The Official Former President Trump thread

[Savage Henry]

40 minutes ago, doulikefish said:

Seems to be blaming the cia and fbi now

He's basically blaming everyone so that he can hire and fire at will.  

[topcat(The most tip top)]

 

 

Deplorable clearly meant to type "democratic operatives" as opposed to "Democratic operatives"

 

[Paco]

To be fair, the CIA/FBI shouldn't be leaking the way they are. Edward Snowden is living in exile for the very same thing. 

It's not "the real scandal", though. Some wally from the CIA going to jail for a few years doesn't even equate against potentially bringing down the President. 

[NotThePars]

There's so much numbers in being the first account to reply to any Trump tweet. They're all basically variations on "i'm owning you with facts, have you no decency good sir?"

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

14 minutes ago, Paco said:

To be fair, the CIA/FBI shouldn't be leaking the way they are. Edward Snowden is living in exile for the very same thing. 

It's not "the real scandal", though. Some wally from the CIA going to jail for a few years doesn't even equate against potentially bringing down the President. 

Setting aside Trump as an individual, it's clear how fundamentally broken American democracy is. The Republicans holding both houses means that the constitutional checks and balances supposed to restrain a president will not happen. And nothing epitomises the open corruption in Washington more than Betsy deVos being made  Education secretary.

These are lists of her family's campaign donations to the Senators who were deciding whether she could have the job or not.

In her own words:

"My family is the biggest contributor of soft money to the Republican National Committee.

I have decided to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect something in return. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment."

On the flip side, I don't think it's right for the intelligence agencies to be making what are clearly political leaks. Trump is an ignorant, narcissistic, and possibly insane figurehead, so it's easy to paint the FBI/CIA/NSA leakers as bravely safeguarding American democracy. I think it's dangerous for them to behave like this. It's safe to say that most of the people on this forum would have voted for Sanders ahead of Trump or Clinton, and you have to wonder how the political, military and intelligence establishments would have treated him, as he represented just as much of a danger to the status quo as Trump does.

It is a very difficult line to draw. If, for example, Trump asked the US military to nuke Pyongyang in response to their latest missile test, most sane people would hope that the generals wouldn't obey the order. At the same time, we should be cautious celebrating the tactics being used against Trump if we'd be outraged at them being used against a person that we agree with.

[Savage Henry]

1 hour ago, Carl Cort's Hamstring said:

Setting aside Trump as an individual, it's clear how fundamentally broken American democracy is. The Republicans holding both houses means that the constitutional checks and balances supposed to restrain a president will not happen. And nothing epitomises the open corruption in Washington more than Betsy deVos being made  Education secretary.

These are lists of her family's campaign donations to the Senators who were deciding whether she could have the job or not.

In her own words:

"My family is the biggest contributor of soft money to the Republican National Committee.

I have decided to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect something in return. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment."

On the flip side, I don't think it's right for the intelligence agencies to be making what are clearly political leaks. Trump is an ignorant, narcissistic, and possibly insane figurehead, so it's easy to paint the FBI/CIA/NSA leakers as bravely safeguarding American democracy. I think it's dangerous for them to behave like this. It's safe to say that most of the people on this forum would have voted for Sanders ahead of Trump or Clinton, and you have to wonder how the political, military and intelligence establishments would have treated him, as he represented just as much of a danger to the status quo as Trump does.

It is a very difficult line to draw. If, for example, Trump asked the US military to nuke Pyongyang in response to their latest missile test, most sane people would hope that the generals wouldn't obey the order. At the same time, we should be cautious celebrating the tactics being used against Trump if we'd be outraged at them being used against a person that we agree with.

Whilst I agree with almost all of that, "I was just following orders" has never been a legitimate defence.  

There are limitations on what Trump is able to do.  That makes much of the recent reporting hyperbolic at best.  But the fact that these leaks are so widespread, inter-departmental and, actually, reasoned (nothing "leaked" so far in any way endangers national security) suggests there is far, far more than has been revealed.  There's every chance, for example, that Flynn quit for reasons not in the public domain.  

I work quite closely with the Department of State.  I can vouch for the fact that the people there do not merely follow orders, but try to do good.  It's not politicised.  These leaks are not simply the actions of a "pro-Obama infiltration".  There's a major issue here.  We shouldn't blame the messenger.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Savage Henry

[Paco]

14 minutes ago, kilbowie2002 said:

I agree to an extent but Snowden's leak cost lives (i dont want to open up a debate about the us military's atrocities over recent years because i agree that they are guilty) by exposing sources etc. Ive nothing against the guy and believe that governments should be held accountable, unfortunately when you put information in the hands of ego maniacs like Assange who do absolutely nothing to filter or sanitise it then people die. Perhaps Snowden wasnt aware it would be un sanitised or didnt care but thats why he's on the run, an FBI agent leaking info about the call to the ambassador doesnt result in anyone dying.

I don't necessarily agree nor disagree, but Snowden isn't charged with manslaughter, or exposing sources, or anything like that. He is charged with theft of government property, unauthorised communication of national defence information, and wilful communication of classified communications to an unauthorized person.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edward-j-snowden-criminal-complaint/496/

All of these charges could surely be applied to the intelligence officials now leaking this information. So Trump is entirely right to question it, in fairness, regardless of what it shows, or how much it is believed to be in the public interest. 

1 hour ago, Carl Cort's Hamstring said:

It is a very difficult line to draw. If, for example, Trump asked the US military to nuke Pyongyang in response to their latest missile test, most sane people would hope that the generals wouldn't obey the order. At the same time, we should be cautious celebrating the tactics being used against Trump if we'd be outraged at them being used against a person that we agree with.

I think this is a good post, your last line in particular however has been frequently ignored when it comes to Donald Trump. Look at the outrage about the hacking of the DNC emails, versus the leaking of (partial) tax documents relating to Trump. Both illegal, one accepted, one not. There was even an actual reward put on offer for someone to leak Trump's full confidential tax returns. 

Now I know these situations aren't exactly the same but the hypocrisy is there. If you just accept that leaking/hacking etc is fine because you don't like someone, you're really opening a can of worms. 

(PS, well aware Trump encouraged the hacking of Clinton emails and is now moaning about leaks, both sides are hypocriticial. I'd just like to see 'my' side realise it a bit more or rise above it. If the attitude is get him out by any means, then that won't sit right with me at all).

[welshbairn]

The Department of Justice told the Whitehouse about Flynn's phone calls weeks ago. The Whitehouse did nothing about it till somebody leaked it to the Press. If they hadn't nobody would have been the wiser, and there's allegations of Trump staffers being in regular contact with Russian intelligence officers during the campaign. The more leaks the better imo if they're about illegal activity by the Government. Leaks were how Nixon got brought down. 

[Granny Danger]

'Moderate Republicans' is a term that sticks in my craw like 'reasonable Tories' but they may be the ones required to be the buffer against Trump's extremism.

Maybe it deserves its own thread but Trump's comments today about the long standing policy of two state solution in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict sent shivers up my spine.  Plus it was galling that it seemed to be an off-the-cuff statement.  It's deplorable that this guy has any say in issues of this magnitude.

It has been claimed before by fairly moderate voices that we can either have a two state solution or an Apartheid Israel; we can't have both.  Netanyahu doesn't believe in a two state solution but he at least knows that until now he's had to keep up the pretence.  If Israel's biggest supporter gives him and his cronies the green light on this it will be a huge setback to whatever hope there is to address this issue.

 

[AUFC90]

17 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

'Moderate Republicans' is a term that sticks in my craw like 'reasonable Tories' but they may be the ones required to be the buffer against Trump's extremism.

Maybe it deserves its own thread but Trump's comments today about the long standing policy of two state solution in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict sent shivers up my spine.  Plus it was galling that it seemed to be an off-the-cuff statement.  It's deplorable that this guy has any say in issues of this magnitude.

It has been claimed before by fairly moderate voices that we can either have a two state solution or an Apartheid Israel; we can't have both.  Netanyahu doesn't believe in a two state solution but he at least knows that until now he's had to keep up the pretence.  If Israel's biggest supporter gives him and his cronies the green light on this it will be a huge setback to whatever hope there is to address this issue.

 

There is no hope, one of the belligerents is Israel.

[NotThePars]

The two state solution has been dead for years. The Israeli settlements have rendered it totally unviable now. So the solution is either a mixed state, apartheid or forcibly expelling the Palestinian population to other Arab countries.

[Granny Danger]

So

Spicer lying on behalf of Trump about inauguration crowd.

False claims of voter fraud.

Yates sacked for doing her job.

Travel ban overturned in court twice.

Conway creating the concept of "alternative facts".

Political advisor appointed to Security Council.

Pence having to use vote to get de Vos nomination approved.

Conway & Trump abusing position to promote Trump's daughter's business interests.

Flynn being forced out after misleading statements about contact with Russia.

Trump Labour secretary nominee forced to withdraw.

Longstanding policy on Palestinian state apparently overturned on a whim.

 

But the real news is why are there leaks?  Mmmm...

 

Apologies if I've missed anything.

 

 

 

 

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, NotThePars said:

The two state solution has been dead for years. The Israeli settlements have rendered it totally unviable now. So the solution is either a mixed state, apartheid or forcibly expelling the Palestinian population to other Arab countries.

So apartheid it is.  I'm sure that was universally condemned before.

[mjw]

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/02/trump-tweets-inspired-by-fox-an-exhaustive-list.html?mid=twitter_nymag

[mjw]

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/02/trump-tweets-inspired-by-fox-an-exhaustive-list.html?mid=twitter_nymag

The link between what Trump tweets and what he has just seen in TV.

[Deplorable]

The House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman, Devin Nunes, has publicly questioned whether anybody had a warrant to listen in on Flynn's calls. If not then the call must have been listened in on based on the governments authority to spy on foreign governments. When an American is caught up in their spying there is an arduous process for revealing any information about that American. Rep. Nunes says that revealing any information would require authorization at the highest levels.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/14/gop-intel-chair-pretty-sure-fbi-didnt-have-warrant-to-record-flynn/

Was the Obama administration spying on the Trump transition team? What did Obama know and when did he know it?

 

 

[Granny Danger]

The worry is that the apparent abandonment of the two state solution is it taking second place to the other f**k ups in the US.  It should be the biggest headline on the news at the moment.

We know that Netanyahu has abandoned it years ago regardless of the stated policy but it can now legitimise the public consideration of an openly undemocratic Israel.  An openly undemocratic Israel that gets massive aid.  An openly undemocratic Israel that has nuclear weapons in contradiction of the non-proliferation treaty.  An openly undemocratic Israel that will be an even greater cause of recruitment of Muslim extremism, something we are supposed to be opposed to.

I would not want other Western leaders to fire from the hip on this one, it's far too serious an issue for rash statements.  But unless this position is walked back over the next few days others will have to start restating their positions.  Don't expect Theresa May to be at the head of that queue.

 

[Deplorable]

20 hours ago, Paco said:

Again, I wasn't meaning specifically for Flynn. He's out and rightly so. I was more wondering if, hypothetically, Trump in his post-election telephone call with Putin, told him that sanctions would be reviewed when he became President, and that he wanted a better working relationship moving forward. 

Is that impeachable? Surely not? I doubt he only discussed golf with the Japanese PM when he came to visit. He'd be talking trade tariffs, particularly on Japanese cars and electronics, and defence contributions. Most likely future North Korea/China policy too. In many of these instances his policy would be different to Obama's. 

 

There is a law from the 1700s called the Logan Act. It prohibits unauthorized citizens from engaging in negotiations with foreign governments with which the US government is having a dispute. So yes, under that law Russia would be different since the current US President had just imposed sanctions. This law has never been applied to Presidential transitions, although most transitions face accusations it seems. It just doesn't usually get this level of scrutiny. For instance, a member of Obama's transition team resigned after it was revealed that he held meetings with Hamas, but he later served in the Obama administration. Welshy ran down a list of some of the more prominent instances (Nixon and Vietnam, Reagan and Iran).

It appears from sources that there were no deep level discussions of the sanctions, and that they were just mentioned in passing. Flynn said the new administration would review them. Nothing too controversial.

18 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

He's basically blaming everyone so that he can hire and fire at will.  

The President should be able to hire and fire anyone who works for the executive branch at will. He's the elected one. Any elected official should be able to fire any unelected person who works under them. That's the only democratic way to operate a government.

22 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

This has nothing to do with the insane case you gave and, while NATO exists, aiding a foreign power over a valued ally is indeed treasonous.

Treason = a betrayal of one's own country. If it helps.

There's nothing set in stone that Germany has to be America's ally. It was well known that Merkel was Obama's favorite foreign leader. Clinton listed her as her favorite. Trump favored Russia. I think Germany is an aggressive country trying to impose their ideology, multiculturalism, onto the small nations of central Europe who want none of it. I suspect Trump is close to me in his beliefs on that subject.

 

[Deplorable]

21 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

Democrat operatives?  You are better than that, surely?  The CIA and FBI (and indeed the courts) are apolitical.  These leaks aren't coming because Obama infiltrated the secret service.  They're coming because the CIA and the FBI are in open revolt against Trump... as is State and the moderate element of Homeland Security.  They are being told to act illegally by, presumably, the Commander in Chief.  If the President does it, that means it can't be illegal.  Where have I heard that before?

All of which is considered traitorous by the Republicans more than anybody else, except perhaps for the intelligence services themselves.  It is the Republicans who are leading the calls for formal investigations.  It is the Republicans who will control the impeachment process.  It's not hard to see where this is heading.  The leaks are coming for a reason, and that reason isn't "Democrat operatives".    There are checks and balances, but if Trump is trying to circumvent those checks and balances and he's been caught  out, this is far from the end of the story.

If it is proved that the Trump administration has been co-operating with the Russians prior to taking office, Trump is dead in the water.  He's already instructed Spicer to lie on his behalf, which is an ominous sign.  Let's see what happens to Mattis.  Let's see what transpires in the next week.  

 

We are just going to have to disagree.

For evidence on my side you have the acting Attorney General refusing to enforce Trump's EO. Whether you think the order was legal or not, many of our countries brightest legal minds, including many on the left, say that it was perfectly legal. It had not faced a court ruling yet. You have intelligence agents risking jail time to illegally leak information about Mike Flynn. You have left wing politicians and journalists openly celebrating what they are calling resistance within the Executive Branch.

[Baxter Parp]

11 minutes ago, Deplorable said:

There's nothing set in stone that Germany has to be America's ally.

Yet it is.  There's treaties and everything.