MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
The testimony marks a significant breakthrough for the committee. It has struggled to secure witnesses and evidence amid a fight with the White House and took the unusual step earlier this week of bringing in John W. Dean III, a lawyer from Richard Nixon’s White House, to talk about obstruction.
The committee also wants to hear from Donald McGahn, the former White House counsel at the center of the Mueller report on Russian interference, and Robert S. Mueller III, the former special counsel, among others. But Trump has said he does not want any of his advisers to cooperate, calling the probe a “do-over of Mueller’s probe.
Hicks was one of five aides formally subpoenaed by the committee — which is probing the obstruction question, among other issues. Mueller’s report said there was insufficient evidence to show a conspiracy between Russia and any Trump associates and decided not to reach a conclusion about whether the president committed obstruction, based on long-standing Department of Justice policy.
Much ink has been spilled about whether President Trump committed a criminal and impeachable offense by obstructing justice. That question deserves extensive debate, but another critical question — the ultimate question, really — is not whether he committed a crime, but whether he is even fit for office in the first place. And that question — the heart of an impeachment inquiry — turns upon whether the president abuses his power and demonstrates an unfitness to serve under the defining principles of our Constitution.
On Tuesday, Trump gave us direct evidence of his contempt toward the most foundational precept of our democracy — that no person, not even the president, is above the law. He filed a brief in the nation’s second-most-important court that takes the position that Congress cannot investigate the president, except possibly in impeachment proceedings. It’s a spectacularly anti-constitutional brief, and anyone who harbors such attitudes toward our Constitution’s architecture is not fit for office. Trump’s brief is nothing if not an invitation to commencing impeachment proceedings that, for reasons set out in the Mueller report, should have already commenced.
The case involves a House committee’s efforts to follow up on the https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/michael-cohen-testimony/2019/02/27/089664f0-39fb-11e9-a2cd-307b06d0257b_story.html?utm_term=.9e7585e77336 (testimony) of Trump’s now-incarcerated former attorney, Michael Cohen, that Trump had allegedly committed financial and tax fraud, and allegedly paid off paramours in violation of campaign finance laws. The House Committee on Oversight and Reformhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-democrats-to-subpoena-accounting-firm-for-trumps-financial-records/2019/04/12/c1213550-5d5e-11e9-b8e3-b03311fbbbfe_story.html?utm_term=.4f0f7d7b0dad (subpoenaed) Trump’s accountants in mid-April for relevant documents, and Trump tried to block the move, only to be sternly rebuked in mid-May by a federal judge in Washington.
The appeals brief filed Monday by Trump attacks that decision. But to describe Trump’s brief is to refute it. He argues that Congress is “trying to prove that the President broke the law” and that that’s something Congress can’t do, because it’s “an exercise of law enforcement authority that the Constitution reserves to the executive branch.”
But in fact, Congress investigates lawbreaking, and potential lawbreaking, all the time. ...
The only redeeming quality of Trump’s legal brief is its seeming, grudging acknowledgment that Congress’s powers might be greater in an impeachment proceeding. That has things only half-right. Yes, Congress could investigate Trump’s finances in an impeachment proceeding, but it can do so without launching the formal process of impeachment.
That said, Trump’s brief can be construed as an invitation to commence impeachment proceedings. In those proceedings, Trump’s attitudes toward our Constitution’s checks and balances, in addition to evidence of obstruction of justice, must play a key role. Indeed, the third of the articles of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon, adopted by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974, charged him with defying lawful subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary Committee.
Not only has Trump done that, but he has also demonized judges who disagree with him and insulted the press (despite its constitutional status) for calling him to account. Other leaders around the world may behave this way, but these are not proper actions of a president of the United States. What makes the United States exceptional is its commitment to its constitutional architecture, particularly divided powers.
For the past three decades, many constitutional law classes have begun with Nixon’s https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1977/06/05/president-isnt-above-the-law-nixon-insists/71923838-492f-49d7-921f-0add6743501e/?utm_term=.a4556621af5e (breathtaking statement) to David Frost in May 1977: “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Generations of students have gasped, shocked that a former president could say such a thing. This time, it’s not a former president, but a sitting one. Every principle behind the rule of law requires the commencement of a process now to make this president a former one.
Does Trump Want a Trade War?
What You Need to Know about Smoot-Hawley Tariffs and the 1930s
Does Trump Want a Trade War?
Trump Has Gotten China to Lower Its Tariffs. Just Toward Everyone Else.
Trump Has Gotten China to Lower Its Tariffs. Just Toward Everyone Else.
What You Need to Know about Smoot-Hawley Tariffs and the 1930s
Does Trump Want a Trade War?
Trump Has Gotten China to Lower Its Tariffs. Just Toward Everyone Else.
Trump Has Gotten China to Lower Its Tariffs. Just Toward Everyone Else.
Five men this week declared a small town in East Texas a “sanctuary city for the unborn,” commandeering the language of the movement for immigrant rights to counter the reproductive freedom of women.
There are no abortion clinics in Waskom, Tex., a city of about 2,200, which lies on the border with Louisiana. But the all-male, all-white city council decided unanimously on Tuesday that prohibiting abortion was necessary as a preventive measure.
The municipal prohibition, which plainly contradicts the judgments of the U.S. Supreme Court, joins statewide bans on abortion sweeping the country in the wake of the solidification of a conservative majority on the nation’s top court. Supporters of the city ordinance say it is the first of its kind in the Lone Star State.
NORWEGIAN OPPO
Norwegian Oppo
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump elicited help from Russia by stating from a stage, “Russia, if you’re listening…” Trump was asking Russia to hack and release Hillary Clinton’s 30,000 missing emails stored on her personal server while she was Secretary of State. Within hours, the Russians were hacking the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. Trump’s defense afterward was that he never asked for help and that he didn’t know it was illegal. Even though those were lies, there’s no excuse that he doesn’t know it’s illegal now.
During an interview with ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos, Trump said he would listen if foreigners offered dirt on his political opponents during the 2020 presidential campaign. Trump said, “I think I’d take it.”
Trump argued, “I think you might want to listen, there isn’t anything wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, and said ‘we have information on your opponent,’ oh, I think I’d want to hear it.”
First off, if any country calls Trump with dirt on his opponent, it’s not going to be Norway. If Norway was going to call anyone with dirt, they’d call Trump’s opponents with dirt on him. Second, what Trump did was advocate breaking the law.
The president, not just a private citizen who is a candidate (this time), said he’d break the law. He sent a call out to Russia and everyone else who is a friend or a foe to meddle in our election. What he did was offer himself as blackmail bait. Trump put a “for sale” sign on his big, fat, empty forehead.
Trump also said he may not call the FBI if a foreign government offered dirt. He said he has never called the FBI in his life, which is a lie. He called James Comey to ask him to stop investigating his buddies. But, it’s not hard to believe he’s never called the FBI to report a possible crime. Do you know why? Because gangsters don’t call the FBI.
The current director of the FBI, Christopher Wray said during congressional testimony last month, “The FBI would want to know about” any foreign election meddling. Trump said Wray is wrong and claimed that foreign meddling isn’t meddling. I’m sorry, but if I call your wife and tell her that I saw you with a hooker, that’s meddling.
Even Trump’s personal attorney currently acting as our Attorney General said that accepting help from a foreign government is illegal. But, he’ll probably retract that statement later today.
Donald Trump believes that hiring someone from Britain, who was a government agent but is now a private citizen, to conduct opposition research is “treason,” but accepting help from Russia is perfectly fine.
It’s been said that the only good thing from a Trump presidency is that we’ll find out if our constitutional system works. Guess what. It doesn’t work when one party and the courts protect the Dear Leader.
Trump just gave every member of the House and Senate a reason to impeach him. Now, Donald Trump should be held accountable and thrown out of office. He is boasting that he’s above the law and is willing to break it. He’s boasting that he will commit treasonous behavior while serving as president. Any Republican who continues to defend this should also be removed from office.
Trump feels empowered after the Mueller Report failed to find definite collusion between his campaign and Russia. Even offering up several examples of obstruction of justice, The Attorney General declared there was none and gave a false impression of the report, which has also empowered Trump. Lastly, with people in Congress and the Senate like Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, and Lindsey Graham, Trump feels he’s allowed to do anything. This has to stop.
Choosing our nation over adversaries should not be partisan. There should be no partisanship about foreign governments meddling in our elections. There should be no partisanship about the rule of law. Republicans need to stand with America, not the traitor in chief.
Donald Trump just volunteered the fact he’s a national security threat. The politicians in Washington need to do their jobs and remove the threat. It’s time to impeach.
Norwegian Oppo
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump elicited help from Russia by stating from a stage, “Russia, if you’re listening…” Trump was asking Russia to hack and release Hillary Clinton’s 30,000 missing emails stored on her personal server while she was Secretary of State. Within hours, the Russians were hacking the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. Trump’s defense afterward was that he never asked for help and that he didn’t know it was illegal. Even though those were lies, there’s no excuse that he doesn’t know it’s illegal now.
During an interview with ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos, Trump said he would listen if foreigners offered dirt on his political opponents during the 2020 presidential campaign. Trump said, “I think I’d take it.”
Trump argued, “I think you might want to listen, there isn’t anything wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, and said ‘we have information on your opponent,’ oh, I think I’d want to hear it.”
First off, if any country calls Trump with dirt on his opponent, it’s not going to be Norway. If Norway was going to call anyone with dirt, they’d call Trump’s opponents with dirt on him. Second, what Trump did was advocate breaking the law.
The president, not just a private citizen who is a candidate (this time), said he’d break the law. He sent a call out to Russia and everyone else who is a friend or a foe to meddle in our election. What he did was offer himself as blackmail bait. Trump put a “for sale” sign on his big, fat, empty forehead.
Trump also said he may not call the FBI if a foreign government offered dirt. He said he has never called the FBI in his life, which is a lie. He called James Comey to ask him to stop investigating his buddies. But, it’s not hard to believe he’s never called the FBI to report a possible crime. Do you know why? Because gangsters don’t call the FBI.
The current director of the FBI, Christopher Wray said during congressional testimony last month, “The FBI would want to know about” any foreign election meddling. Trump said Wray is wrong and claimed that foreign meddling isn’t meddling. I’m sorry, but if I call your wife and tell her that I saw you with a hooker, that’s meddling.
Even Trump’s personal attorney currently acting as our Attorney General said that accepting help from a foreign government is illegal. But, he’ll probably retract that statement later today.
Donald Trump believes that hiring someone from Britain, who was a government agent but is now a private citizen, to conduct opposition research is “treason,” but accepting help from Russia is perfectly fine.
It’s been said that the only good thing from a Trump presidency is that we’ll find out if our constitutional system works. Guess what. It doesn’t work when one party and the courts protect the Dear Leader.
Trump just gave every member of the House and Senate a reason to impeach him. Now, Donald Trump should be held accountable and thrown out of office. He is boasting that he’s above the law and is willing to break it. He’s boasting that he will commit treasonous behavior while serving as president. Any Republican who continues to defend this should also be removed from office.
Trump feels empowered after the Mueller Report failed to find definite collusion between his campaign and Russia. Even offering up several examples of obstruction of justice, The Attorney General declared there was none and gave a false impression of the report, which has also empowered Trump. Lastly, with people in Congress and the Senate like Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, and Lindsey Graham, Trump feels he’s allowed to do anything. This has to stop.
Choosing our nation over adversaries should not be partisan. There should be no partisanship about foreign governments meddling in our elections. There should be no partisanship about the rule of law. Republicans need to stand with America, not the traitor in chief.
Donald Trump just volunteered the fact he’s a national security threat. The politicians in Washington need to do their jobs and remove the threat. It’s time to impeach.
"What Kushner and his colleagues are saying is that the Palestinians have no justified grievances, and no legitimate rights, except the right to whatever prosperity can be achieved with Gulf money under a permanent Israeli military occupation of their land."
“You cannot do without us,” Lord Curzon condescendingly told the Indians over whom he ruled as British imperial viceroy more than a century ago. As the Trump family rubbed shoulders with the Windsors during their recent visit to London, there was no mistaking the difference between the real aristocracy and the trumped-up one. However, Jared Kushner, presidential son-in-law and senior adviser responsible for crafting a Middle East peace plan, does have something in common with Lord Curzon and his colonial ilk.
In an interview with Axios shown on HBO on June 2, shortly before he arrived in the UK, Kushner cast doubt on the feasibility of independent Palestinian self-rule, declaring, “we’ll have to see,” adding, “the hope is that they over time can become capable of governing.” When asked if Palestinians should ever be able to enjoy freedom from “Israeli government or military interference,” he said only that this was “a high bar.” After suggesting that Kushner had consulted few if any Palestinians over the two years during which his peace plan was in the works, his interviewer asked if he understood why the Palestinians did not trust him. Kushner responded curtly, “I’m not here to be trusted.”
This was not the first time the Palestinians have been told they cannot govern themselves, that they are obliged to remain under foreign tutelage, and do not warrant being consulted about their national future. In 1919, another British imperialist, Lord Balfour, wrote—in a confidential memo to Curzon himself—“in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country… Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”
“You cannot do without us,” Lord Curzon condescendingly told the Indians over whom he ruled as British imperial viceroy more than a century ago. As the Trump family rubbed shoulders with the Windsors during their recent visit to London, there was no mistaking the difference between the real aristocracy and the trumped-up one. However, Jared Kushner, presidential son-in-law and senior adviser responsible for crafting a Middle East peace plan, does have something in common with Lord Curzon and his colonial ilk.
In an interview with Axios shown on HBO on June 2, shortly before he arrived in the UK, Kushner cast doubt on the feasibility of independent Palestinian self-rule, declaring, “we’ll have to see,” adding, “the hope is that they over time can become capable of governing.” When asked if Palestinians should ever be able to enjoy freedom from “Israeli government or military interference,” he said only that this was “a high bar.” After suggesting that Kushner had consulted few if any Palestinians over the two years during which his peace plan was in the works, his interviewer asked if he understood why the Palestinians did not trust him. Kushner responded curtly, “I’m not here to be trusted.”
This was not the first time the Palestinians have been told they cannot govern themselves, that they are obliged to remain under foreign tutelage, and do not warrant being consulted about their national future. In 1919, another British imperialist, Lord Balfour, wrote—in a confidential memo to Curzon himself—“in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country… Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”
As the president plunges into a sea of what-aboutism, pulling Fox News talking heads after him, let's recall what it is actually about ... (1)
... a crime was committed, a very serious crime: a computer hack. It's no less a burglary for stealing digital rather than physical property. Same crime as Watergate. (2)
All the way back in the summer of 2016, everybody knew who committed this crime: Russian military intelligence. Claims that maybe it was an "inside job" etc. were floated in bad faith by untruthful people - but everybody knew, the Trump campaign very much included. (3)
When Donald Trump Jr. accepted his famous Trump Tower meeting, he was hoping to receive the proceeds of a crime. He was disappointed in that hope, but that's what he hoped. (4)
And when the proceeds of the crime did begin to be posted on the WikiLeaks site later in the summer of 2016 and -devastatingly - less than 1 hour after the reporting of the "Access Hollywood" tape in October 2016, everybody [understood] that this was Putin acting to help Trump (5)
None of this bears any resemblance to "oppo research" - information obtained lawfully by asking questions, reading archives, etc. It was crime, no less criminal for being outsourced to foreigners beyond the reach of US prosectors (6)
The Mueller report found insufficient evidence to convict anyone on the Trump campaign of culpability in the crime. But it stressed: the crime was committed by Russian military intelligence to help Trump, and the Trump campaign knowingly welcomed that help (7)
If the Trump campaign had flown a private investigator to Moscow to interview people about the (bogus) Uranium One Clinton story ... nobody would object. That is oppo research. If they trawled old Arkansas police records in search of something discrediting ... again, research (8)
What fellow Republicans first and then Democrats later hired Christopher Steele to do - interview people, collect rumors, sift through them - falls into this former category. The quality of Steele's work you can dispute. He committed no crimes in course of doing it. (9)
Trump Jr's visitors in June 2016 purported to deliver - and Trump's actual helpers later in the year did actually deliver - the proceeds of crimes. In full light of day, and with Trump on video urging them onward. (10)
The Trump campaign was absolved of criminal culpability by Mueller in large part on issue o intent. Did they truly understand they were being invited to participate in a crime? Did they truly wish to participate? And could that be proven beyond reasonable doubt? (11)
That's why President Trump's words to ABC were so important. He was asked, now that you have full knowledge of all that was at issue - including the crime committed by the Putin regime by hacking Americans - would you receive that information again? Trump answered YES. (12)
Trump confessed the thing Mueller could not prove. (END)
Thread by @davidfrum: "As the president plunges into a sea of what-aboutism, pulling Fox News talking heads after him, let's recall what it is actually about ... ( […]"
... a crime was committed, a very serious crime: a computer hack. It's no less a burglary for stealing digital rather than physical property. Same crime as Watergate. (2)
All the way back in the summer of 2016, everybody knew who committed this crime: Russian military intelligence. Claims that maybe it was an "inside job" etc. were floated in bad faith by untruthful people - but everybody knew, the Trump campaign very much included. (3)
When Donald Trump Jr. accepted his famous Trump Tower meeting, he was hoping to receive the proceeds of a crime. He was disappointed in that hope, but that's what he hoped. (4)
And when the proceeds of the crime did begin to be posted on the WikiLeaks site later in the summer of 2016 and -devastatingly - less than 1 hour after the reporting of the "Access Hollywood" tape in October 2016, everybody [understood] that this was Putin acting to help Trump (5)
None of this bears any resemblance to "oppo research" - information obtained lawfully by asking questions, reading archives, etc. It was crime, no less criminal for being outsourced to foreigners beyond the reach of US prosectors (6)
The Mueller report found insufficient evidence to convict anyone on the Trump campaign of culpability in the crime. But it stressed: the crime was committed by Russian military intelligence to help Trump, and the Trump campaign knowingly welcomed that help (7)
If the Trump campaign had flown a private investigator to Moscow to interview people about the (bogus) Uranium One Clinton story ... nobody would object. That is oppo research. If they trawled old Arkansas police records in search of something discrediting ... again, research (8)
What fellow Republicans first and then Democrats later hired Christopher Steele to do - interview people, collect rumors, sift through them - falls into this former category. The quality of Steele's work you can dispute. He committed no crimes in course of doing it. (9)
Trump Jr's visitors in June 2016 purported to deliver - and Trump's actual helpers later in the year did actually deliver - the proceeds of crimes. In full light of day, and with Trump on video urging them onward. (10)
The Trump campaign was absolved of criminal culpability by Mueller in large part on issue o intent. Did they truly understand they were being invited to participate in a crime? Did they truly wish to participate? And could that be proven beyond reasonable doubt? (11)
That's why President Trump's words to ABC were so important. He was asked, now that you have full knowledge of all that was at issue - including the crime committed by the Putin regime by hacking Americans - would you receive that information again? Trump answered YES. (12)
Trump confessed the thing Mueller could not prove. (END)
Thread by @davidfrum: "As the president plunges into a sea of what-aboutism, pulling Fox News talking heads after him, let's recall what it is actually about ... ( […]"
Last edited:
During an interview with George Stephanopoulos, a preview of which ABC released Wednesday night, President Trump confirmed that what the Mueller report made clear about his campaign’s relationship with Russia in 2016 — that it was offered, and willingly accepted, help from the foreign adversary — is not only liable to happen again in 2020, it’s almost a certainty.
The clip began with Trump claiming that his son, Donald Trump, Jr., shouldn’t have gone to the FBI when he got an email promising dirt on Hillary Clinton supplied by Russia. “I’ve seen a lot of things in my life,” Trump said. “I don’t think in my whole life I’ve ever called the FBI. You don’t call the FBI.”
This is demonstrably false. The Mueller report made abundantly clear that the Trump campaign welcomed help from Russia. The president’s comments to Stephanopoulos that ABC released last night effectively confirmed this, as well. So did Trump legal counsel Rudy Giuliani when he told CNN in April that “there’s nothing wrong with taking information from Russians.” The campaign got away with it. He wasn’t charged by Mueller, who has said he was upholding Justice Department guidelines that a sitting president cannot be indicted, and Attorney General William Barr has gone to great lengths to shield him from any other retribution. There’s nothing to suggest Trump would have any misgivings about accepting Russian interference again in 2020, but the fact that he said this out loud is one of the biggest of the many middle fingers he’s extended toward Congress, the Constitution and the principles of the nation he governs.
...
“What the president said behind the resolute desk is, in and of itself, an impeachable moment,” former Republican Rep. David Jolly told Brian Williams on Wednesday. “This was not the president of the president of the United States being cavalier. This was Donald Trump suggesting he would be willing to engage in the commission of a crime to benefit his own reelection, and that he would entertain collusion, if you will, support from even an adversary for his own benefit and in an adverse interest to our democracy. The eyes of the nation tonight must look to Nancy Pelosi.”
The president believes he is above the law, and not subject to congressional oversight, or, as he made clear to Stephanopoulos, to the determinations of the FBI. As Jolly noted Wednesday night, democracy is at stake. Trump is a clear and present danger, and it is become more apparent with each passing day that feeble calls for the Republican-controlled Senate to pass House resolutions to protect election integrity or whatever else is not going to be enough. The game has changed, and no legislation is going to prevent the president from doing all he can, legal or illegal, to win in 2020.
On July 27th, 2016, Trump famously said, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” That same day, Russia began attempting to hack the emails of member of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. On Wednesday, Trump essentially put out the same call. If Russia, Saudi Arabia or any other foreign nation wants to dig up dirt on any of his prospective Democratic opponents, the president is listening.
