much? Over $50 billion of their money. https://boingboing.net/2020/03/16/airlines-want-50-billion-fede.html Yee-haw slap your MAGA hat on your head, go shake MAGArat's hand, and hand over your cash. Be sure to kiss his bum as you do. Boeing, an industry company vital to our national security is facing bankruptcy, has been downgraded to near-junk bond status, has loans due it can't pay, has lost two-thirds of its value year-to-date.

Think it's time to resuscitate Obama's TARP program, Trumpists? You remember, that MONEY MAKING repo idea from President Obama's administration that saved the banks and paid money into the US Treasury that reduced the deficit in short order when he was president? A friend wants to know.

P.S. Stay healthy everyone -- less than 8 months to election day when the people get to impeach and remove Trump. Just like the Republicans wanted.

"TARP" was your serial-Blunder-Boy Obama's most spectacularly stupid fuck-up. And that is really saying something.



>49 Limelite:

"Think it's time to resuscitate Obama's TARP program, Trumpists? You remember, that MONEY MAKING repo idea from President Obama's administration that saved the banks and paid money into the US Treasury that reduced the deficit in short order when he was president? A friend wants to know."

on Obama's stupid, useless and wasteful "T(roubled)AssetsR(elief)P(rogram)"

(Wikipedia : T(roubled)AssetsR(elief)P(rogram) (Controversies) )

“The primary purpose of TARP, according to the Federal Reserve, was to stabilize the financial sector by purchasing illiquid assets from banks and other financial institutions.(72) However, the effects of the TARP have been widely debated in large part because the purpose of the fund is not widely understood. A review of investor presentations and conference calls by executives of some two dozen US-based banks by The New York Times found that 'few (banks) cited lending as a priority. Further, an overwhelming majority saw the program as a no-strings-attached windfall that could be used to pay down debt, acquire other businesses or invest for the future.'(73) The article cited several bank chairmen as stating that they viewed the money as available for strategic acquisitions in the future rather than to increase lending to the private sector, whose ability to pay back the loans was suspect. Plains Capital chairman Alan B. White saw the Bush administration's cash infusion as 'opportunity capital,' noting, 'They didn't tell me I had to do anything particular with it.'

“Moreover, while TARP funds have been provided to bank holding companies, those holding companies have only used a fraction of such funds to recapitalize their bank subsidiaries.(74)
“Many analysts speculated TARP funds could be used by stronger banks to buy weaker ones.(75) On October 24, 2008, PNC Financial Services received $7.7 billion in TARP funds, then only hours later agreed to buy National City Corp. for $5.58 billion, an amount that was considered a bargain.(76) Despite ongoing speculation that more TARP funds could be used by large-but-weak banks to gobble up small banks, as of October 2009, no further such takeover had occurred.

“The Senate Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the TARP concluded on January 9, 2009: 'In particular, the Panel sees no evidence that the U.S. Treasury has used TARP funds to support the housing market by avoiding preventable foreclosures.' The panel also concluded that 'Although half the money has not yet been received by the banks, hundreds of billions of dollars have been injected into the marketplace with no demonstrable effects on lending.'(77)

“Government officials that oversaw the bailout acknowledged the difficulties in tracking the money and in measuring the bailout's effectiveness.(78)

“During 2008, companies that received $295 billion in bailout money had spent $114 million on lobbying and campaign contributions.(79) Banks that received bailout money had compensated their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in 2007, including salaries, cash bonuses, stock options, and benefits including personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships, and professional money management.(80) The Obama administration has promised to set a $500,000 cap on executive pay at companies that receive bailout money,(81) directing banks to tie risk taken to workers' reward by paying anything further in deferred stock. Graef Crystal, a former compensation consultant and author of The Crystal Report on Executive Compensation, claimed that the limits on executive pay were 'a joke' and that 'they're just allowing companies to defer compensation.' ”(83)

References :

(72) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#cite_note-72
(73) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#cite_note-73
(74) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#cite_note-74
(75) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#cite_note-75
(76) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#cite_note-76
(77) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#cite_note-77
(78) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#cite_note-78
(79) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#cite_note-79
(80) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#cite_note-80
(81) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#cite_note-81
(82) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#cite_note-82
(83) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#cite_note-83

>50 proximity1:

What a bunch of didn't-age-well crap evaluations of the moment. Cherry-picking microscopic vision of opinions from 10+ years ago may allow you to be blind to the 20-20 hindsight of history. TARP proved to be an excellent alternative to what the Bush and Republican deregulating policy fallout, known as The Great Recession, calamity called for. Why does the Treasury -- our government and country -- profiting nicely from the repo program cause you so much psychological pain? Get some honesty glasses and fix your personal short-sightedness problem.

Wish I were a kinder, gentler person, but I don't feel sorry for narrow-minded, defensive pickiness posturing by little quibblers who should spend more time worrying about why they're out of step with reality and clinging desperately to snapshots of time and incident, long buried by counter-facts and far-reaching perspective that has banished their pitiful paucity of proof under the dustbin of perspective enlightenment.

How exhausting it must be to be the drowning man in the Sea of Distortion grasping at soggy life vests in the hopes that rescue will come. Sad, isn't it, that no one has the least interest in rescuing yet another victim of delusion.

Have you been feeling well or ill, lately? Do let us know that you're OK. Fortunately, TDS is confined to a minority of the Orange Shitegibbon's cultists. Two thirds of the USA remains resistant. Here's a note of encouragement for you. Many reports of full recovery have been mounting in the last several months, one in the news TODAY being from the mayor of Sterling Heights, Michigan. Michael Taylor, a life-long Republican who voted for Trump in 2016 announced that he voted in the Michigan primary for Joe Biden.

See? The scales can fall from your eyes, the brain can clear, the suffering that causes people to hate everyone but Cadet Bone Spurs can be overcome, the crabbed misery of supporting Party over Country can be self-cured! His is merely one of thousands of stories from the, literally, disenchanted Trump worshipers who drank the Kool-Aid in 2016. Oh, JOY!! You can become another. Heal thyself.

>51 Limelite: "Fortunately, TDS is confined to a minority of the Orange Shitegibbon's cultists."


_______________________________________


LOL!!! Your idiotic (and error-filled) crap 'cracks my shit up'.

FYI:

(Wikipedia)

"Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a term for criticism or negative reactions to United States President Donald Trump that are alleged to be irrational and have little regard towards Trump's actual positions or actions taken.(2) The term has been used by Trump supporters to discredit criticism of his actions, as a way of reframing the discussion by suggesting* that his opponents are incapable of accurately perceiving the world.(3)(1)(4)

________________________

(1) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome#cite_note-Zorn_7/31/201...
(2) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome#cite_note-Cillizza-2
(3) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome#cite_note-Flaherty-3
(4) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome#cite_note-4

___________________________

* It's not a fucking "suggestion"!

Sorry, TDS has been appropriated by the Resistance in the interests of pertinent accuracy. It refers to Trump cultists who exhibit extreme self-delusion and depend on the word fuck and its various forms as their main means of argumentation, in particular.

P S Also the word shit.

“Now you may be asking yourself,
‘How much damage can he really do in the next several months until the election?’
A lot, a lot of damage”

https://twitter.com/blakesmustache/status/1243536022090252293

- Uncle Blazer @blakesmustache9:51 AM · Mar 27, 2020

Trump’s ‘LIBERATE MICHIGAN!’ tweets incite insurrection. That’s illegal.
Federal law bans advocating the overthrow of government.
Mary McCord | April 17, 2020

President Trump incited insurrection Friday against the duly elected governors of the states of Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia. Just a day after issuing guidance for re-opening America that clearly deferred decision-making to state officials — as it must under our Constitutional order — the president undercut his own guidance by calling for criminal acts against the governors for not opening fast enough.

Trump tweeted, “LIBERATE MINNESOTA!” followed immediately by “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” and then “LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!” This follows Wednesday’s demonstration in Michigan, in which armed protestors surrounded the state capitol building in Lansing chanting “Lock her up!” in reference to Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and “We will not comply,” in reference to her extension of the state’s coronavirus-related stay-at-home order. Much smaller and less-armed groups had on Thursday protested on the state capitol grounds in Richmond, Va., and outside the governor’s mansion in St. Paul, Minn.

“Liberate” — particularly when it’s declared by the chief executive of our republic — isn’t some sort of cheeky throwaway. Its definition is “to set at liberty,” specifically “to free (something, such as a country) from domination by a foreign power.” We historically associate it with the armed defeat of hostile forces during war, such as the liberation of Western Europe from Nazi Germany’s control during World War II. Just over a year ago, Trump himself announced that “the United States has liberated all ISIS-controlled territory in Syria and Iraq.”...

...the Oath Keepers Twitter account tweeted, in an apparent reference to the president, that “All he has to do is call us up. We WILL answer the call.” Months before, vigilante groups responded to Trump’s frequent rhetoric about an “invasion” on America’s southern border by deploying to the border and illegally detaining migrants while heavily armed, dressed in military fatigues and calling themselves the “United Constitutional Patriots.”

...we can’t write these tweets off as just hyperbole or political banter...these tweets aren’t protected free speech. Although generally advocating for the use of force or violation of law is protected (as hard to conceive as that may be when the statements are made by someone in a position of public trust, like the president of the United States), the Supreme Court has previously articulated that where such advocacy is “inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action,” it loses its First Amendment protection. The president’s tweets — unabashedly using the current crisis to encourage a backlash against lawful and expert-recommended public health measures, falsely claiming a Second Amendment “siege” and calling for insurrection against elected leaders — have no place in our public discourse and enjoy no protection under our Constitution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/04/17/liberate-michigan-trump-consti...

Kyle Cheney (Politico) @kyledcheney | 10:56 AM · Apr 21, 2020
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1252612245114294275

JUST IN: The Senate Intelligence Committee affirms the intelligence community's conclusion that Russia acted to aid Trump in 2016 —
and explicitly breaks with the House GOP.

"The ICA reflects strong tradecraft," said Burr.

https://intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume4.pdf

Burr's comment rebuffs this line from the House's 2018 report:
"(U) Finding #16: The Intelligence Community Assessment judgments on Putin's strategic intentions did not employ proper analytic tradecraft."
Unlike House GOP report, Senate finds "specific intelligence reporting to support the assessment that Putin and the Russian Government demonstrated a preference for candidate Trnmp."

The report also finds that the STEELE dossier findings were only included in a highly classified appendix and did not inform any of the judgments of the intelligence community.

__________________________________________________-

Republican-Led Review Backs Intelligence Findings on Russian Interference
Nicholas Fandos and Julian E. Barnes | April 21, 2020, 12:57 p.m. ET

A new (158 p) Senate report undercuts claims by President Trump and his allies that Obama-era officials sought to undermine his candidacy by investigating Russia’s 2016 election meddling. ( https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume4... )

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/us/politics/russian-interference-senate-intel...

>56 margd:

"Ooops!"
"Denial is useful defense mechanism until it's not." -- Rosalind Kaplan, MD

Trump suggests any relief for states hit hard by COVID will require ending "sanctuary city" policies and turning residents over to ICE.
0:34 ( https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1255234731467313154 )
- Josh Marshall @joshtpm | 4:37 PM · Apr 28, 2020

Clearly unconstitutional
- Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 9:10 PM · Apr 28, 2020

Congress might have the power to do this (emphasis on "might"), but the President does not
- Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969 | · 17h

Remember Adam Schiff's closing argument in the impeachment trial? "What if a governor from a state hit with a natural disaster asked for federal assistance, but this president offered that assistance, but only in return for something of value?"

Nixon was impeached in his second term for crimes committed in first term, wasn't he?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trump on funds for "Democrat states". "If we do that we're going to have to get something for it."
0:13 ( https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1255978076493791232 )

- Josh Marshall @joshtpm | 5:51 PM · Apr 30, 2020

JUST IN: Appeals Court has denied DOJ's motion to delay the ruling that it must hand over Mueller's grand jury information to Congress.

Court gives DOJ until May 11 to seek a stay from the Supreme Court.
Image ( https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1256279766438739968/photo/1 )

- Kyle Cheney (Politico) @kyledcheney · May 1, 2020

‘Genocide by default’: Yale epidemiologist calls Trump’s coronavirus response a potential war crime.

“How many people will die this summer, before Election Day?” he asked. “What proportion of the deaths will be among African-Americans, Latinos, other people of color? This is getting awfully close to genocide by default. What else do you call mass death by public policy?”

Gonsalves went on to say that Trump’s negligence is so gross that he could be prosecuted for war crimes under international law.

What the Republican Senate lacks the ethical courage to do, perhaps the International Criminal Court in The Hague will.

The US doesn't hold itself accountable to the ICC--wise enough when one thinks of all the war crimes the US government has perpetrated since the country existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

>62 LolaWalser:

Come January 2021, I bet it will.

Flynn transcripts + COVID deaths + unemployment + Minneapolis + Twitter fact check = US withdrawal from WHO?

Flynn Discussed Sanctions at Length With Russian Diplomat, Transcripts Show
Julian E. Barnes, Adam Goldman and Nicholas Fandos | May 29, 2020

WASHINGTON — The former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn discussed sanctions at length with a Russian diplomat in late 2016, according to transcripts declassified on Friday that appear to bolster earlier assertions that Mr. Flynn misled Vice President Mike Pence and F.B.I. agents about those conversations.

The transcripts have become a conservative cause, and the Justice Department threw the weight of the Trump administration behind it in moving recently to throw out Mr. Flynn’s guilty plea to a charge of lying to agents in the Russia investigation about the calls. President Trump has said Mr. Flynn was badly treated, part of Mr. Trump’s campaign to escalate unfounded accusations that the government’s investigation was a plot to undermine him.

Mr. Flynn has said he does not remember talking in late 2016 with the Russian ambassador to the United States at the time, Sergey I. Kislyak, about sanctions newly imposed by the Obama administration as punishment for Russia’s election meddling. But the transcripts showed that the sanctions were the central discussion point between the men.

...Intelligence experts have bristled at the disclosures of conversations intercepted as part of spy agencies’ routine eavesdropping on foreign officials. Disclosing the specifics of any conversations threatens to show Russia and other adversaries the United States’ wiretapping abilities.

Some former officials have also said that the disclosures set a precedent for future administrations to selectively release material when it is politically beneficial.

...Critics of the Trump administration seized on the transcripts’ discussions as evidence that Mr. Flynn was undermining existing Obama administration foreign policy. They argued that the Constitution allows for only one president at a time and that if an incoming administration begins foreign policy negotiations before taking office, it confuses the issue of who holds power.

...Conservatives have said that Mr. Flynn did nothing wrong and that it was in the public interest for him to represent the views of the incoming administration. Attorney General William P. Barr has called Mr. Flynn’s request that Russia avoid retaliation “laudable.”

...The documents also offered further evidence that Mr. Trump’s advisers saw the weeks from his November 2016 election victory until Inauguration Day as an opportunity to seek common cause with Russia on the issue of international terrorism — and possibly to try to broker an end to the yearslong civil war in Syria.

...Mr. Flynn and Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, met in November 2016 with Mr. Kislyak at Trump Tower in Manhattan to discuss back-channel communications to the Kremlin about the war in Syria....

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/us/politics/flynn-russian-ambassador-transcri...

Multiple top Trump aides told investigators that Trump knew WikiLeaks had information stolen from his rivals.
He knew the Russians were backing him, but instead of reporting it, he capitalized on it.
Still likely the biggest betrayal of the country ever.
- Evan McMullin | @EvanMcMullin | 3:55 PM · Jun 22, 2020

The most explosive revelations from the newly released, less redacted version of the Mueller report
Sonam Sheth | Jun 19, 2020, 9:13 PM

In one section of the less redacted report, Mueller indicated that Trump may have lied to him in his written answers.

https://www.businessinsider.com/new-unredacted-mueller-report-most-explosive-rev...

John Fugelsang | 16 hours ago, 47 tweets, 11 min read
(1). Here's a thread for anyone who's been conned into believing Donald Trump cares about the US military or our troops.
-Faked a disability 5 times to avoid a war he didn't oppose
-5 non-rich guys went to Vietnam in his place
-Tried to kick homeless vets off 5th Ave

(2)
-Stole from vets via his fraud online U
-Lied about donating $1 million to veterans' nonprofits
-Said he'd make troops commit war crimes
-Pardoned a guy who committed war crimes
-Falsely claimed he signed Vets' Choice into law
-Insulted POWs
-Insulted Gold Star Families

(3)
-Fined for misusing funds from 2016 Vets fundraiser
-Called Generals "dopes & babies"
-Falsely accused US service members of stealing funds for Iraqi reconstruction
-Deployed 5,600 soldiers to the border in a midterm election stunt

(4)
-Personally insulted Generals Allen, Mattis, Kelly, Powell, McChrystal; Purple Heart recipients Mueller & Vindman, & Admiral McRaven
-lied about donating $6 million to veterans groups in 2016
-Sided with Putin against all branches of military intelligence

(5)
-Blew off Veterans Day cemetery ceremony in France bc it was raining.
-What he said to Myeshia Johnson, widow of ambushed Sgt. La David Johnson. Not gonna repeat it.
-He's trying to cut SNAP. Do you understand how much that hurts military families & vets?

(6)
-His budget seeks to cut medicaid. Do you understand how much this hurts military families & vets?
-Froze pay for all Fed agencies via Executive Order - Fed workforce is 31% veteran, approx 623k vets
-Undid regulations on predatory lenders who target military members

(7)
-He's trying to destroy the Post Office, which employs thousands of veterans
-Declared a fake national emergency to divert billions from the Pentagon to fund a wall he lied that Mexico would pay for
-Downplayed & trivialized troops w/traumatic brain injuries in Jan 2020

(8)
-Insulted troops with PTSD
-Used the national guard to tear gas US protestors so he could be photographed w/an upside down bible
-Forced West Point cadets to travel back for graduation during a plague, endangering their health & the health of their families, for a photo-op

(9)
-Said 26,000 military sexual assaults were to be 'expected' bc America lets women serve
-announced that transgender troops could no longer serve, via a tweet, without informing the Pentagon.
-Invited the Taliban to Camp David on the anniversary of 9/11

(10)
-claimed, stupidly, that his military budget made up for his lack of military experience
-Told wife #2 he'd disown their daughter if she entered the service
-remember his fake 'veterans hotline?'
Here's What Happens if You Call the Veterans Hotline Donald Trump Set Up in 2015
TheBlaze decided to investigate.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/02/16/heres-what-happens-if-you-call-the-vete...

(11)
-Lied to US troops in Iraq that he'd given them their 1st pay raise in over a decade
-Trump Institute fired a vet for 'absences' after he was deployed to Afghanistan
-Claimed if an armored Humvee was hit by an IED, soldiers "go for a little ride upward & they come down."

(12)
-blamed military leaders for the deadly failed Yemen mission he approved
-He can't stop defending the Confederacy
-said his expensive prep school gave him “more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military.”

(13)
-attacked Navy Captain Crozier, who sounded COVID alarm for his sick sailors
-used military against peaceful protests by citizens of color
-Had gov't give hydroxychloroquine to 1300 vets w/COVID-19 despite evidence it was dangerous
-didn't know what happened at Pearl Harbor

(14)
-pulled out of Syria w/no notice, abandoning US allies
-Russia posted footage of Syrian base, built by US, that they now own
-exploited 4 murdered Americans in #Benghazi for crass political purposes, after his own party had cleared the Obama WH in multiple investigations

(15)
-He keeps trying to destroy NATO
-BC of his govt shutdown, members of US military worked w/out pay for the 1st time
-No Other President Would Have Survived Defrauding Veterans’ Charities
No Other President Would Have Survived Defrauding Veterans’ Charities | Washington Monthly
field_56f15ea99bbad
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/11/11/no-other-president-would-have-survived-...

(16)
-Said in 2018 that he was too busy to visit the troops: "I don’t think it’s overly necessary"
-Ordered Navy to Strip Medals From Prosecutors in Eddie Gallagher's War Crimes Trial, even though Gallagher was extremely guilty.
Trump Orders Navy to Strip Medals From Prosecutors in War Crimes Trial
President Trump lashed out at military lawyers who tried the case of Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who was acquitted of killing a captured teenage Islamic State fighter.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/us/politics/trump-navy-seal-war-crimes.html

(17)
Now this. Read it to a #maga or #kag loved one

-Putin is financing the murder of our troops & Trump can't stop siding with him.
-Russia bought the murder of our soldiers.
-Trump has known for months and has chosen to say and do NOTHING about it.

Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says
The Trump administration has been deliberating for months about what to do about a stunning intelligence assessment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/russia-afghanistan-bounties.html?...

(18)
The Pentagon & cabinet presented him with many options:
-a diplomatic complaint to Moscow
-a demand that they stop offering bounties for murder of US troops stop
-an escalating series of sanctions

Trump has refused to say or do anything.

(19)
Trump stood in front of the West Point graduates after forcing their families to risk their health.

He knew that Putin, who owns his debt via Deutsche Bank, was paying Islamic militants for murdering US troops.

He gave his speech and did nothing.

(20)
Well, that's not actually fair.
Trump did a few things after learning Putin was paying for dead US troops in Afghanistan.

He lobbied other countries for Russia to be let back into the G7.

He also talked to Putin June 1.
Days later he signed off on a plan....

(21)
...to permanently withdraw up to 1/3 of the approx 34k U.S. troops currently based in Germany.

Which is part of Putin's dream of dismantling NATO.

DT never told Germany he was going to do this.

Oh, and in May he withdrew from the Open Skies treaty, like Putin wanted.

(22)
Trump did Putin's bidding in Syria this year.

He abandoned our Kurdish allies to slaughter.

They fought by our side and died bc they trusted our leadership.

He then handed over a US military base in Syria to Russian soldiers, to the delight of Russian news media

(23)
Remember Helsinki?
He groveled before Putin & asserted that Russia didn't interfere in the US election?

And he trusts Vlad over all US military intelligence?

"He just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be"

Trump sides with Putin over US intelligence
US President Donald Trump, in a stunning rebuke of the US intelligence community, declined on Monday to endorse the US government's assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election…
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/donald-trump-putin-helsinki-summit/index...

(24)
Then, days later, said he wasn't being servile to Putin and we all just didn't understand what he said?

"I realized that there is a need for some clarification...The sentence should have been...'I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia.'"
24 hours later, Trump claims he misspoke in Helsinki, meant to say Russia did have reason to meddle in election
President Donald Trump on Tuesday attempted to clarify his comments in Helsinki, saying his misspoke when he said he did not see why Russia would have meddled in the election and said he meant to say…
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/24-hours-later-trump-claims-he-mi...

(25)
Well in May 2020, on a phone call with V/Putin, Trump told him the investigation into Russian interference in the election was a "hoax."

Again, he chose Putin over US military intelligence.

He had known about Putin's bounty on the heads of US troops for almost 2 months.

(26)
But even during the period where DT officially accepted the Russian attack on our election he:

-still wouldn't hold them accountable
-refused to take any action on Russian interference in our next election.
-turned a blind eye to the growing Russian cyber action in the U.S.

(27)
But this thread isn't about Putin; or Trump's corruption, racism, ignorance, his record of sexual assaults, his incompetence, or the vast amount of things he's been wrong about.

This is just about his despicable treatment of the US Armed Forces.

(28)
-He said "our military is a joke" in a 2016 debate w/HRC
-He fired Lt Col Vindman for doing his duty
-He fired Vindman's brother for being Vindman's brother
-Plans to de-fund Stars & Stripes
-He made our military stand down & watch allies be slaughtered & our base overrun

(29)
-Had military pit stops in Ireland go hours out of their way to stay at his resort so our tax$ would be pumped into his property
-His stupid wall-based 2017 govt shutdown hurt vets & made veteran memorials unavailable to public.
-He bloody saluted a North Korean general

(29)
But there's no greater proof of his indifference to the troops he uses as props than what happened in Niger.

On 10/4/17 4 US service members died in Niger.

It took Trump 12 days to comment publicly on the soldiers’ deaths.
And when he was finally asked about the deaths...

(30)
...at a press conference, he deflected by falsely accusing President Obama of never calling the families of soldiers killed in the line of duty.

This was a really dumb lie, but debunking the lie became a bigger media narrative than why those men died, or why Trump lied.

(31)
Then the commander-in-chief passed the buck & blamed generals for the 4 dead soldiers.

He also referred to the US armed forces as "my military."

newsweek.com/trump-blames-g…

(32)
@SenJohnMcCain demanded transparency, hearings and answers on Niger.

He's not around now.

And then there's Trump's other Benghazi, in Yemen.

(33)
A brutally tragic raid that killed 3 special forces members & 30 civilians, 10 of whom were women & children.

It was a mission Obama had refused to approve.
Trump approved it over dinner w/ Bannon & Jared.

He didn't show up in the Situation Room.
Questions mount over botched Yemen raid approved by Trump
US military officials say Trump approved counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence or ground support
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/02/trump-approved-yemen-raid-five-day...

(34)
Most of us didn't realize we were at war in Yemen.
Because we aren't. Our troops are used as proxies for Saudi Arabia.

William Owens, father of slain Chief Petty Officer William Owens refused to meet w/Trump at Dover after his son's death.

Nine young children killed: The full details of botched US raid in Yemen
Working with a journalist who visited the targeted Yemeni village after the raid and gathered survivors' testimony, we have collected the names and ages of 25 civilians reportedly killed.
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-02-09/nine-young-children-kil...

(35)
"When you lose a $75 million airplane and, more importantly, an American life is lost … I don’t believe you can call it a success," - Sen. John McCain.

@seanspicer demanded McCain apologize and called the Yemen raid, which killed an 8 year old girl, 'a huge success.'
(36)
Now I know that none of this will matter to many Trump supporters; their sole agenda is "owning the libs."

Trump can hug a flag & hold up a Bible & tear gas nonviolent protestors he calls "thugs" and a certain kind of authoritarian need is met for millions of ppl.

(37)
Trump is a confidence artist. He conned contractors, casino bondholders, Trump U students, Trump Foundation Donors, 3 wives, and, in 2016, 62 million easy marks.

He says what they want to hear and he is given blind obedience & loyalty. Don't let it make you crazy.

(38)
I love my conservative friends & loved ones. But in lifetime I've seen them be really wrong about:

-Nixon
-Vietnam
-Reaganomics
-AIDS
-LGBT rights
-Iran Contra
-Impeaching Clinton
-Bush's tax plan economics
-Iraq WMDs
-being greeted as liberators
-Sarah Palin
-Drug War

(39)
-Obama's birth certificate
-that Obamacare had death panels
-that Obamacare would add to the deficit
-that Trump gave a damn act the military.

That's not to say Dems haven't been wrong ab things too.

But being wrong is different from being destructive and evil.

(40)
Never forget how Trump clowned around during the National Anthem before the 2020 superbowl.

He didn't know he was being filmed and it's all you need to know about him. Google it if you haven't seen the video.

Kaepernick never deliberately mocked the anthem.

(41)
Over 125k Americans dead from virus & he's doing nothing.

Russia paying bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan & he's doing nothing.

Police killing unarmed ppl has caused massive protests & he won't say 'racism' & praises monuments to a White Supremacist enemy of the USA.

(42)
Putin denies it. Whose side do you think Trump will take?

(43)
I had the strangest election night of anybody in 2016.
Seriously - mine was more surreal than HRC's.

Broadcast a live special on SiriusXM w/a cast of increasingly traumatized comedians.

Walked across an empty Times Square at midnight. I felt like Will Smith & his dog.

(44)
I spent the rest of the night until sunrise as a guest panelist on GMB.

I was on a panel with Piers Morgan, Ann Coulter & Jerry Springer. Told you it was surreal.

(45)
The day after Election Day, having not slept, I went on the air & predicted that Trump would one day resign.

And I still think he will resign, whether he wins or not.

What I didn't count on was this curious moment -

(46)
If these new allegations prove even partially true then we've all got to start demanding that Combover Caligula resign the office.

Every day.

He can declare victory, buy OAN & start paying defense attys for the rest of his life. But the time has come.

#TrumpMustResign

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1276914081627279361.html

On March 30, Russian leader Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump spoke by telephone, the first of five calls between the two over a period of three weeks, a flurry of communication unprecedented during Trump's 3 1/2 years in office....

https://www.rferl.org/a/russsia-us-trump-putin-reset-flurry-communication-diplom...

Anybody need to be reminded of the immediate post-Putin behind closed doors secret meeting in Helsinki photo?

The moment when Trump submitted to his puppet master and became the Betrayer-in-Chief.

MAGA! Make America GROVEL Again

David Frum @davidfrum | 8:40 AM · Jun 28, 2020:

The story about the Russian bounty was reported by NYT/WashPo/WSJ. That doesn't mean it's certainly true. But it does mean that very credible people in US intelligence service are angry and alarmed. Angry and alarmed enough to provide evidence to three leading media sources. 1/x

Now let's look to the denials. Former DNI Richard Grenell said he never "heard" of the bounties. Current DNI Ratcliffe has tweeted from his official account that he never "briefed" the president. Trump likewise denies that he was "briefed." 2/x

Nobody briefed or told me, VP Pence, or Chief of Staff @MarkMeadows about the so-called attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians, as reported through an “anonymous source” by the Fake News @nytimes. Everybody is denying it & there have not been many attacks on us.....

Noteworthy: no denials of the Russia bounty story from Pentagon or CIA or from National Security Adviser O'Brien. 3/x

Not even Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has hazarded his crumbling reputation in support of the president's denials, not yet anyway. 4/x

Yet it's also not impossible that Grenell, Ratcliffe, and Trump are telling a version of the truth - that the information was withheld from Trump by briefers who have learned not to upset him ... and that Grenell during his tenure at ODNI was simply not doing the work. 5/x

The core of the problem is that the greatest security risk in the history of the United States is the current president of the United States. 6/x

The Worst Security Risk in U.S. History
No one knows what President Trump told Vladimir Putin in Helsinki—or why even his own national-security adviser was excluded from the room.
https://theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/putin-trump/565604/

So here we are. END

PS This Russia-bounty story confirms why Congress is abundantly acting within its oversight mission to subpoena Trump's business records. Does Trump owe money to Russian persons is an urgent national security question.

Everybody is not denying it. Only you and the Russians are denying it, @realDonaldTrump .

Here’s a list of coalition military personnel who died in Afghanistan since the beginning of 2019. Most are American, and most were probably killed in attacks you say are “so-called.”

Image ( https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1277238030508720128/photo/1 )
Image ( https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1277238030508720128/photo/2 )
Image ( https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1277238030508720128/photo/3 )
Image ( https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1277238030508720128/photo/4 )

- George Conway @gtconway3d | 9:50 AM · Jun 28, 2020

>69 margd: The story about the Russian bounty was reported by NYT/WashPo/WSJ

And as well as reporting the US story, the British press is also reporting a similar story about UK troops:

Russia offered bounty to kill UK soldiers (Guardian)

The Russian intelligence unit behind the attempted murder in Salisbury of the former double agent Sergei Skripal secretly offered to pay Taliban-linked fighters to kill British and American soldiers in Afghanistan, according to US reports...

>71 John5918: Can you imagine what NATO allies are thinking having gone into Afghanistan because US attacked on 911, having intel on Putin paying bounty on all allied soldiers, and watching Trump ignore, deny, sidestep, and not respond to Putin? Indeed, Trump proposed inviting Putin to G7, pulled troops from Germany, withdrew from nuke treaty, etc...

Abuse of power and aid and comfort to the enemy.

GOP’s star anti-impeachment witness slams AG Barr’s ‘outrageous abuse of power’ — and says he should resign

. . .Turley spoke to the House Natural Resources Committee this week, he asserted that if the clearing of Lafayette Square by Washington, D.C. police on June 1 was merely a “photo-op” for Trump, Attorney General William Barr needs to resign.

_____________________________________________
Trump’s ‘bullying’ of foreign leaders seen as ‘danger’ to national security

“White House and intelligence officials intimately familiar with the contents of the conversations” say Trump “posed a danger to the national security of the United States,” Carl Bernstein, writing for CNN, reports.
(SNIP)
“In hundreds of highly classified phone calls with foreign heads of state, President Donald Trump was so consistently unprepared for discussion of serious issues, so often outplayed in his conversations with powerful leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan, and so abusive to leaders of America’s principal allies, that the calls helped convince some senior US officials — including his former secretaries of state and defense, two national security advisers and his longest-serving chief of staff — that the President himself posed a danger to the national security of the United States, according to White House and intelligence officials intimately familiar with the contents of the conversations.”

Trump Pushed CIA to Give Intelligence to Kremlin, While Taking No Action Against Russia Arming Taliban
Ryan Goodman | July 8, 2020

...On Thursday (July 9), the House Foreign Affairs Committee will hold a hearing titled, “Russian Bounties on U.S. Troops: Why Hasn’t the Administration Responded?” The witnesses include Gen. Nicholson and former Acting CIA Director Mike Morrell.

https://www.justsecurity.org/71279/trump-pushed-cia-to-give-intelligence-to-krem...

As COVID cases top 3 million, it's past time to end the catastrophic Trump presidency
Ira Shapiro | July 8, 2020

...America’s tragedy results from the largest failure of presidential leadership in our history. Donald Trump threw out the pandemic response playbooks left by his predecessors; weakened the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; refused to acknowledge the seriousness of the virus; promised its early disappearance; fantasized about miracle cures; and then, after a series of uninformed television briefings, chose to declare victory and pronounce the problem over.

He defied the warnings of public health experts and showed contempt for social distancing and wearing masks. He has created misunderstandings and sowed division by encouraging Americans to rebel against the reasonable public health measures put in place by their governors and mayors. He's trying to end insurance coverage for millions, and on Tuesday, as America set a record for new daily cases, he began to officially withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization.

If that record of misjudgment, negligence, incompetence and lying was not enough, in his recent rallies in Tulsa and Phoenix, Trump knowingly exposed thousands of Americans to disease and death so that he could receive their applause...

America faces the gravest possible challenge, with an increasingly unhinged leader. Along with most other Americans, I have tried to comfort myself knowing that the election is coming and that Trump is virtually certain to be defeated. But it will be more than six months until former Vice President Joe Biden is sworn in as president. Having seen the past six months, it is frightening to contemplate how much more damage Trump would do in his final six.

We are not bound to stand by while thousands of Americans get sick and die, and our country goes down the drain. To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the Constitution is not a "suicide pact."

...The National Governors Association, led by Republican Chairman Larry Hogan of Maryland and Democratic Vice Chairman Andrew Cuomo of New York, should call for Trump to resign...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/08/trump-presidency-must-end-now-...

Bribery is impeachable. Even now impeachment and removal by Senate is worthwhile in terms of lives that might be saved. Is it possible that Rs have finally seen enough?

Just had a long talk with #RogerStone. He says he doesn’t want a pardon (which implies guilt) but a commutation, and says he thinks #Trump will give it to him. “He knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him. It would have eased my situation considerably. But I didn’t.”
- howardfineman @howardfineman | 4:06 PM · Jul 10, 2020

(Impeachment)...with the proviso that any Senate conviction calls for a *mandatory removal* and a *permissive disqualification* from future office. Will the Senate Dem. majority sworn-in by 1-3-2021 be willing to vote for removal in order to reach disqualification? And would 12 R’s concur?
- ALBERT T GOINS @ALBERTTGOINS1 · 8h

Good question. And a great reminder that it’d be the NEW Senate, sworn in on January 3, 2021, that would try Trump and vote (1) whether to convict and remove him before January 20, 2021, and then, the key: (2) whether to disqualify him from ever holding any federal office. Zoom!
- Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 10:29 PM · Jul 10, 2020

If 45 loses, I expect he will install Pence for the winter so Pence can pardon him of everything under the sun.
- Laura W-Biden2020 @LEastsound | 10:43 PM · Jul 10, 2020

Lawmakers ‘Alarmed’ by Reports U.S. Envoy Told Brazil It Could Help Re-elect Trump
Ernesto Londoño, Manuela Andreoni and Letícia Casado | July 31, 2020

RIO DE JANEIRO — Members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee said Friday they were “extremely alarmed” by assertions that the American ambassador in Brazil had signaled to Brazilian officials they could help get President Trump re-elected by changing their trade policies.

In a letter sent Friday afternoon, Committee Chairman Eliot L. Engel demanded that the ambassador, Todd Chapman, produce “any and all documents referring or related to any discussions” he has held with Brazilian officials in recent weeks about their nation’s tariffs on ethanol, an important agricultural export for Iowa, a potential swing state in the American presidential election.

The committee’s letter was sent in response to reports in the Brazilian news media this week saying that Mr. Chapman, a career diplomat, made it clear to Brazilian officials they could bolster Mr. Trump’s electoral chances in Iowa if Brazil lifted its ethanol tariffs.

Eliminating tariffs would give the Trump administration a welcome trade victory to present to struggling ethanol producers in Iowa, where the president is in a close race with his Democratic rival, Joseph R. Biden Jr.

The House committee said it was opening an inquiry into the matter...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/31/world/americas/brazil-trump-ethanol-chapman.h...

A man most famous for having failed at everything he tries to put his trademark on can not tolerate the true success of others at what they do. So, he sets about destroying the honorable public servants to the detriment to our Nation and to no purpose other than personal vengeance.

Why is Trump still president after an exhibition like that, pitifully, just one of many?

Lt. Col. Vindman "Coming forward ended my career."

I made the difficult decision to retire because a campaign of bullying, intimidation and retaliation by President Trump and his allies forever limited the progression of my military career,” wrote Vindman.
(SNIP)
“Our citizens are being subjected to the same kinds of attacks tyrants launch against their critics and political opponents,” wrote Vindman.
(SNIP)
“Those who choose loyalty to American values and allegiance to the Constitution over devotion to a mendacious president and his enablers are punished. . .Millions are grieving the loss of loved ones and many more have lost their livelihoods while the president publicly bemoans his approval ratings.”

“There are a lot of parallels between the president’s behavior now and during the whole Ukraine scandal. Certainly the most apparent is his demand that the governors basically pay fealty to him, praise him, or they’ll suffer consequences.”
- Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/trump-to-governors-seeking-coronavirus-help...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trump singles out Texas and Florida for help with coronavirus response
Priscilla Alvarez, Jeremy Diamond and Ryan Browne | August 6, 2020

President Donald Trump agreed to continue paying for the full cost of National Guard troops deployed to help with the coronavirus response in just two states -- Texas and Florida -- after their Republican governors appealed directly to him.

Other states will now have to pay a quarter of the cost of National Guard deployments in their states, despite their governors also requesting the federal government continue to foot the entire bill. A White House official said Trump made an exception for Texas and Florida because their governors -- who enjoy close relationships with Trump -- made "special, direct cases to the President." The official said Trump "is open to speaking with any governor from any state."

While Texas and Florida both have a large number of coronavirus cases -- more than 466,000 and 502,000, respectively -- other states with large numbers of cases, like California and Arizona, will only see three-quarters of the costs covered by the federal government...

https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/trump-to-governors-seeking-coronavirus-help...

Trump deceives the American people and probably defies the Constitution by "signing" an executive order (the other so-called "orders" turned out actually to be memos) that supposedly extended coronavirus unemployment benefit checks in the reduced amount of $400. As long as states agreed to pay $100 of that sum to eligible recipients.

That's some executive action Republicans can crow about with remarks like, "Better than nothing!"

Well, no. Consider how states are supposed to afford their share for the thousands unemployed within their lines when the Covid crisis has closed down the commerce from whence their money comes in forms of sales taxes, business licenses, gasoline taxes and other levies. Further consider that the real intention behind such an empty promise is punitive. The states with the largest (broken) economies are also the states with the largest populations and the least rural demographics. In short, the mostly blue states.

Agricultural states that depend on income taxes, primarily, to fund themselves are the Republican base states. Those taxes mostly arrive in an annual lump sum so they already know they can't pay. But, for the most part, they're Red States and will only be letting their residents live out their principles (ha ha). There's no whining in politics!

In reality, Trump's photo op signing is no help to the 31+ million unemployed Americans desperate for relief from the economic consequences of his utter failure to address the pandemic effectively. Make that "at all."

If the House asserts itself and Democrats point out to POTUS that they hold the purse strings and the president has no authority to appropriate money be fiat, then we realize just how empty Trump's political maneuver is.

And if he does fiat a suspension of FICA, then we know he intends to commit yet another impeachable offense since he'd be refusing to "execute the SS and Medicare" finance laws in a move designed to rob Peter to pay Paul. An undeniable intention by him since he also promised to make the payroll taxes suspension permanent, if re-elelcted.

Such are the delusional behaviors of a man who would be king.

Memo to the 100 newspapers who called for (Bill) Clinton to resign.

@realDonaldTrump has obstructed justice,
sided with Putin,
extorted Ukraine,
put kids in cages,
ignored a pandemic that's killed 167K and now
gutting USPS to steal election.

Are you ready to weigh in yet?

- Joe Lockhart @joelockhart | 12:37 PM · Aug 15, 2020

Deep state, indeed...

Justice Dept. Never Fully Examined Trump’s Ties to Russia, Ex-Officials Say
Michael S. Schmidt | Aug. 30, 2020

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department secretly took steps in 2017 to narrow the investigation into Russian election interference and any links to the Trump campaign, according to former law enforcement officials, keeping investigators from completing an examination of President Trump’s decades-long personal and business ties to Russia.

The special counsel who finished the investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, secured three dozen indictments and convictions of some top Trump advisers, and he produced a report that outlined Russia’s wide-ranging operations to help get Mr. Trump elected and the president’s efforts to impede the inquiry.

But law enforcement officials never fully investigated Mr. Trump’s own relationship with Russia, even though some career F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators thought his ties posed such a national security threat that they took the extraordinary step of opening an inquiry into them. Within days, the former deputy attorney general Rod J. Rosenstein curtailed the investigation without telling the bureau, all but ensuring it would go nowhere.

A bipartisan report by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee released this month came the closest to an examination of the president’s links to Russia. Senators depicted extensive ties between Trump associates and Russia, identified a close associate of a former Trump campaign chairman as a Russian intelligence officer and outlined how allegations about Mr. Trump’s encounters with women during trips to Moscow could be used to compromise him. But the senators acknowledged they lacked access to the full picture, particularly any insight into Mr. Trump’s finances...

...Mr. McCabe acknowledged that he underestimated Mr. Rosenstein’s willingness to conceal from him that he had curtailed the investigation. As Mr. McCabe left the bureau (10 months later), he still believed Mr. Mueller was investigating Mr. Trump’s personal and financial ties to Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/30/us/politics/trump-russia-justice-department.h...

Why a Biden White House should see no evil, speak no evil and issue no pardons
The project of accountability for the Trump era is to get beyond politics.
Laurence H. Tribe and Joshua A. Geltzer | Oct. 16, 2020

...Trump is...a president who has exploited the country rather than serving it; whose behavior in office has been corrupt, improper, unethical and possibly criminal. We need to know how it happened so we can stop it from happening again.

But the whole point of such work is to get beyond politics.

...Trump’s successor will therefore face a devilish challenge. His executive branch will have real misdeeds of his predecessor’s team to investigate — if not crimes then at least ethical transgressions — yet that successor will need to avoid replicating or even appearing to replicate the deeply political ways in which Trump, from the White House, has driven investigations of his own political adversaries. There’s only one way to do that: Hands off...

...To his credit, former vice president Joe Biden has made that pledge (to let those who determine whether rules have been broken proceed without political coercion or suppression). Trump’s successor should also steer clear of any President Gerald Ford-like political pardons, ensuring that the process is informed by the recommendations of career Justice Department lawyers, rather than the president’s whim...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/biden-white-house-prosecute/2020/10/16/f2...

>83 margd: prequel

Joshua A. Geltzer (former WH DOJ) @jgeltzer | 8:46 AM · Oct 17, 2020
https://twitter.com/jgeltzer/status/1317446807266467841 or
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1317446807266467841.html

THREAD
How to ensure accountability for the Trump era is a hard, important, & hopefully urgent question.
@PostOutlook just published a great set of essays diving deep into the topic.
Here’s a quick look: /1

Historian Sam Tanenhaus explains why post-Trump accountability is essential for the country to move forward. /2
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/16/prosecute-trump-accountability...

Historian Jill Lepore urges forgoing a truth commission in favor of leaving the judgment to future historians. /3
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/truth-reconciliation-tribunal-trump-histo...

Former US Attorneys @BarbMcQuade & @JoyceWhiteVance lay out what post-presidency criminal investigations of Trump might involve. /4
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/rap-sheet-trump-crimes/2020/10/16/c6a539d...

Whatever form post-Trump accountability takes, tribelaw & I argue that it’s essential to depoliticize it—by keeping the next White House out of it. /5
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/biden-white-house-prosecute/2020/10/16/f2...

If Trump Is Impeached and Convicted, He’ll Lose His Post-Presidency Perks
Russ Choma | Jan 8, 2021

President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump step off Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., Thursday, Dec. 31, 2020. Trump is returning to Washington after visiting his Mar-a-Lago resort. AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

The 1958 Former Presidents Act assures that no president leaves office without being set for life—it guarantees a pension, access to health insurance, office space and staff, and Secret Service protection for as long as he or she wants it. There is, however, one exception: These perks are only granted to presidents who aren’t removed from office in an impeachment trial.

...not only would Trump have to pay for his own security, he would lose the ability to charge taxpayers when his protective detail stays at his properties around the globe.

No president has ever been denied these benefits, and a government legal opinion in 1974 found that even Richard Nixon, who resigned but was not removed, was eligible.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/01/if-trump-is-impeached-and-convicted...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Former Presidents Act
(3 U.S.C. § 102 note)

(a) Each former President shall be entitled for the remainder of his life to receive from the United States a monetary allowance at a rate per annum, payable monthly by the Secretary of the Treasury, which is equal to the annual rate of basic pay, as in effect from time to time, of the head of an executive department, as defined in section 101 of title 5, United States Code section 101 of Title 5. However, such allowance shall not be paid for any period during which such former President holds an appointive or elective office or position in or under the Federal Government or the government of the District of Columbia to which is attached a rate of pay other than a nominal rate.

(b) The Administrator of General Services shall, without regard to the civil-service and classification laws, provide for each former President an office staff. Persons employed under this subsection shall be selected by the former President and shall be responsible only to him for the performance of their duties. Each former President shall fix basic rates of compensation for persons employed for him under this paragraph which in the aggregate shall not exceed $96,000 per annum, except that for the first 30-month period during which a former President is entitled to staff assistance under this subsection, such rates of compensation in the aggregate shall not exceed $150,000 per annum. The annual rate of compensation payable to any such person shall not exceed the highest annual rate of basic pay now or hereafter provided by law for positions at level II of the Executive Schedule under section 5313 of title 5. United States Code section 5313 of Title 5. Government Organization and Employees. Amounts provided for “Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents” may be used to pay fees of an independent contractor who is not a member of the staff of the office of a former President for the review of Presidential records of a former President in connection with the transfer of such records to the National Archives and Records Administration or a Presidential Library without regard to the limitation on staff compensation set forth herein.

(c) The Administrator of General Services shall furnish for each former President suitable office space appropriately furnished and equipped, as determined by the Administrator, at such place within the United States as the former President shall specify.

(d) Repealed. Pub. L. 86-682, § 12(c), Sept. 2, 1960, 74 Stat. 730. See sections 3214 and 3216 of Title 39.

(e) The widow of each former President shall be entitled to receive from the United States a monetary allowance at a rate of $20,000 per annum, payable monthly by the Secretary of the Treasury, if such widow shall waive the right to each other annuity or pension to which she is entitled under any other Act of Congress. The monetary allowance of such widow--

(1) commences on the day after the former President dies;

(2) terminates on the last day of the month before such widow--

(A) dies; or

(B) remarries before becoming 60 years of age; and

(3) is not payable for any period during which such widow holds an appointive or elective office or position in or under the Federal Government or the government of the District of Columbia to which is attached a rate of pay other than a nominal rate.

(f) As used in this section, the term “former President” means a person--

(1) who shall have held the office of President of the United States of America;

(2) whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America; and

(3) who does not then currently hold such office.

(g) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of General Services up to $1,000,000 for each former President and up to $500,000 for the spouse of each former President each fiscal year for security and travel related expenses: Provided, That under the provisions set forth in section 3056, paragraph (a), subparagraph (3) of title 18, United States Code section 3056(a)(3) of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, the former President and/or spouse was not receiving protection for a lifetime provided by the United States Secret Service under section 3056 paragraph (a) subparagraph (3) of title 18, United States Code; the protection provided by the United States Secret Service expired at its designated time; or the protection provided by the United States Secret Service was declined prior to authorized expiration in lieu of these funds.

https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/former-presidents.html

Lawfare @lawfareblog | 12:52 PM · Jan 9, 2021:
Impeaching and removing the president would take a few days, even in an expedited process—during which an angry Trump could do great additional damage. But nothing prevents a parallel invocation of the 25th Amendment.

Can Trump Be Stopped?
David Priess, Jack Goldsmith | January 7, 2021

1. What did the president do to trigger discussion of an urgent removal?
2. Can Trump be impeached and removed quickly enough to matter?
3. What about using the 25th Amendment?
4. What next?
Invocation of the 25th Amendment and the impeachment route are not mutually exclusive. The vice president and the majority of the principal officers could prevent the president from exercising the powers of his office by activating Section 4 (a process by which the chief executive can be declared “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”) , giving Congress time to impeach, convict, and remove the president—and disqualify him from serving in federal office again.

The real benefit of the 25th amendment is its efficiency. The vice president and the principal officers of the executive departments can make their decision free from parliamentary rules and transmit the results to Capitol Hill within minutes—quickly enough (in theory) to stop Trump from trying to derail the proceedings by firing enough principal executive officers that it becomes practically impossible to know who the relevant executive officers are for 25th Amendment purposes, or whether they can exercise authority under the amendment.

This possibility of Trump attempting to preempt a 25th Amendment action against him highlights that the amendment was intended, as Kalt notes, primarily “to provide continuity of power” when a president is truly disabled. It was not intended as a mechanism to remove from power a physically functioning president who simply lacks the capacity of character to perform his oath and who is wielding the powers and platform of the office in historically destructive ways. This and related concerns are why Kalt counsels hesitation against using the 25th Amendment for all but the most extreme situations that do not involve physical impairment.

We are now in that extreme situation. Trump has the hard power to engage in vengeful, destructive acts against the Cabinet and the country that could make things much, much worse. These are uncharted and very dangerous waters.

Constitutional law professor weighs in on impeachment articles:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/10/trump-impeachment-articles-inc...

Indict (experts).

‘Planning to Foment a Coup’: Legal Experts Say Trump Pressuring DOJ Shows ‘Intent to Overthrow Government’
David Badash | July 30, 2021

https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2021/07/planning-to-foment-a-coup-lega...
___________________________________________

Trump Pressed Justice Dept. to Declare Election Results Corrupt, Notes Show
“Leave the rest to me” and to congressional allies, the former president is said to have told top law enforcement officials.
Katie Benner | July 30, 2021

...during a phone call on Dec. 27 in which Mr. Trump pressed the acting attorney general at the time, Jeffrey A. Rosen, and his deputy, Richard P. Donoghue, on voter fraud claims that the Justice Department had found no evidence for. Mr. Donoghue warned that the department had no power to change the outcome of the election. Mr. Trump replied that he did not expect that, according to notes Mr. Donoghue took memorializing the conversation.

“Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me” and to congressional allies, Mr. Donoghue wrote in summarizing Mr. Trump’s response.

Mr. Trump did not name the lawmakers, but at other points during the call, he mentioned Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, whom he described as a “fighter”; Representative Scott Perry, Republican of Pennsylvania, who at the time promoted the idea that the election was stolen from Mr. Trump; and Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, whom Mr. Trump praised for “getting to bottom of things.”.

...After the departure of Mr. Rosen’s predecessor, William P. Barr, became public on Dec. 14, Mr. Trump and his allies harangued Mr. Rosen and his top deputies nearly every day until Jan. 6, when Congress met to certify the Electoral College and was disrupted by Mr. Trump’s supporters storming the Capitol, according to emails and other documents obtained by Congress and interviews with former Trump administration officials.

The conversations often included complaints about unfounded voter fraud conspiracy theories, frustration that the Justice Department would not ask the Supreme Court to invalidate the election and admonishments that department leaders had failed to fight hard enough for Mr. Trump, the officials said.

The Justice Department provided Mr. Donoghue’s notes to the House Oversight and Reform Committee, which is investigating the Trump administration’s efforts to unlawfully reverse the election results...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/us/politics/trump-justice-department-election...

>89 margd: contd.

Maddow Blog @MaddowBlog | 10:26 PM · Aug 4, 2021:
NEWS: Rep. Krishnamoorthi tells us that Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark didn’t just prepare a draft a letter
encouraging Georgia Republicans to overturn Biden’s win.
He prepared similar draft letters to SIX states whose results Trump wanted to overturn...

1:25 ( https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1423108063536590849 )

>91 TheToadRevoltof84: When Biden's misdeeds have come to light

If they have not yet come to light, how is it that you know about them?

Okay, so you're saying they have come to light.
And nobody believes a word of it because it's a load of recycled horseshit.

Gotcha.

We can identify him by nipples or something, but it’s—it’s him.

LOL. You know you're never going to live that one down, right?

>93 TheToadRevoltof84: The fury comes from folks who don’t subscribe to the New York Times, let alone the New Yorker, and who don’t habituate yoga studios while carrying NPR tote bags, either. These “deplorables,” to use one memorable description, watch pro football, know when deer season begins,

This is of course a parody of reality. Most Americans don't habituate yoga studios while carrying NPR tote bags, even while they voted for the Democratic candidate in the last four elections. Most Americans that voted for Trump, a minority in both 2020 and 2016, don't know when deer season begins. This type of division is the sign of a propagandist or lazy fool, not someone you want to listen to about reality.

and think they are being badly governed by an unelected caste whose education, expertise, and ideology have not improved the lives of ordinary Americans.

I've got a bunch of friends who think that, but they all think Trump was an unmitigated dumpster fire.

They are convinced that corporate suits who are currently lecturing them about race relations have outsourced their jobs and used the profits to buy political influence, as well as grandiose mansions. They know in their gut that this elite class has only contempt for them.

If they were wise, they'd understand that the suits who are lecturing them about CRT and cancel culture have used the profits to buy political influence and grandiose mansions, and have only contempt for them. Why do corporate suits talk about race relations? Because most Americans respond to it (cf. again, Obama beat Romney 66 to 61 (million) in the popular vote, and Clinton beat Trump 66 to 63 in the popular vote.). I just watched a joke video about a guy who works for Hollywood who removes gay kisses and protests before releasing movies in China, and saves those in a folder for the studio to use in promoting itself as progressive in the US; it hit too close to be comfortable.

The more your people believe that the majority of the people in the US are some elite minority, the more they're going to build this divide, and the harder they're going to their ass kicked, as real Americans join the party that believes in democracy and reality.

They reinforce Trump’s claim that the Swamp must be drained,

One article pointed out that some of Trump's impact on the government is going to be short-lived, because his appointees were so incompetent. There's rules set down by Congress where there must be public meetings, and certain amount of advanced notice, and a rational reason for changes, none of which have really stopped previous appointees. But Trump's appointees couldn't abide by the simple rules to make the swamp at least more transparent to the public. For another, more specific, example, Ajit Pai, former council at Verizon, was appointed by Trump as FCC chairman and repealed Net Neutrality, something most Americans disapproved of but Verizon greatly approved of.

They reinforce Trump’s claim that America’s main strategic rival, China, is trying to buy influence in Washington

Again, not a sign that we're dealing with a deep thinker here. Who actually thinks that China is not going to try to buy influence in Washington? Heck, I bet Estonia spends money in Washington trying to buy influence.

Biden is too compromised and corrupt to confront Beijing,

Biden Has Angered China, and Beijing Is Pushing Back
China 'Not Afraid' of 'Extreme Competition' With U.S. Under Joe Biden: State Media

Biden described Xi as "bright" and "tough" but said the Chinese leader "doesn't have a democratic ... bone in his body." He told O'Donnell there would be "extreme competition" between Washington and Beijing amid already strained U.S.-China ties.

Joe Biden is determined that China should not displace America : His China policy is looking even tougher than Donald Trump’s starts:

America must focus on “blunting Chinese power and order and building the foundations for us power and order”. That, at least, is the message of a recent book by Rush Doshi, until recently a scholar at the Brookings Institution, a think-tank in Washington, dc. “The Long Game: China’s Grand Strategy to Displace American Order” argues that China has worked for years to undermine America’s geopolitical dominance and shape a more illiberal world order that better protects and serves China’s interests. It concludes that these efforts need to be repaid in kind.

This is a striking rebuke to decades of American foreign-policy thinking focused on “engagement” with China. The rebuke gains extra weight from the fact that Mr Doshi is now a China director on President Joe Biden’s National Security Council, where he works under Kurt Campbell, his mentor and a leading architect of the administration’s China strategy. ...

Ivanka’s Trademark Requests Were Fast-Tracked In China After Trump Was Elected

too committed to globalism, not Trump’s “America First” nationalism.

Population of China: 1.4 billion
GDP of China: 16.6 trillion USD

Population of US: 328 million
GDP of US: 21.43 trillion USD

Population of EU: 445 million
GPD of EU: 15.17 trillion USA

I show up with equal teams when I'm play a game. If I have to fight for real, screw this high noon gunslinger crap; I want the guy looking to shoot me to be surrounded by armed men with a helicopter informing him to drop his weapons and put his hands where we can see them. You want to fight the most populous nation on the planet with the second largest GDP, bring allies. Don't try and push China around while the EU is giving them a better deal.

Secondly, are you worried about "American First" or strategically rivaling China? I know, it's not a "US, fuck yeah!" question, but it's a question even countries the size of the US have to answer sometimes. Are you prioritizing cheap consumer goods to the US, human rights in China, or containing Chinese influence in the world (possibly at the expense of domestic Chinese human rights)? I can't see reducing Chinese strategic power being worth it for an anti-globalist "America First" perspective.

And yeah, you can bring out all the random accusations you want. That's one of the strengths of the response to Cuomo and Al Franken; it's harder to credit attacks on the Democrats for sexual misconduct than it is on a party who ignored the behavior of Kavanaugh, Trump and Roy Moore. And a major political player for decades and VP for eight years and this is just now coming out in obscure publications? That doesn't say much for the Republicans, IMO.

>95 TheToadRevoltof84: I believe there's obvious corruption and somehow Leftists think one side is to blame.

You see "obvious corruption" but only mention Democrats, putting special emphasis on how "Demoncrats" are always wrong and toss around the word Leftist, and say pompously "somehow Leftists think one side is to blame."

(One good working definition of a Leftist for the US is someone to the left of Pelosi and Biden who will complain about Bill Clinton and neoliberalism. Also likely to complain that Obama didn't have a strong enough break with his predecessors. Not someone who thinks one side of the Republican/Democratic split is to blame.)

BUT, I think he saw how corrupt the lifers in DC are and even he felt obligated to do something.

Any evidence of that? How much more corrupt can you get than trying to overthrow the election?

Oh, gawd. I'm old enough to remember when the favorite slur Republicans had for those to the right of Attila the Hun was "chardonnay sipping." Toady is revisiting that class of life style disparaging name calling when it's so far past its sell by date. Sad.

What rankles Republicans of the Trumpist stripe (I'm thinking skunks here) is the fact that Biden has clear international and domestic policies when Trump had none outside of hate and poisonous nationalism. And what really drives those Republicans up the wall with their hair ablaze is that Biden's policies in both areas are intended for the people and have been well received by the people rather than the power mongers favored by Trumpists whose desire is to make America an oligarchy run by old white billionaires.

>100 TheToadRevoltof84: other countries literally chuckle at Joe's dementia

Actually they don't. They alternated between splitting their sides laughing and holding their heads in horror at Trump, but generally the international reaction to Biden has been very positive.

>101 John5918: I'll second that.

>99 TheToadRevoltof84: As if Biden isn't a full blown Leftist shill at this point ... The moderate wing of the Democrat party is gone.

Note that the turnover on the Republicans has been way faster than Democrats. Republicans like saying that Biden is Leftist, but there's no real evidence.

Do you really think the lifers in Washington on both sides just happened to hate Trump, only after becoming President.

Were you born yesterday? Do you think we were? I watched that election; to quote Wikipedia:

Five primaries were contested in May: Indiana, Nebraska, West Virginia, Oregon and Washington, with Indiana awarding the most, with 57 delegates. By late April, Cruz and Kasich had both been eliminated from getting 1,237 delegates, but they still had a chance to accumulate enough delegates to force a contested convention in Cleveland. Realizing this, Cruz and Kasich attempted to focus their efforts in different states, with Cruz challenging Trump head-to-head in Indiana and Kasich challenging Trump in Oregon and New Mexico. The Indiana primary, whose delegates were awarded winner-take all statewide and by congressional district, was seen as essential to denying Trump the 1,237 delegates needed to secure the nomination. Following the Acela primaries, Cruz attempted to bolster his chances by announcing that, if nominated, he would name Fiorina as his running mate (Fiorina had served as a Cruz campaign surrogate since endorsing him in March after suspending her own presidential campaign in February and Cruz hoped that Fiorina could help his campaign in Indiana and her home state of California). On April 29, 2016, Governor Mike Pence of Indiana announced that he would vote for Cruz in the primary election. Nevertheless, although Trump was outspent by a margin of more than 4–1, he handily won Indiana with 53.3% of the vote, winning a plurality in every Congressional District and taking all 57 delegates. Cruz subsequently dropped out of the race, eliminating any hope of a contested convention in July. As a result, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus tweeted that Trump was the presumptive nominee in the GOP. The next day, Kasich also suspended his campaign, leaving Trump as the only candidate in the race. Many Republican leaders and even former presidential candidates endorsed Trump after the withdrawal of Kasich and Cruz, but other party leaders such as Ryan, Romney and the entire Bush family withheld their support, although Ryan endorsed Trump on June 2, 2016.

Yes, yes, yes, you can try and gas-light me, but I lived through that and was paying attention.

Politicians are chummy with rich millionaires, and Trump managed to be rich and amiable. There's people I'm friendly with who I wouldn't want to be president, and it turns out as a politician, people didn't like Trump.

Trying to overthrow elections... give it a rest and watch folks blow up DC while Democrats tell Joe not to certify Trump's 2016 election.

WTF is that about?

On second thoughts, deleted.

>104 TheToadRevoltof84: Umm, so we agree. Lifers suddenly started hating Trump after his election.

Did you read the text I quoted? They did their best to stop him long before his election. I suspect many of them, at least on the left, backed away from him when he started spreading lies about the President's birthplace. In any case, it was not after his election, and I see no reason to think it was sudden.

You're obviously comparing apples and oranges there; it's nice how you compare Jan 6th, 2021 to many other things, because there's no one event you can compare it to.

Not that January 6th was the most relevant example; Trump's phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State is just one of examples of where he tried to change the results of the election. In the last century, no major presidential candidate loser has taken more than a day to concede, except for Al Gore (36 days) and Trump (276 days and counting; 78 if you want to count leaving the White House).

>108 TheToadRevoltof84: Never mind that no authoritative source will stand by you on that claim, that the Republican Secretary of State denied it, that only the most extreme "news" channels mention it, that when lawyers got before judges, they usually declined to make outright claims of fraud, knowing that making false claims to courts could boomerang on them. Never mind that it wasn't particularly close, that Trump would have needed at two other states to win the election.

With all these argument about the elections, some part of my mind keeps wondering, did they put Trump in power? And then rig the 2020 election so Biden didn't win as strongly as he should have, so Trump could do some serious damage to the democracy on the way out? I simply don't believe that all of a sudden, huzzah, the first serious attempt to rig the US presidential election happened in 2020, and rigging the 2016 election would have weakened the US as it did to make it more susceptible to fascist/oligarchic takeover, possibly of the type Tucker Carlson is currently praising in Hungary.

if you think a bunch of nitwits were going to overthrow the government, you are in a pretty sad state.

Oh, so what you're saying is that you don't believe they were antifa? Because apparently antifa's existence is a huge concern to Republicans, but violent people invading Congress while it was in session and forcing them to take shelter is no big deal. Attempted coups, especially with support of the President of the United States, are a big deal, no matter how incompetent.

Good to see that someone has picked up the fallen sword, however rusty and tarnished, of other dear departed members.

Things don’t change much here, do they?

>110 TheToadRevoltof84: We know factually that many elections have been rigged. Never alleged on this scale, but elections have factually been rigged.

Name them. There has never been a national election in the US rigged. Why should I believe that the 2016 election, much less well investigated, was legitimately won by Trump? Whining that something happened doesn't make it more likely that something happened.

We know that grannies and goofballs had a photo op in the congress building

And we know that some young men decided to have a joyride in some airplanes on 9/11. Why do you think downplaying this helps your case?

Do you think it's a coincidence that literally everything that the Democrats say to rile up their base is proven a lie somewhere else?

Climate change: speculation. Literally everything the Democrats say: disproved. Your standards of evidence seem slightly biased.

My news does attack Republicans almost as often as Democrats.

But somehow they have time to disprove "literally everything that the Democrats say". PolitiFact only manages a dozen checks a day, so this isn't funded by ads or donations; where's the dark money coming from?

Speaking of PolitiFact, compare Biden https://www.politifact.com/personalities/joe-biden/ to de Santis https://www.politifact.com/personalities/ron-desantis/ . PolitiFact doesn't track every statement and thus points out the division of statements is not probative, but note that people from both parties say things that are clearly true, clearly false, and in-between. Sort of what we would expect from a neutral source.

Have you ever considered why CNN runs cover propaganda instead of challenging obvious lies?

Mu.

please do not question my sources when your sources are obviously not journalistic in nature.

You're in the reality zone, and to prove that you demand we do not question our sources with any outside sources. Checks out.

Antifa does exist

They do. They're a small, largely irrelevant group, that Republicans harp on to hide the facts.

Maybe you can help buy them mansions in White neighborhoods like BLM.

That's the part you're not supposed to say out loud. You're supposed to act like Republicans are color-blind and would imagine that any neighborhoods are open to everyone.

>113 TheToadRevoltof84: Name one major politicized event the Leftists haven't lied about

Obama is a US citizen and is not a Muslim.

Biden won the 2020 presidential election.

Hilary Clinton is not the leader of a paedophile movement linked to pizza restaurants.

The climate crisis is real.

COVID-19 is real.

Trump is on record admitting to sexual assault.

Well, there's a few just for a start.

>113 TheToadRevoltof84: In addition to >114 John5918:, Trump won the 2016 presidential election.

Election stuff:

For one, whine, whine, whine about our sources, then use not a journalist source by any measurement, but a think tank that massively supported Trump. Cool source, man.

For another, in 1982, In Illinois, some people tried unsuccessfully to steal an election, through fake ballots. Note that most of the methods wouldn't work today, as those details are routinely checked. In 1981, the Ballot Security Task Force stole an election through intimidation, and the Republicans agreed to a consent decree not to do it again for 35 years. Neither of these were federal elections, and you'll note that the Republicans are only concerned about one; intimidation of legitimate voters doesn't seem to be a problem they're concerned with.

In any case, it's quite tiring to have a stream of bullshit coming my way and you not even bothering to respond to the responses.

>116 TheToadRevoltof84: journalists do not exist

That's strange, since I know some journalists, and they do appear to exist.

>118 TheToadRevoltof84:

All three, from a number of different countries.

>120 TheToadRevoltof84:

Probably. Why?

>122 TheToadRevoltof84: You're trashing journalists to evade the fact that you used a source that was blatant propaganda.

>116 TheToadRevoltof84: The 1982 example alleged by your source could not be pulled off today, because the checks done to prove it are routinely done as part of the election. The voter intimidation done in the example I brought up could be done today, but not by the Democrats, for demographic reasons.

people cheat and what happens when there's finally a way to get away with it

All this arguments about rigged elections makes me wonder if Trump is pissed because he lost despite rigging the election; I mean, it worked the first time, why not the second time? Pollsters were exactly on the mark both times; the deviations towards Trump were signs of fraud. It's too self-serving to believe, but it is tempting, especially as nobody has come up with laughable arguments for it.

>124 TheToadRevoltof84: nobody that has the power to control anything likes Trump,

Which is insane babble. Sure, people get elected as President of the United States all the time if nobody likes them. You could claim that everyone hated him but still ran his ads and gave him space for rallies because of money, but then you know, money buys rigged elections, too.

We also know factually, Democrats seem uninterested in doing full scale audits,

But Republicans out of the pureness of their heart are doing more audits for a man they hate. That makes sense.

We know that factually election officials did full scale audits, repeatedly. Electronic tabulations were hand-counted repeatedly in pretty much every place that was close. If you're a cashier and your manager counts your drawer twice they're being careful. If they count it five times, call an unemployment attorney, because they're looking for a justification to fire you and probably aren't above stealing money from your drawer to get it.

>126 TheToadRevoltof84: They won't hand over envelope images or splunk logs or cooperate in the least...

So what you're saying is the so-called audit in Arizona didn't come with the answer they wanted, so they want more information until they get the result they want? It's interesting nobody is auditing Texas, North Carolina or Florida; it's almost like this isn't a fair audit of the 2020 Election, but instead an attempt to disprove that Trump lost the election.

A lot of people love Trump and it is because of the Republicans and Democrats in DC,

Exactly. Nobody loves him, now everyone outside of DC (you know, in the places where elections are actually held) loves him, whatever you need to be true for this argument.

The, we know how to live your life better than you types.

Guess what, you don't get ally yourself with the Religious Right and throw that around. If you've got the people (Mike Pence) who want to criminalize sodomy, ban gay marriage, punish the unwed pregnant women and keep marijuana illegal on your side, you win the "we think we know better than you how to live your life" contest.

I don't even know what you're complaining about here. Most of what you've complained about is economic stuff and the pandemic. Is it the idea that someone, somewhere, listens to NPR while during yoga, and you take that as a personal offense? Unless everyone is like you, they must think they're better than you?

>122 TheToadRevoltof84: Simply reporting what someone tells you to say isn't journalism of any grand nature

Well, I agree with that, and >123 prosfilaes: makes the same point, that a lot of the current right wing media is just propaganda, not journalism. Far from "reporting what someone tells you to say", good journalists are often looking for the stories that somebody doesn't want them to say.

But if there is a distinction between, let us say, "routine" journalism and investigative journalism*, it is that "routine" journalists are reporting what they see and hear around them (not what anyone is telling them to say), what is not hidden or particularly difficult to find for those who are in that location or situation, but which the likes of you and me would never hear about if someone didn't take the trouble to report it in a media which is accessible to a wider audience, whether that be newspapers, radio, TV or internet based media. An example close to home would be what is going on in Africa, whether it be good news (of which there is plenty which unfortunately gets less international attention) or bad news (war, famine, COVID, etc). Very few people from Europe and north America have the opportunity to travel to Africa, more's the pity, so they wouldn't know what is going on here unless someone reports it. I have facilitated trips to Sudan by journalists in the past because we wanted the world to know what was going on there. Or for me, news about what is going on in my native country, UK, which I rarely get the chance to visit - routine stuff which is of interest to me. Or my hobby, railways - reports about railway developments all over the world.

Investigative journalists, on the other hand, seek to discover things which are hidden and not immediately visible, whether they are being hidden deliberately or simply by circumstances or systemically. They are often investigating misconduct by governments, political parties, security forces, organised crime and other powerful institutions who are trying to cover it up. As such their work is often difficult and dangerous, but it can produce very important and beneficial results. Watergate would be a classic example, but there are many more recent ones, including the uncovering of historic sexual abuse.

I read both types of journalism from all over the world, and I personally know both types of journalist, mostly in a more limited geographical and topic-related sphere. Journalists I know personally have been threatened, arrested, beaten, tortured, deported, declared persona non grata, censored and harassed in all sorts of ways just for doing their job. I don't think I personally know any who have been killed in the line of duty, but I know the circumstances of some of their deaths and the effect it has had on some of their colleagues. I have the greatest respect for most of them. I know how dedicated they are. I see how much effort they make to verify their facts and their sources, and to contact all sides in any controversy. I've travelled with some of them in difficult and dangerous locations and conditions and I appreciate their courage and their willingness to endure hardships. I've been involved in organising press conferences. I've often been interviewed by journalists, and have almost always felt them to be fair. I know some editors, and I also see how assiduous they are about being fair and accurate.

So while there may be bad journalists, just as there are bad people in any profession, and while any individual journalist or article may make mistakes (and I have from time to time been in a position to point out mistakes, which often originate with sub-editors, and which have quickly been corrected), my experience with journalists has generally been very positive, and I don't recognise the negative generalisations which you make.

* I have not studied journalism so I don't know whether these are terms and distinctions which journalists themselves would make, but they help me to try to understand and respond to what you are saying.

>124 TheToadRevoltof84: lefties murdered comedy

I find that a strange statement. Some of the great stand-up comedians are avowedly left wing - Ben Elton and Billy Connolly are two obvious ones, but there are many other examples. Private Eye has for many years produced anti-establishment satirical comedy, as did Spitting Images. A great deal of good comedy is anti-establishment, and since the "establishment" in the western world is usually conservative and right of centre, that's a great opening for left wing comedy.

Note that I'm not saying there is no right wing comedy, simply countering your argument that "lefties murdered comedy". Mind you, even some of the comedy which on the surface appears right wing is actually mocking the right - Al Murray and Alf Garnett would be examples from two different generations.

>128 TheToadRevoltof84: I think you purposefully allow yourself to change what I'm saying, and the pattern of misunderstanding seems very intentional.

I see you don't understand sarcasm. Let me rephrase then. The so-called audit in Arizona was run by people who thought that the election was stolen, and since they couldn't make that case, they'll continue digging until they have something to make their case. There's no reason for the Election Board to give any more information to them. As I said above, if someone is going to keep auditing you until they find the evidence they're looking for, you have no reason to cooperate with them as if they were acting in good faith. As I said, nobody is auditing Texas, North Carolina or Florida, because that doesn't serve the purpose of "proving" that Trump won.

The Governor of Texas put out a series of dropboxes, unconstitutionally, at least according to your complaint. He put out one in each county and sued to prevent more being placed; 21 in counties that eventually voted for Biden over Trump, for 6,260,179 voters, and he put out 233 in counties that eventually voted for Trump over Biden, counties where 5,054,877 voters cast a vote. (He knew that every single county in Texas with more than a million people would vote Democratic, and that Texas has a couple hundred tiny Republican counties; hence one dropbox per county.) If you cared about an honest election, you might care that Republican voters had ten times as many dropboxes per voter as Democrats did; if you cared about the governor making such changes being unconstitutional, you'd care that the Governor of Texas did this.

>129 John5918: >123 prosfilaes: makes the same point, that a lot of the current right wing media is just propaganda, not journalism.

There's room for that discussion. But I wasn't making that argument; TheToadRevolt pointed to a conservative think tank that has pushed a voter fraud narrative, that doesn't even really pretend to be neutral or journalistic.

>132 TheToadRevoltof84: I didn't read all of what was written

Then stop posting. Stop writing in response to stuff you can't bother reading.

So if you want me to admit journalism is a dying field on both sides

You're right, you didn't bother reading what I wrote. You should use sources that maximize factuality and neutrality, not think tanks.

In any case, broad discussion isn't going to work and moving from one argument to another will not work.

Huh? Whenever we burrow down in the facts of a case, you complain. Be willing to defend your claims instead of making provably incorrect claims ("inflation is caused by Biden", "job growth figures are caused by governors repealing unemployment extensions") and then changing the meaning of "Biden" or saying they don't matter when you're proved wrong.

>134 TheToadRevoltof84: What is this supposed to mean? Yes, I try to verify that my facts are true, and that they reflect reality more than simply my opinion. I have no idea what you were trying to communicate there.