All Things Trump

[Seabass]

God, I hate him. And his enablers, his sycophants, and his supporters. These people are a fucking cancer.

[Scot Dutchy]

He has been lying on a sun bed again. His white eyes are a give away.

[Forty Two]

FFS He is looking more and more like a dictator:

Donald Trump threatens to 'take away media's credentials' over negative news stories about him

'Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt?'

Donald Trump has suggested he could "take away credentials" of media organisations over negative stories about him.

"The Fake News is working overtime." the US president wrote on Twitter. "Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake).

"Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?"

Land of the free? Not in Trump's deranged mind.

His tweet is suggesting that the media is purposefully not reporting the good news and the accomplishments, and I agree with him on that. They don't. The major news outlets here in the state have spent about 5 minutes on the North Korea developments. Does anyone think that if this was happening under Obama that CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC, etc., would not be jerking off over it every night? Instead we get endless appearances by Stormy Daniels' lawyer who shows up on CNN every night for two months.

Trump has a point here.

And, of course, everyone is up in arms that Trump is fucking tweeting something. No effort is underway. No measure to remove credential for any White House media organization. No law or regulation proposed.

Now, look at what happened previously. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nald-trump

Allow me to do exactly that. Obama’s own track record shows that if anyone isn’t being held accountable for the promises he’s made, it’s Obama himself – at least when it comes to the deep-diving investigative journalism he professes to want more of.

On his first day on the job, way back in January 2009, Obama issued a memorandum declaring that his administration was “committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government … and establish a system of transparency”. This was one of his campaign promises. Seven years later, the president has fallen well short of this vow, and many journalists see his administration as the least transparent of all.

The Freedom of Information Act (Foia), signed into law in 1966, is meant to give citizens access to information about the government agencies their taxes support. Less than two weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that the Obama administration set a new record in the percentage of Foia requests answered with either redacted files or nothing at all: 77%. That’s up 12 points from the first year of Obama’s presidency.

This is an administration that prosecutes people for leaking information to the press that would hold it accountable, and which continually obfuscates journalists’ and citizens’ efforts to extract any information from it at all.

This is an administration that claimed, repeatedly, that emails to and from former deputy assistant secretary of state Philippe Reines did not exist – only to finally reveal that thousands of them did, several years and one lawsuit later.

This is an administration that has used the Espionage Act to punish whistleblowers at least seven times. By contrast, before Obama’s presidency, the act, in place since the first world war, was used to prosecute government officials who leaked to the media just three times.

This is an administration that has gone after journalists who report on information obtained from leakers by secretly obtaining months’ worth of phone records. That spent seven years trying to compel the New York Times’ James Risen to reveal his sources. That snooped through Fox News’ James Rosen’s private emails and accused the reporter of possibly being a “co-conspirator” in order to get a warrant to do so, and to then keep that warrant secret.

This is an administration that has made it exceedingly difficult for journalists to obtain information from even health and science agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of Agriculture, denying requests and restricting access that was once granted. That allows the Drug Enforcement Agency to charge $1.4m to search for its records on El Chapo – a sum that must be paid in full before the agency would begin to fill the request.

This is an administration that has been happy to present the press with the story it wants the public to know, but then throws every possible roadblock in front of journalists looking for the story that the public deserves to know.

“It’s the kind of journalism that’s never been more important … A job well done is about more than just handing someone a microphone,” Obama said on Monday night. “It is to probe and to question, and to dig deeper and to demand more.”

He’s right about that. Unfortunately for his constituents, it’s also a job he has refused to let many journalists do.

Obama banned unfriendly media: https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/06/18 ... ore-trump/

Barack Obama decided he didn’t like what three newspapers were writing about him, so he kicked its reporters off his campaign plane.

At least Trump isn't coy or dishonest when it comes to media outlets and personalities he doesn't like. The worst part about the Obama camp lying in 2008 is that they were only doing it because they knew their tail-wagging press puppies would lap up the excuse without question. The MSM is so thoroughly loathsome that they provide the only sympathetic moments I have when it comes to Trump. I don't like Trump, but I really, really don't like the media.

And from Politico: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... vey-117140



Look who the press members themselves said were the most and least friendly to the press..... Barack Obama, won "least friendly" far and away....

[Forty Two]

God, I hate him. And his enablers, his sycophants, and his supporters. These people are a fucking cancer.

LOL --

The sanctions lifting will only occur as Iran takes the steps agreed, including addressing possible military dimensions.”

That was State Department spokesman John Kirby in June 2015, speaking just as negotiations for the Iran nuclear deal were wrapping up. But Tehran did not “take the steps agreed.” The deal was founded on a lie.

Two lies, actually. The first was Iran’s declaration to the International Atomic Energy Agency, prior to the implementation of the deal, of the full extent of its past nuclear work. This was essential, both as a test of Tehran’s sincerity and as a benchmark for understanding just how close it was to being able to assemble and deliver a nuclear warhead.

The second lie was the Obama administration’s promise that it was serious about getting answers from Tehran. In a moment of candor, then-Secretary of State John Kerry admitted “we are not fixated on Iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point in time or another” — but then he promised Congress that Iran would provide the accounting.

That was when the White House still feared that Congress might block the deal. When it failed to do so, thanks to a Democratic filibuster, the administration contented itself with a make-believe process in which Iran pretended to make a full declaration and the rest of the world pretended to believe it.

“Iran’s answers and explanations for many of the I.A.E.A.’s concerns were, at best, partial, but over all, obfuscating and stonewalling,” David Albright and his colleagues at the nonpartisan Institute for Science and International Security wrote in December 2015. “Needed access to sites was either denied or tightly controlled as to preclude adequate inspections.”

So much, then, for all the palaver about the deal providing an unprecedented level of transparency for monitoring Iranian compliance. So much, also, for the notion that Iran has honored its end of the bargain. It didn’t. This should render the agreement null and void.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/opin ... tions.html

The Iran deal was political feather, nothing more. It's bullshit. Iran lied its way into the deal, and the deal makes no ultimate sense.

[L'Emmerdeur]

According to President Bogus, Michael Cohen is really a businessman who also practices law. Apparently a significant part of Cohen's business is taking hefty payments from corporations to, uh, "advise" them and "provide insights into understanding" the current administration, yeah, that's it. Certainly he didn't do any lobbying of the administration on behalf of those companies; not one kind word in the president's ear, that never, ever happened. The very idea!

From the revelations contained in the findings of fact linked in another thread:

"Everything We Know About Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen's 'Essential Consultants' Business"

Early 2017: AT&T hires Cohen

...

February 2017: Novartis signs a one-year contract with Cohen

...

November 2017: Korea Aerospace pays Cohen

[Hermit]

the problem with statutory rape is that the key word is statutory, and it serves to criminalize otherwise perfectly consensual relations.

W . T . F .

[Forty Two]

According to President Bogus, Michael Cohen is really a businessman who also practices law. Apparently a significant part of Cohen's business is taking hefty payments from corporations to, uh, "advise" them and "provide insights into understanding" the current administration, yeah, that's it. Certainly he didn't do any lobbying of the administration on behalf of those companies; not one kind word in the president's ear, that never, ever happened. The very idea!

From the revelations contained in the findings of fact linked in another thread:

"Everything We Know About Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen's 'Essential Consultants' Business"

Early 2017: AT&T hires Cohen

...

February 2017: Novartis signs a one-year contract with Cohen

...

November 2017: Korea Aerospace pays Cohen

Let's assume it happened, as you say, is "pay for play" a problem now? Is it a real issue? Or, just for Trump?

And, nobody knows, yet, what these payments were really for. The biggie was $500k for consulting or something, and these are allegations now -- not proven facts -- it's basically just what Stormy Daniels' attorney is alleging.

We'll see if this is as serious as receiving a $1,000,000 from Qatar.

Right now, it's a lot of inflamatory allegations, but little substance - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-av ... s-company/

That investment firm, Columbus Nova, is affiliated with the Renova Group, which is controlled by Vekselberg. In a statement, Vekselberg and the Renova Group said: "Neither Victor Vekselberg nor Renova Group has ever had any contractual relationship with Mr. Cohen or Essential Consultants."

In a separate statement, Columbus Nova said: " ... Contrary to recent reports, Columbus Nova LLC and Renova U.S. Management, LLC (operated under the Columbus Nova umbrella) are not now, nor have ever been, owned by any foreign entity or person. In fact, since its founding nearly 20 years ago, Columbus Nova has been and continues to be 100% owned by Americans."

Investigate it. See where it goes, but let's not pretend that attorney Avenatti's statements or opinion on Cohen's revenue receipts is not particularly meaningful.

[Forty Two]

the problem with statutory rape is that the key word is statutory, and it serves to criminalize otherwise perfectly consensual relations.

W . T . F .

Svartalf is right.

The age of consent in France is now 15. So, that means a 15 year old fucking a 40 year old is not a crime there, unless there is a lack of consent. In other jurisdictions, the age of consent in that circumstance is 16 and still others set the age at 18. So, yes, in the jurisdictions with higher ages of consent, if a couple fucks in France, it's fine, if they fuck in, say, in Norway the next day after a short plane ride, then it's rape.

I.e., the law in Norway can criminalize otherwise perfectly consensual relations between two French people, one 15 and one 40.

[Hermit]

the problem with statutory rape is that the key word is statutory, and it serves to criminalize otherwise perfectly consensual relations.

W . T . F .

Svartalf is right.

The age of consent in France is now 15. So, that means a 15 year old fucking a 40 year old is not a crime there, unless there is a lack of consent. In other jurisdictions, the age of consent in that circumstance is 16 and still others set the age at 18. So, yes, in the jurisdictions with higher ages of consent, if a couple fucks in France, it's fine, if they fuck in, say, in Norway the next day after a short plane ride, then it's rape.

I.e., the law in Norway can criminalize otherwise perfectly consensual relations between two French people, one 15 and one 40.

WTF again. Read what Svartalf actually posted. He basically asserted that there's nothing wrong about having sex with people who are deemed incapable of consenting to having sex with. I guess he - and you - would disagree with judge Sarah Bradley who recorded no conviction for six juveniles and handed down suspended sentences to the nine rapists of a ten year old girl because the victim "probably agreed" to have sex with them. She was too tough in her sentencing. It was, after all only statutory rape. Without that stupid law no crime would have probably taken place.

[pErvinalia]

Can't wait for MM to chip in on this debate..

[Hermit]

Can't wait for MM to chip in on this debate..

He could just copy-paste one or more of his previous posts.

[Seabass]

[JimC]

Turned out to be a very expensive fuck indeed...

[Animavore]

One of the many women the rapist, Trump, assaulted is running for office in Ohio.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pol ... m_fb&utm_t

[Seabass]

George Will always cracks me up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Donald Trump, with his feral cunning, knew. The oleaginous Mike Pence, with his talent for toadyism and appetite for obsequiousness, could, Trump knew, become America’s most repulsive public figure. And Pence, who has reached this pinnacle by dethroning his benefactor, is augmenting the public stock of useful knowledge. Because his is the authentic voice of today’s lickspittle Republican Party, he clarifies this year’s elections: Vote Republican to ratify groveling as governing.

Last June, a Trump Cabinet meeting featured testimonials offered to Dear Leader by his forelock-tugging colleagues. His chief of staff, Reince Priebus, caught the spirit of the worship service by thanking Trump for the “blessing” of being allowed to serve him. The hosannas poured forth from around the table, unredeemed by even a scintilla of insincerity. Priebus was soon deprived of his blessing, as was Tom Price. Before Price’s ecstasy of public service was truncated because of his incontinent enthusiasm for charter flights, he was the secretary of health and human services who at the Cabinet meeting said, “I can’t thank you enough for the privileges you’ve given me.” The vice president chimed in but saved his best riff for a December Cabinet meeting when, as The Post’s Aaron Blake calculated, Pence praised Trump once every 12 seconds for three minutes: “I’m deeply humbled. . . . ” Judging by the number of times Pence announces himself “humbled,” he might seem proud of his humility, but that is impossible because he is conspicuously devout and pride is a sin.

Between those two Cabinet meetings, Pence and his retinue flew to Indiana for the purpose of walking out of an Indianapolis Colts football game, thereby demonstrating that football players kneeling during the national anthem are intolerable to someone of Pence’s refined sense of right and wrong. Which brings us to his Arizona salute last week to Joe Arpaio, who was sheriff of Maricopa County until in 2016 voters wearied of his act.

Noting that Arpaio was in his Tempe audience, Pence, oozing unctuousness from every pore, called Arpaio “another favorite,” professed himself “honored” by Arpaio’s presence, and praised him as “a tireless champion of . . . the rule of law.” Arpaio, a grandstanding, camera-chasing bully and darling of the thuggish right, is also a criminal, convicted of contempt of court for ignoring a federal judge’s order to desist from certain illegal law enforcement practices. Pence’s performance occurred eight miles from the home of Sen. John McCain, who could teach Pence — or perhaps not — something about honor.

Henry Adams said that “practical politics consists in ignoring facts,” but what was the practicality in Pence’s disregard of the facts about Arpaio? His pandering had no purpose beyond serving Pence’s vocation, which is to ingratiate himself with his audience of the moment. The audience for his praise of Arpaio was given to chanting “Build that wall!” and applauded Arpaio, who wears Trump’s pardon like a boutonniere.

Hoosiers, of whom Pence is one, sometimes say that although Abraham Lincoln was born in Kentucky and flourished in Illinois, he spent his formative years — December 1816 to March 1830 — in Indiana, which he left at age 21. Be that as it may, on Jan. 27, 1838, Lincoln, then 28, delivered his first great speech, to the Young Men’s Lyceum in Springfield. Less than three months earlier, Elijah Lovejoy, an abolitionist newspaper editor in Alton, Ill., 67 miles from Springfield, was murdered by a pro-slavery mob. Without mentioning Lovejoy — it would have been unnecessary — Lincoln lamented that throughout America, “so lately famed for love of law and order,” there was a “mobocratic spirit” among “the vicious portion of [the] population.” So, “let reverence for the laws . . . become the political religion of the nation.” Pence, one of evangelical Christians’ favorite pin-ups, genuflects at various altars, as the mobocratic spirit and the vicious portion require.

It is said that one cannot blame people who applaud Arpaio and support his rehabilitators (Trump, Pence, et al.), because, well, globalization or health-care costs or something. Actually, one must either blame them or condescend to them as lacking moral agency. Republicans silent about Pence have no such excuse.

There will be negligible legislating by the next Congress, so ballots cast this November will be most important as validations or repudiations of the harmonizing voices of Trump, Pence, Arpaio and the like. Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic. Pence is what he has chosen to be, which is horrifying.