Former President Donald J. Trump

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
BARON CORNY DOG
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 45153
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby BARON CORNY DOG » 21 May 2019, 13:56

Everything Trump has ever done has been short term. Given the loyalty of his supporters and the fealty of Republican politicians to the same supporters, it was kind of a genius move to stiff arm everything in Congress. But ultimately, all this short term shit is gonna wear out. I would be VERY surprised if the Supremes bail him out on most of this stuff (as he seems to think they will) but will it ever matter? Will he ever run out of time?
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 14077
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Sneelock » 21 May 2019, 16:45

what gets me is how he pulls all that "Obama Judge" bullshit without really getting called out on it in any significant way.
in point of fact, I think a lot of us have gone pretty numb. He tells FOX who they should put on TV, he calls every New York Times story a lie.
each and every layer of his outrageous corruption is met with snarling and nobody is fucking snarling back.

N-U-M-B.
uggy poopy doody.

User avatar
bobzilla77
Posts: 16280
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 02:56
Location: Dilute! Dilute! OK!

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby bobzilla77 » 21 May 2019, 18:49

I have to say it does seem like thus is where it could get interesting... Defying court orders, refusing even Republicans requests... But I'm so terribly burnt out.
Jimbo wrote:I guess I am over Graham Nash's politics. Hopelessly naive by the standards I've molded for myself these days.

User avatar
Six String
Posts: 23075
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:22

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Six String » 23 May 2019, 21:05

I'm enjoying watching the donald lose his shit in front of the press. Things are starting to get real for him and he can't cope with the job.
Everything is broken
B. Dylan

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39534
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Count Machuki » 23 May 2019, 21:48

Anybody in contact with Jimbo outside of BCB? He hasn't posted in forever. I sent him a PM last Wednesday that he hasn't opened.

Just up and disappearing doesn't really seem like his style...
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Charlie O.
Posts: 44848
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:53
Location: In-A-Badda-La-Wadda, bay-beh

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Charlie O. » 23 May 2019, 22:22

Count Machuki wrote:Anybody in contact with Jimbo outside of BCB? He hasn't posted in forever. I sent him a PM last Wednesday that he hasn't opened.

Just up and disappearing doesn't really seem like his style...

I was thinking the same thing. Hope he's alright.
Image

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 14077
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Sneelock » 23 May 2019, 23:05

maybe he discovered 4Chan or something.
I hope he's okay. we spent so much time complaining about him that I doubt he knows he's missed.
uggy poopy doody.

User avatar
BARON CORNY DOG
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 45153
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby BARON CORNY DOG » 23 May 2019, 23:29

I stalked him on FB a few weeks ago to check in and make sure he was ok. Nothing appeared amiss, but I don’t know how much would show up there, so it’s not a completely satisfactory result.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39534
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Count Machuki » 23 May 2019, 23:38

AH, thanks. Well, here's hoping that all's well with him, the nut.

Trump's headed to Tokyo, too! Maybe they'll meet up and become best pals.
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39534
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Count Machuki » 29 May 2019, 15:39

surprise Mueller statement before Congress alert!
Starting in, like, 20 minutes.
I'm hoping for lots of cursing.
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39534
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Count Machuki » 29 May 2019, 16:07

I think he's saying "I would have charged Trump but I'm not allowed to"
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
BARON CORNY DOG
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 45153
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby BARON CORNY DOG » 29 May 2019, 16:25

Count Machuki wrote:I think he's saying "I would have charged Trump but I'm not allowed to"


Is that not what the report says!? :lol:
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39534
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Count Machuki » 29 May 2019, 17:24

Still Baron wrote:
Count Machuki wrote:I think he's saying "I would have charged Trump but I'm not allowed to"


Is that not what the report says!? :lol:


Right? :roll:

He should have added in some broad winks and meaningful shrugs.

I do wonder if the Justice Department can or will ever revise the whole "The President is above the law" policy.
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
BARON CORNY DOG
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 45153
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby BARON CORNY DOG » 29 May 2019, 17:42

A pedant notes that the president is not above the law because he or she is subject to impeachment! ;)
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53502
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 29 May 2019, 21:53

Was this just a sly wink to the House Judiciary Committee that he's now a private citizen so feel free to sharpen the subpoena pencils and he'll come in and spill the beans behind closed doors as a private citizen?

Eh, probably not.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53502
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 29 May 2019, 22:54

:roll:

But now there's been some sort of addendum to or clarification of Mueller's earlier remarks, which seem to be saying they didn't even think about whether the president committed crimes because they weren't allowed to.

"[The policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted] was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination -- one way or the other -- about whether the President committed a crime."

Which is NOT saying "We made up our minds, but we're not allowed to say what we thought."

I guess what it comes down to is "We decided ahead of time we would not consider whether the president committed crimes. And since we didn't consider it, we (logically) didn't reach a conclusion."

Except that whether the president committed crimes was in fact within Mueller's purview.

*confused*

What exactly was the point of this addendum? Too clever by half, if you ask me.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 14077
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Sneelock » 30 May 2019, 00:00

I think they should subpoena him.
just having him on TV for 10 minutes blew away all this "witch hunt" horseshit.
imagine what a couple of hours could do.

Barr and Trump look sleazier and slimier each and every time somebody takes their pathetic argument by the horns.
Congress should do it - take them by the horns. impeachment or not - people need to hear how disconnected Team Trump is from Planet Earth in this.

the more they back this shit up the crazier they look.
uggy poopy doody.

User avatar
BARON CORNY DOG
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 45153
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby BARON CORNY DOG » 30 May 2019, 00:18

Snarfyguy wrote::roll:

But now there's been some sort of addendum to or clarification of Mueller's earlier remarks, which seem to be saying they didn't even think about whether the president committed crimes because they weren't allowed to.

"[The policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted] was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination -- one way or the other -- about whether the President committed a crime."

Which is NOT saying "We made up our minds, but we're not allowed to say what we thought."

I guess what it comes down to is "We decided ahead of time we would not consider whether the president committed crimes. And since we didn't consider it, we (logically) didn't reach a conclusion."

Except that whether the president committed crimes was in fact within Mueller's purview.

*confused*

What exactly was the point of this addendum? Too clever by half, if you ask me.


Whether there was obstruction of justice was within the purview. They never considered charging the President, but they also said they could not exonerate him, because if they could’ve, they would’ve. It is abundantly clear that the report is a roadmap to impeachment and there is plenty of juice there to support an impeachment and a conviction. That is the remedy.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39534
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Count Machuki » 30 May 2019, 00:23

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/do-your-fucking-job

Hey, Congress.

HEY.

LISTEN TO ME. ALL OF YOU.

I know this is inconvenient. I know what I’m about to tell you to do is hard, and complicated, and may not even, in the end, actually produce results. But I promise you, it’s never been more important to do what needs to be done. Do what, you ask?

DO YOUR FUCKING JOB.

DO IT. JUST TRY IT. DIP YOUR FUCKING TOES IN, AND LET US ALL KNOW HOW THE WATERS FEEL. WHAT’S THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN? ARE YOU GOING TO GET ASKED TOUGH QUESTIONS AT A TOWN HALL? IS CHUCK TODD GOING TO QUIZ YOU WITH CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD BE PRIORITIZING THIS? IS FOX NEWS GOING TO DECLARE A FATWA AGAINST YOU?

I’m sorry. I, in no way, mean to be aggressive or abrasive or imply that there are not enormous consequences to whatever happens next. This is a historical decision, no doubt, but it’s almost like HE’S THE FUCKING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUST DOING CRIMES WHILE YOU ARE ARGUING ABOUT CIVILITY.

JUST DO IT. WE’RE TIRED OF BEGGING. WE’RE EXHAUSTED OF CONNECTING THESE DOTS FOR YOU LIKE YOU ARE CHILDREN AT AN APPLEBEE’S COMPLETING GAMES ON THE MENU WITH CRAYONS. DO WHAT ALL OF US, WHETHER WE’RE TEACHERS, OR MUNICIPAL WORKERS, OR DOCTORS, OR LAWYERS DO EVERY SINGLE DAY. WE DO OUR JOBS. WE HAVE TO, FOR OUR CHILDREN, AND OUR CHILDREN’S CHILDREN. SO SHOW AN OUNCE OF FUCKING RESPECT FOR US, AND DO YOUR FUCKING CONSTITUTIONAL JOB.

Again, I apologize if I lack decorum here. It’s been a tough three years. We’ve seen real people demonized and driven into the shadows. We’ve seen children hunted, facing lives irrevocably damaged. We’ve seen bad things get worse, and bad people live their worst lives without consequence. So I don’t mean to sound accusatory, but IT’S TIME YOU GET OFF OF YOUR ASSES AND FUCKING DO IT.

I DARE YOU. WE DARE YOU. IS THAT WHAT THIS IS? A GAME OF CHICKEN, AND YOU’LL ONLY DO IT UNLESS WE’RE ABOUT TO BULLDOZE THE WHITE HOUSE AND REPLACE IT WITH A SHITTY GOLF CLUB? JUST DO IT. PRETEND LIKE YOU CARE ABOUT THIS COUNTRY AND YOUR ROLE IN IT. IT’S NEVER TOO LATE TO START. IT’S NEVER TOO LATE TO SHOW THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE SUFFERING. IT’S NEVER TOO LATE TO BEGIN RECTIFYING YOUR MISTAKES. IT’S NEVER TOO LATE TO STEP UP AND SAVE OUR REPUBLIC.

Just do your fucking job.

Because if not.

We’ll find other people who will.
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53502
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 30 May 2019, 04:19

Still Baron wrote:
Snarfyguy wrote::roll:

But now there's been some sort of addendum to or clarification of Mueller's earlier remarks, which seem to be saying they didn't even think about whether the president committed crimes because they weren't allowed to.

"[The policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted] was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination -- one way or the other -- about whether the President committed a crime."

Which is NOT saying "We made up our minds, but we're not allowed to say what we thought."

I guess what it comes down to is "We decided ahead of time we would not consider whether the president committed crimes. And since we didn't consider it, we (logically) didn't reach a conclusion."

Except that whether the president committed crimes was in fact within Mueller's purview.

*confused*

What exactly was the point of this addendum? Too clever by half, if you ask me.


Whether there was obstruction of justice was within the purview. They never considered charging the President, but they also said they could not exonerate him, because if they could’ve, they would’ve. It is abundantly clear that the report is a roadmap to impeachment and there is plenty of juice there to support an impeachment and a conviction. That is the remedy.

I get the "roadmap to impeachment" stuff, I'm just having trouble parsing Mueller's statements.

It seems to me he could have said he found evidence of presidential crimes (which, since he didn't exonerate DJT, I assume he did) but was bound by DOJ policy not to pursue indictments for those crimes, except he didn't say that for fear of being seen as "partisan" or "political," which strikes me as a cop-out.

He had to have known that, absent a pronouncement of finding evidence of crimes, Trump's AG was going to effectively misrepresent the report's findings to Congress and the public, which rather blunts its intent.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.


Return to “Nextdoorland”