The Trump thread: All things Donald

[Athos_131]

Hmm, Yellow Wall is crying about ethics complaints.

That person never addressed the Trump adminstration trying to give the Saudis nuclear technology.

Weird.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Hmm, Yellow Wall is crying about ethics complaints.

That person never addressed the Trump campaign paying off a porn star.

Weird.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Hmm, Yellow Wall is crying about ethics complaints.

That person never addressed the Trump campaign accepting stolen documents from wikileaks.

Weird.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Hmm, Yellow Wall is crying about ethics complaints.

That person never addressed the Trump inauguation being over charged by the Trump hotel for space usage.

Weird.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Hmm, Yellow Wall is crying about ethics complaints.

That person never addressed the Trump firing the FBI director then telling everyone it was over the Russia investigation.

Weird.

#Resist

[psiberzerker]

Hmm, Yellow Wall is crying about ethics complaints.

That person never addressed the Trump firing the FBI director then telling everyone it was over the Russia investigation.

Weird.

#Resist

Quadrupal post?  You know that made it almost impossible for anyone else to reply to this thread for over 5 minutes, right?

Not to mention numerous acts of Treason.

I mean, yeah.  Sex scandals, and ethics violations sell (Clickbait) but he could technically be Hanged for Treason.  Or just get a cosy cell in Gitmo.

[Athos_131]

Hmm, Yellow Wall is crying about ethics complaints.

That person never addressed the Trumpers in Congress obstructing for Trump.

Weird.


Top Trump ally in Congress: Republican oversight was helpful to Trump

For nearly two years, certain House Republicans have perverted and weaponized the oversight process, turning it into a 24/7 harassment campaign directed at a legitimate law enforcement investigation that has been trying to flesh out the full story of a foreign power’s efforts to sabotage our democracy.

Usually, Republicans carrying out this effort have tried to portray it as nothing more than an effort to bring much-needed congressional oversight to a “deep state” run amok. It isn’t every day that one of those Republicans openly admits to the obvious: that this campaign actively helped the president.

But GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, one of Trump’s most aggressive bodyguards against accountability on Capitol Hill, has now admitted to this — unabashedly.

The New York Times has a blockbuster new investigation detailing some of the hidden and extraordinary lengths that Trump has gone to in his effort to undermine special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. As the Times puts it, the new details reveal “an even more sustained, more secretive assault by Mr. Trump on the machinery of federal law enforcement” than had been previously known, one in which Trump “attacked the law enforcement apparatus of his own government like no other president in history.”

Some of the revelations make it clearer than ever that, broadly speaking, Trump views law enforcement as little more than an instrument of his political will. For instance, Trump tried to get a U.S. attorney who is also one of his allies to oversee the investigation into his role in directing “hush money” payments during the campaign. Meanwhile, his handpicked choice for acting attorney general, Matthew G. Whitaker, privately described his role at the Justice Department as being willing to “jump on a grenade” for the president.

Perhaps the most interesting revelations in the Times investigation concern the degree to which Republicans actively worked to shield Trump from the Mueller inquiry. The piece reports that Reps. Gaetz and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) resolved early on to attack the Mueller probe, which we saw unfold in episodes such as the absurd effort to get a second special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton and the constant, buffoonish quest to prove that the Mueller probe is illegitimate.

We already knew, of course, that Trump was actively encouraging these efforts through his constant public statements. But the Times adds that behind the scenes, Trump’s direction of this effort was even more aggressive than we knew:

The president cheered the lawmakers on Twitter, in interviews and in private, urging Mr. Gaetz on Air Force One in December 2017 and in subsequent phone calls to keep up the House Republicans’ oversight work. He was hoping for fair treatment from Mr. Mueller, Mr. Trump told Mr. Gaetz in one of the calls just after the congressman appeared on Fox News, but that did not preclude him from encouraging his allies’ scrutiny of the investigation.

As the Times reports, this campaign was so nakedly cynical and depraved that even some Republicans condemned it. But here’s what Gaetz himself has to say in his defense:

Mr. Gaetz makes no apologies.

“Do I think it’s right that our work in the Congress has aided in the president’s defense?” he asked, before answering his own question.

“Yeah, I think it is right.”

You’re not supposed to admit to that, Congressman. This was merely supposed to be an exercise of congressional oversight designed to rein in supposedly out-of-control intelligence agencies. It wasn’t supposed to be about aiding the president’s legal defense.

Of course, in one sense, this demonstrates the functional beauty of the circular logic animating the up-is-down alt-narrative that Trump’s allies in Congress have created. The Times reports with a straight face that Gaetz and Jordan really believe that Trump is the supreme victim of an investigation that is “deeply unfair and politically biased.” Once that has been established, then it’s only a very small step to claiming that any effort to derail the investigation, including one that is actively designed to shield its target from scrutiny — Trump — is morally correct.

But let’s remember that again and again, these Trump allies have promised new revelations that would supposedly unmask the Mueller probe as corrupt and illegitimate, and again and again, from the ill-fated Devin Nunes memo to the released FBI applications to wiretap a former Trump adviser, these supposed bombshells have blown up in their own hapless faces.

And let’s also remember that Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, forthrightly admitted before the 2018 elections that it was imperative to maintain a GOP House majority, in order to protect Trump from ongoing investigations — that is, from accountability.

Nunes had the good sense to express this view of the real role of GOP congressional oversight behind closed doors. Gaetz has now copped to it in public.

#Resist

[Katiebee]

I find it unconscionable that the congressional leadership was briefed by McCabe on the investigation, yet the Republican leadership still supports him.

[Athos_131]

I find it unconscionable that the congressional leadership was briefed by McCabe on the investigation, yet the Republican leadership still supports him.

Remember this next time some people start crying about unethical or illegal activities.

They ignored all of this and refuse to comment on it.  It's all you need to know about them claiming about the rule of law.

They care more about the Rule of Racism, Sexism, Elitism and Grifting.

#Resist

[Lois]

I wonder what it would take to admit that Trump is a big mistake. He should never have been elected President.

[joan1984]

Donald J. Trump was elected President, years ago. How much will it take for some to admit that actually happened. Life goes on...

I wonder what it would take to admit that Trump is a big mistake. He should never have been elected President.

[Athos_131]

Donald J. Trump was elected President, years ago. How much will it take for some to admit that actually happened. Life goes on...

Find a post where people claimed the contrary to this.

I'll hang up and listen for my answer.

#Resist

[Lois]

Donald J. Trump was elected President, years ago. How much will it take for some to admit that actually happened. Life goes on...

I wonder what it would take to admit that Trump is a big mistake. He should never have been elected President.

Not really an answer to my question.

Should Mueller's final report shows that Trump committed criminal acts will you support impeachment?

[joan1984]

Did you present a Question, Lois, in your original post? I saw what you said, and understand that you understand the reality of the situation, and the next election for President will be in 2020.

I do not know what may be disclosed by the Special Counsel, and do not expect the report to disclose much, unless charges are made for specific Felony events.
The report does not go to Congress, but to the Attorney General.

Back when there was a Special Counsel law, which was allowed to expire by the action/agreement of all parties, to a great degree due to the controversy of a REPORT which went to Congress, and the inability of Congress to maintain any Confidentiality in such regard, today the report goes to the Attorney General.

As has been stated frequently, unlike the illegal release of information by Jim Comey regarding charges which were NOT being brought in Court, the DOJ practice and rule is not to release details about any US Citizen who is not charged with a corresponding serious crime.

Jim Comey was recommended by the DOJ for removal from office for release of details about Senator Hillary Clinton, for crimes which were not charged, and he was fired ultimately in that case. There is much work to do, prosecuting the remaining cases of liars and more serious criminality at top levels of the FBI and DOJ which remains underway, to include McCabe, and others who anyone following knows their names.

I expect any report done by SC Mueller to include details about crimes charged and to not expound upon more than such. The full report will be available to the Attorney General, and sent to DOJ Archives, likely, for eventual release or not, after a 25 year minimum period, as is customary.

The Special Counsel Report for President Clinton was released by Congress in its entirety, or close to its entirety, and the Impeachment Trial of President Clinton (including near a RR Boxcar of cataloged evidence in that regard, most of which was never viewed except by active House of Representative Members who chose to view such evidence individually) has been sent to the National Archives, who will hold such information private for 25 years, then consider any release at that time.

Something similar I expect for this report, without the part about release to a entity not trusted for Confidentiality. So, if the President is charged with Felony Crimes by Special Counsel Mueller, or subsequently by the US Attorney General then some adjudication will and should occur. In the criminal court, or via the Impeachment process of Congress.

The SC had no crime to investigate, other than what he may uncover in the open ended and cost unlimited investigation to which we have all been subject to leaks for the past many months and years. Russian Collusion with President Trump would be the likely question asked by SC, hopefully answered fully.

Without a charge of Treason, or similar, we shall see how SC Muellers report is received and how our President is treated by the Department of Justice in it's regard, or whether any change will be forthcoming at all.

I am looking forward to resolution of US Attorney Huber's investigation at some future date, and associated other investigations now underway, and certainly hope such are concluded while the Statute of Limitations permits accountability of all concerned.

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Did you present a Question, Lois, in your original post? I saw what you said, and understand that you understand the reality of the situation, and the next election for President will be in 2020.

I do not know what may be disclosed by the Special Counsel, and do not expect the report to disclose much, unless charges are made for specific Felony events.
The report does not go to Congress, but to the Attorney General.

Back when there was a Special Counsel law, which was allowed to expire by the action/agreement of all parties, to a great degree due to the controversy of a REPORT which went to Congress, and the inability of Congress to maintain any Confidentiality in such regard, today the report goes to the Attorney General.

As has been stated frequently, unlike the illegal release of information by Jim Comey regarding charges which were NOT being brought in Court, the DOJ practice and rule is not to release details about any US Citizen who is not charged with a corresponding serious crime.

Jim Comey was recommended by the DOJ for removal from office for release of details about Senator Hillary Clinton, for crimes which were not charged, and he was fired ultimately in that case. There is much work to do, prosecuting the remaining cases of liars and more serious criminality at top levels of the FBI and DOJ which remains underway, to include McCabe, and others who anyone following knows their names.

I expect any report done by SC Mueller to include details about crimes charged and to not expound upon more than such. The full report will be available to the Attorney General, and sent to DOJ Archives, likely, for eventual release or not, after a 25 year minimum period, as is customary.

The Special Counsel Report for President Clinton was released by Congress in its entirety, or close to its entirety, and the Impeachment Trial of President Clinton (including near a RR Boxcar of cataloged evidence in that regard, most of which was never viewed except by active House of Representative Members who chose to view such evidence individually) has been sent to the National Archives, who will hold such information private for 25 years, then consider any release at that time.

Something similar I expect for this report, without the part about release to a entity not trusted for Confidentiality. So, if the President is charged with Felony Crimes by Special Counsel Mueller, or subsequently by the US Attorney General then some adjudication will and should occur. In the criminal court, or via the Impeachment process of Congress.

The SC had no crime to investigate, other than what he may uncover in the open ended and cost unlimited investigation to which we have all been subject to leaks for the past many months and years. Russian Collusion with President Trump would be the likely question asked by SC, hopefully answered fully.

Without a charge of Treason, or similar, we shall see how SC Muellers report is received and how our President is treated by the Department of Justice in it's regard, or whether any change will be forthcoming at all.

I am looking forward to resolution of US Attorney Huber's investigation at some future date, and associated other investigations now underway, and certainly hope such are concluded while the Statute of Limitations permits accountability of all concerned.

This might be the most convoluted world salad answer to a simple yes or no question I've ever seen.

At least we know from reading this the answer is not, "Yes."

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Hmm, Yellow Wall is crying about ethics complaints.

That person never addressed Trump's Secretary of Labor enabling a child molester.

Weird.

Prosecutors Broke Law in Agreement Not to Prosecute Jeffrey Epstein, Judge Rules

MIAMI — Prosecutors led by Alexander R. Acosta, who is now the secretary of labor, violated federal law when they failed to tell victims about an agreement not to prosecute Jeffrey E. Epstein, a wealthy New York financier accused of molesting dozens of underage girls, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.

The agreement not to pursue federal sex trafficking charges, negotiated in secret while prosecutors told victims that a case against Mr. Epstein was still possible, violated the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act, ruled Judge Kenneth A. Marra of Federal District Court in West Palm Beach. He gave the government and the two victims who sued 15 days to discuss what remedy should apply in the case.

It seems unlikely that Mr. Epstein, who served 13 months in a local jail under extraordinarily lenient conditions and was released in 2009, would be returned to jail.

The ruling is the latest development in the saga for Mr. Epstein’s victims, who have sought justice for years. Interest in the case was renewed in the #MeToo era, after some women publicly detailed Mr. Epstein’s assaults in a report published by The Miami Herald last year. The Justice Department said earlier this month that it has opened an investigation into potential professional misconduct by prosecutors who negotiated Mr. Epstein’s plea deal.

Mr. Acosta was the United States attorney in Miami at the time the agreement was negotiated.

In his ruling, Judge Marra called it “particularly problematic” that the government concealed the existence of the agreement and misled the victims “to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility.”

“When the government gives information to victims, it cannot be misleading,” the court said.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for the Labor Department said the decisions made by Mr. Acosta’s prosecutors have been defended by the Justice Department for more than a decade “in litigation across three administrations and several attorneys general.”

“The office’s decisions were approved by departmental leadership and followed departmental protocols,” the statement added.

A spokeswoman for the United States attorney’s office in Miami declined to comment.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Hmm, Yellow Wall is crying about ethics complaints.

That person never addressed Trump's Secretary of Commerce making inaccurate financial disclosures.

Weird.

Facing ethics violation, Wilbur Ross says he didn’t mean to file inaccurate financial disclosures

The U.S. government’s top ethics watchdog has ruled that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross violated his ethics agreement by inaccurately reporting stock holdings in his 2018 financial disclosure form.

Ross — one of the wealthiest members of President Trump’s Cabinet — did not sell stock he held in a bank despite reporting otherwise, said Emory Rounds, director of the Office of Government Ethics.

“Therefore, OGE is declining to certify Secretary Ross’s 2018 financial disclosure report,” Rounds wrote in a letter dated Feb. 15, “because that report was not accurate and he was not in compliance with his ethics agreement at the time of the report.”

Observers called the move highly unusual, and one told CNN that the office’s decision amounted to “a pretty giant red flag.” Richard Painter, an ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, told the outlet that he has never seen a Cabinet member’s disclosure form rejected in this way.

In a statement Tuesday, Ross said he mistakenly believed he had sold the assets in question — 100 shares of BankUnited stock — in May 2017. When he realized his error, he said, he sold the stock and disclosed the sale in October 2018.

The shares, Ross said, were worth $3,700, an amount that federal regulations deem “below the threshold of a possible conflict of interest.” (According to a Bloomberg News report, that threshold is $15,000 for publicly traded securities.)

“Therefore, even if a BankUnited matter had come before the Department while I owned the shares — and I have not been made aware of any such matter — I would not have been disqualified from working on it,” Ross said. He called the inaccuracy “the only known error in my annual report.”

In his letter, Rounds said his office had warned Ross before over his “failure to comply with his ethics compliance agreements” and cautioned that “even inadvertent errors could undermine the public’s trust in the Secretary and his Department’s overall ethics program.”

Ross has repeatedly faced scrutiny over his investments, as lawmakers and outside groups have called for investigations into his finances. In 2018, Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, asked then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to review Ross’s disclosures for “potential criminal violations.”

Ethics experts have said that, wrongdoing or not, government officials must avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

“The American people have entrusted @SecretaryRoss with power and authority so he can ensure the welfare of the American economy,” tweeted Delaney Marsco, a lawyer with Campaign Legal Center, a public interest group. “I don’t think we should have to wonder if he’s making decisions for the benefit of the public or for his own pocketbook.”

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Elsewhere in Trump-Nevermind-My-Adminstration-And-Campaign-Are-Leaking-Oil-Land...

Judge bars Roger Stone from speaking about criminal case

A federal judge ordered that longtime Republican operative and Trump confidant Roger Stone may not speak publicly about the investigation or case against him.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington said it would be “foolhardy” to wait for Stone to transgress again in the wake of an Instagram post that appeared to show her photo near crosshairs and suggested both she and the special counsel were biased.

“I’m not giving you another chance,” she said. “I have serious doubts whether you’ve learned any lesson at all.”

If he violates the order in any way, Jackson said, she would order him to jail.

She rejected his claim that the image was not meant to be threatening.

“Roger Stone knows full well the power of words and the power of symbols,” she said. “There’s nothing ambiguous about crosshairs.”

Stone can continue to raise funds for his defense and speak on other matters, the judge said.

Stone on Thursday took the stand to apologize for the post and ask that he be allowed to keep talking about his upcoming trial on charges brought by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

“I’m sorry that I abused your trust,” Stone told Jackson. “I’m heartfully sorry. . .I can only beseech you to give me a second chance.”

Stone, 66, said the “lapse of judgment was an outgrowth of the extreme stress of the situation.” He said facing criminal charges for the first time in his life has put him under severe emotional and financial strain.

Jackson was not moved. “Thank you, but the apology rings quite hollow,” she said. Based on his subsequent statements and actions, she said, “I don’t find any of the evolving and contradictory explanations credible.”

Both Jackson and prosecutor Jonathan Kravis grilled Stone on how he found the image and why he posted it. Stone gave inconsistent answers, saying first that it was posted by a volunteer and then that a volunteer sent him the image but he posted it himself. He said he can’t remember who gave him the picture or the names of everyone who has access to his phone.

“How hard is it to find an image without crosshairs?” Jackson asked Stone.

“I didn’t recognize it as a crosshairs — I didn’t even notice it until it was brought to my attention by a reporter,” Stone said. He said, as he has before, that he believes it was a “Celtic cross” or “occult symbol,” based on subsequent research.

“It was improper for me to criticize at all, I recognize that,” he said.

Asked for elaboration on the symbol, he replied, “I don’t know your honor; I’m not into the occult.”

Jackson also repeatedly asked Stone why, if he immediately regretted the posting, he went on to defend it in multiple media interviews.

“I felt the media was falsely saying that I was posing a danger which was not my intention, and this was not a crosshairs in my opinion,” Stone responded. “I had no malicious intention.”

Jackson also pressed Stone on why he apologized to her in a letter Monday if he did not mean the image to be threatening. Stone said the apology was drafted by his attorneys and signed by him during a doctor’s appointment, and that he had not read it carefully. But, he said, “I shouldn’t have posted any of it at all — it was a mistake.”

He said he chose the image from a few on his phone, randomly. He could not describe the other images, he told Jackson adding, “I erased all the images of your honor because I did not want to make the same mistake twice.”

Stone said he was “having trouble putting the food on the table and making rent” and needed to be able to make money as a commentator. According to Jackson, he had told pre-trial services his consulting income was $47,000 a month. She asked whether anyone was paying him to talk about his own criminal case, and he said no.

Stone is already under a limited gag imposed by Jackson after being accused of lying about his efforts in 2016 to gather information concerning hacked Democratic Party emails. A caption on the Instagram post of Jackson said Stone faced a “show trial” in her courtroom after his indictment stemming from the special counsel investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Defense attorney Bruce Rogow called the post “a single specific instance” and argued that “Mr. Stone should have another opportunity to comply” with the judge’s order.

“Really what he’s asking for is a second chance,” Rogow said.

Kravis countered that both the post and Stone’s subsequent public comments “amounts to … a desire to manipulate media coverage… thereby threatening to taint the jury pool.” He pushed for Jackson to expand her gag order, saying Stone’s apology was “not credible.”

The initial picture was deleted from Stone’s account soon after it went online Monday and reposted again without the background image. Then that post, too, was deleted.

Stone has pleaded not guilty and is currently out on a $250,000 bond, allowed to travel between South Florida, Washington and New York City. He was previously allowed to discuss the case publicly, just not in the immediate vicinity of the D.C. federal courthouse.

He was indicted in January on charges of obstructing justice, lying and witness tampering in what prosecutors said was an effort to hide repeated attempts to get information about plans to release the hacked emails. By itself, those actions may not constitute a crime, but authorities say Stone lied to Congress when asked about those efforts. U.S. officials say the hacked emails were taken by Russian intelligence officials and then shared with the global anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, whose founder, Julian Assange, made them public.

According to the indictment, Stone reached out to the group through an intermediary for information on the hacked emails at the direction of an unidentified senior Trump campaign official. He then allegedly lied to congressional staff investigators and encouraged another person to do the same, according to the court records.

#Resist

[joan1984]

  Athos, for good reason, most never reply to your frequent crackpot cut and paste diatribes. That does not mean your posts are without merit, only that you are without merit, do not merit a reply.

  Think about it...