President Donald J. Trump

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 52128
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 04 Dec 2017, 04:21

Jimbo wrote:I guess I am frustrated by how we are still not over the Russia thing, how readily we are still, after more than a year of this ridiculousness, still supposed to accept the joke's punchline because of course Putin lied to Trump. Putin lies about everything. Russia is a country filled with troll farms, its raison d'etre is to meddle, to fuck with our democracy, to sew dissension. Take the easy, unassuming, un-skeptical way Colbert and Bill Maher (I count them as media) still use Russia as a punchline. Of course Russia has spies but time after time I have shown you much counter-evidence, shadows of doubt in case after case how the meddling case is bogus. Bots, stolen emails, even Trump associates visiting Russia, so far Meuller has shown you nothing. When he does it will probably be just as easy to debunk. You fail to see that this has all the hallmarks of a a hoax, a disinformation campaign morphed into a witch hunt perpetrated by our intelligence agents. This is an American op played on Americans it's purpose being a dangerous geopolitical war move preparing you for the soon to come war with Russia. Your minds will be primed and ready to fight. Think aluminum tubes. They pushed that lie down your throat to make you hate Saaddam and now they have you hating Putin. That Obama and Hillary and co. did similar shit with Russia should tell you that dealing with Russia - up until after HRC's loss - was business as usual. Snarf's joke is not funny because at it's root is war.

Jimbo: now that there are indisputable facts demonstrating that there was collusion at high levels in the Trump transition team, would you like to amend any of this? (You seem to have been quiet here lately.)

Generally: I note Trump attorney Sekulow appears now to concede that there was collusion, but that it doesn't matter because it wasn't unlawful. Way to move those goalposts, team!

“For something to be a crime, there has to be a statute that you claim is being violated,” Jay Sekulow said in an article published in the December issue of the magazine. “There is not a statute that refers to criminal collusion. There is no crime of collusion.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... ot-a-crime
Jimbo wrote:Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News.

User avatar
Still Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 42078
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Still Baron » 04 Dec 2017, 05:37

By the by, I didn’t read as much as I wanted this weekend, but this is predictably cogent and reasonable ...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-plea- ... y-analysis

Toobin has something up in the New Yorker I haven’t read yet. As most of you know, I’ve come to view him as a bit of a hack, but you can bet your boots I’m gonna check it out ...
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
Jimbo
Posts: 13865
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Jimbo » 04 Dec 2017, 05:57

Snarfyguy wrote:
Generally: I note Trump attorney Sekulow appears now to concede that there was collusion, but that it doesn't matter because it wasn't unlawful. Way to move those goalposts, team!

“For something to be a crime, there has to be a statute that you claim is being violated,” Jay Sekulow said in an article published in the December issue of the magazine. “There is not a statute that refers to criminal collusion. There is no crime of collusion.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... ot-a-crime


According to your Hill article Trump's lawyer did not say collusion is unlawful he says collusion is not a crime. If you interpret that as some kind of tacit admission to collusion then fine, what is your meaning of collusion, especially in the original sense in this case that Trump and Putin colluded - conspired - to rig the election in Trump's favor?

Since he is unmentioned by you I am assuming you are talking about Flynn's admission to lying to the FBI which is, according to what I've read, another nothingburger, especially in the case of Trump/Putin/Russia/Election/emails/Wikileaks, etc. Did Flynn talk to the the Russian ambassador before inauguration Day? Looks that way and it is about having or not having that talk that Flynn supposedly lied. But I've read that former transition teams have talked to ambassadors as well. More importantly what did Flynn and Kysliak talk about? Apparently it was a deal that Russia go easy on Israel in the UN re some vote and if so Trump (via Flynn) assured Kysliak they'd take it easy on Obama's sanctions. And if that arrangement was to thank Russia for helping with the election, well, Russia voted against Israel in that vote. (Thanks Vlad … not.) Now, there was also some Turkey connected crime, some collusion between Flynn and Turkish officials about proposing kidnapping Gulan back to Turkey for which Flynn also may be in trouble. That too has nothing to do with the election.

I don't know if you posted to say "Aha!" If so, I say, sorry, Charlie, no tuna just yet.

PS I skimmed the Baron's Toobin article and it pretty much says what I just said. There's smoke but apparently it isn't from the colluding with Russia to steal the election fire.

PS 2 I think I may have raised an interesting point noting that this supposed "collusion" is just "conspiracy" with a name change, especially if "collusion" is not a crime but "conspiracy" is! So far all the HRC supporters in the media I watch use the word "collusion." Are they afraid to say "conspiracy" because they don't want to be called "conspiracy theorists?" :o They're all right, boys, they're only collusion theorists.
persona non grata among those who worship at the altar of conventional wisdom

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 10172
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Sneelock » 04 Dec 2017, 06:56

TRUMP tweeted that he fired Flynn for lying to the F.B.I.
That opens a whole can of worms. Comey’s notes say TRUMP told him to lay off Flynn. Now he’s calling Comey a liar.

Sure, people are scattering to cover for him like always but he just hung himself with his own belt.
The only thing that keeps this from blowing up in his face is the fact that most Americans are accustomed to The President of the United States talking out of his ass.
Last edited by Sneelock on 04 Dec 2017, 23:08, edited 1 time in total.
"Wear your big boots and jump on the garbage clowns.”

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 64213
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Diamond Dog » 04 Dec 2017, 08:13

Sneelock wrote:The only thing that keeps this from blowing up in his face is the fact that most Americans BCB'ers are accustomed to The President of the United States Jimbo talking out of his ass.
In science, the most important criteria for success is not being stunningly full of shit.

User avatar
Copehead
BCB Cup Stalinist
Posts: 22689
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:51
Location: at sea

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Copehead » 04 Dec 2017, 10:19

Sneelock wrote:TRUMP tweeted that he fired Flynn for lying to the F.B.I.
That opens a whole can of worms. Comey’s notes say TRUMP told him to lay off Comey. Now he’s calling Comey a liar.

Sure, people are scattering to cover for him like always but he just hung himself with his own belt.
The only thing that keeps this from blowing up in his face is the fact that most Americans are accustomed to The President of the United States talking out of his ass.


Now his legal council has said he drafted that one individual semi literate tweet

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/04/doesnt-make-sense-incredulity-trumps-lawyer-john-dowd-take-blame-for-flynn-tweet

A lawyer who can't use the verb to plead in the past tense correctly

They can't even lie at the level of a 5 year old

But as many have said what will do for Trump is he is too stupid to run a conspiracy at this level, and that is before his years of Russian mafia money laundering comes out
You've rendered that scaffolding dangerous

Image

Bear baiting & dog fights a speciality.

User avatar
Still Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 42078
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Still Baron » 04 Dec 2017, 12:07

I prefer pleaded but pled is commonly used in colloquial American speech. For better or worse. The word choice is no big deal, particularly as it was meant to come from a barely literate person.
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: 52128
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 04 Dec 2017, 14:43

Jimbo wrote:According to your Hill article Trump's lawyer did not say collusion is unlawful he says collusion is not a crime. If you interpret that as some kind of tacit admission to collusion then fine, what is your meaning of collusion, especially in the original sense in this case that Trump and Putin colluded - conspired - to rig the election in Trump's favor?

I've never advanced a theory about Trump and Putin getting together and hatching a plan to get Trump into the White House. Obviously, it suits Putin's purposes to have him there rather than Hillary and I'm sure Putin did whatever he could to stir the pot in that regard. I don't think the election was "rigged" in any formal sense, but was there undue outside influence? It seems so. To what extent, I don't think anyone can say.

I have been extremely skeptical that Trump's increasingly shrill insistence that there's nothing untoward with respect to his business relationships with Russian nationals/oligarchs or his team's communications with interests adversarial to ours or his conduct w/r/t Comey and federal law enforcement generally -- any of that -- is on the up and up.

And indeed the whole house of cards is apparently on the verge of collapse.

So why are we supposed to be "over" the Russisan thing now that Mueller is unraveling a snake pit of duplicity and obstruction?
Jimbo wrote:Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News.

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 60303
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Location: One quake away from beachfront property
Contact:

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby sloopjohnc » 04 Dec 2017, 17:08

Sneelock wrote:TRUMP tweeted that he fired Flynn for lying to the F.B.I.
That opens a whole can of worms. Comey’s notes say TRUMP told him to lay off Comey. Now he’s calling Comey a liar.

Sure, people are scattering to cover for him like always but he just hung himself with his own belt.
The only thing that keeps this from blowing up in his face is the fact that most Americans are accustomed to The President of the United States talking out of his ass.


I also like the tweets about Clinton lying before FBI and the agency in tatters.

HRC feels that Comey's comments before the election helped lead to her downfall, which Trump conveniently forgets, and seems to forget what the agency and Comey reported and said, which sure didn't hurt him for those on the fence about who to vote for.
Sneelock wrote:You’ll like her better after she dies. Siouxsie won’t ever die. She’s a vampire or some shit.

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 60303
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Location: One quake away from beachfront property
Contact:

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby sloopjohnc » 04 Dec 2017, 17:10

Snarfyguy wrote:
Jimbo wrote:According to your Hill article Trump's lawyer did not say collusion is unlawful he says collusion is not a crime. If you interpret that as some kind of tacit admission to collusion then fine, what is your meaning of collusion, especially in the original sense in this case that Trump and Putin colluded - conspired - to rig the election in Trump's favor?

I've never advanced a theory about Trump and Putin getting together and hatching a plan to get Trump into the White House. Obviously, it suits Putin's purposes to have him there rather than Hillary and I'm sure Putin did whatever he could to stir the pot in that regard. I don't think the election was "rigged" in any formal sense, but was there undue outside influence? It seems so. To what extent, I don't think anyone can say.


I wonder.

If the Wikileaks/Clinton/Podesta email leak could be done and the Eastern European social media accounts set up to influence the election, I don't think electronically rigging the election is out of the realm of possibility. I doubt it, but it could've happened.
Sneelock wrote:You’ll like her better after she dies. Siouxsie won’t ever die. She’s a vampire or some shit.

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 10172
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Sneelock » 04 Dec 2017, 18:13

even if it didn't, what if it were discussed?
Roger Stone used to brag about being in touch with that Guccifer character. Also, the guy who set up the "dirt on Hillary" meeting had a history of hacking.

that Alexander Nix guy said Cambridge Analytica contacted Wikileaks to ask them if they could produce Hillary's personal emails. TRUMP campaign wrote many big checks to Cambridge Analytica.

what they actually did doesn't seem as important as what they tried to do and what they tried to do sounds very much like fucking with the results of the election.
"Wear your big boots and jump on the garbage clowns.”

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 60303
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Location: One quake away from beachfront property
Contact:

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby sloopjohnc » 04 Dec 2017, 19:15

Lewandowski is making his rounds in advance of his book on the campaign, Let Trump Be Trump.

On a news show yesterday, some pundit remarked on Trump's increased weight in light of Muller's heightening investigation.

Here's an excerpt as reported on Jezebel:

https://jezebel.com/heres-donald-trumps ... 1820977547

How the man doesn't have diabetes yet is amazing in itself.
Sneelock wrote:You’ll like her better after she dies. Siouxsie won’t ever die. She’s a vampire or some shit.

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 60303
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Location: One quake away from beachfront property
Contact:

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby sloopjohnc » 04 Dec 2017, 19:28

sloopjohnc wrote:
Snarfyguy wrote:JUST IN: @BrianRoss on @ABC News Special Report: Michael Flynn promised "full cooperation to the Mueller team" and is prepared to testify that as a candidate, Donald Trump "directed him to make contact with the Russians." http://abcn.ws/2AhU3Iq

Holy fucking shit! :shock:


If this is true, and I hope the report is confirmed by more than two sources, this is a bombshell. It puts Trump on the firing line.


When I wrote this, I suspected that the source wasn't confirmed and it was a hasty rush to get it out there.

I kinda expected more out of Brian Ross.
Sneelock wrote:You’ll like her better after she dies. Siouxsie won’t ever die. She’s a vampire or some shit.

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 52128
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 04 Dec 2017, 19:52

sloopjohnc wrote:
sloopjohnc wrote:
Snarfyguy wrote:JUST IN: @BrianRoss on @ABC News Special Report: Michael Flynn promised "full cooperation to the Mueller team" and is prepared to testify that as a candidate, Donald Trump "directed him to make contact with the Russians." http://abcn.ws/2AhU3Iq

Holy fucking shit! :shock:


If this is true, and I hope the report is confirmed by more than two sources, this is a bombshell. It puts Trump on the firing line.


When I wrote this, I suspected that the source wasn't confirmed and it was a hasty rush to get it out there.

I kinda expected more out of Brian Ross.

That reminds me: what is the degree of difference in a candidate doing something and the president-elect doing the same thing? I understand respectable media has a responsibility to be accurate, but so what if he said "candidate" instead of "president-elect?" Why is the distinction that important? (asking anyone who may have an understanding on this point)
Jimbo wrote:Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News.

User avatar
Thang-y
Posts: 974
Joined: 29 Apr 2016, 17:59
Contact:

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Thang-y » 04 Dec 2017, 19:57

"And last Friday, under the cloak of darkness and with handwritten notes senators didn’t even have time to read, the GOP-controlled Senate passed a tax bill which will redistribute wealth to the one percent whilst hurting the very people who put Trump in office and adding trillions to the deficit."

From the Indy. If this is accurate, I wonder whether it's dawned on the poor who voted for Trump.

Is the penny dropping yet?

User avatar
Still Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 42078
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Still Baron » 04 Dec 2017, 20:21

If they pay attention to current affairs AND get their news from Fox or talk radio, they’ll never know. If they know, they believe in trickle down economics and/or aren’t disposed to resent wealth.
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
Thang-y
Posts: 974
Joined: 29 Apr 2016, 17:59
Contact:

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Thang-y » 04 Dec 2017, 20:31

Stunning.

User avatar
Neige
Alpine Numpty
Posts: 16013
Joined: 17 Jul 2003, 11:11
Location: On 2 oz of plastic with a hole in the middle (of nowhere)

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Neige » 04 Dec 2017, 21:06

Thang-y wrote:Stunning.


Indeed. Baffling.
Thumpety-thump beats plinkety-plonk every time. - Rayge

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 60303
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Location: One quake away from beachfront property
Contact:

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby sloopjohnc » 04 Dec 2017, 21:12

Snarfyguy wrote:
sloopjohnc wrote:
sloopjohnc wrote:
If this is true, and I hope the report is confirmed by more than two sources, this is a bombshell. It puts Trump on the firing line.


When I wrote this, I suspected that the source wasn't confirmed and it was a hasty rush to get it out there.

I kinda expected more out of Brian Ross.

That reminds me: what is the degree of difference in a candidate doing something and the president-elect doing the same thing? I understand respectable media has a responsibility to be accurate, but so what if he said "candidate" instead of "president-elect?" Why is the distinction that important? (asking anyone who may have an understanding on this point)


No idea.
Sneelock wrote:You’ll like her better after she dies. Siouxsie won’t ever die. She’s a vampire or some shit.

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 60303
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Location: One quake away from beachfront property
Contact:

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby sloopjohnc » 04 Dec 2017, 21:18

Still Baron wrote:If they pay attention to current affairs AND get their news from Fox or talk radio, they’ll never know. If they know, they believe in trickle down economics and/or aren’t disposed to resent wealth.


I heard this being discussed yesterday too. Trump supporters think the WAPO, NY Times and CNN are all "fake news."

I respect their reporting, but how many people really read or go to these sites to get hard news? It's seems news is just preaching to the converted nowadays.

It's brilliant on Trump's part - convincing millions of people that reputable news sources aren't valid. I think that's one of the canniest feats he's performed.

While NY Times digital subscriptions went up by 500,000 in 2016, newspaper circulation continues to fall pretty precipitously. But these gains did not translate into circulation growth for the industry overall. A Pew Research Center analysis of data from AAM shows that total weekday circulation for U.S. daily newspapers – both print and digital – fell 8% in 2016, marking the 28th consecutive year of declines. (Sunday circulation also fell 8%.) The overall decline includes a 10% decrease in weekday print circulation (9% for Sundays) and a 1% decline in weekday digital circulation (1% rise for Sundays). Total weekday circulation for U.S. daily newspapers fell to 35 million, while total Sunday circulation declined to 38 million – the lowest levels since 1945.

While the print circulation figures include the large papers cited above, digital circulation is more difficult to assess. Three of the largest U.S. daily papers – The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal – do not fully report their digital subscriptions to AAM, so they are not included in the overall circulation estimate above. Had the independently produced digital circulation figures from the Times and Journal been included, total weekday circulation would have fallen by 4%, rather than the 8% figure shown in the AAM data alone.
Sneelock wrote:You’ll like her better after she dies. Siouxsie won’t ever die. She’s a vampire or some shit.