Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

https://www.propublica.org/article/t...dangered-sheep

So...Donnie Jr. was on a trip to Mongolia recently.

And he killed an endangered sheep because...I don't know, because that's what he does.

Problem is, the didn't have the permit required to do that. Oops.

But that's fine, he can just leverage his position as the son of the POTUS to be retroactively granted a permit, of which only 3 have been handed in that region (including his), and of which retroactive permits are even more rare.

What did he and the president of Mongolia speak about? Was he speaking in an official capacity for the US government? If not, then why was he meeting with him?

[Breccia]

retroactively

Oh, like his security clearance! And filing as a foreign agent working directly for Trump.

[Dontrike]

"Law enforcement is so great. That particular guy wanted to be so politically correct. Ahhh! Ahhh! We don't want to be political correct" -- Trump laments that arena security wasn't rougher with a female protester

Video Embedded.

Trump is such a PoS, wannabe be authoritarian. I'm sure he would want his own, lets call them Brown Shirts, security team to do the bidding of Trump and while escorting her out and a few punches and slap arounds. You know teach her a lesson.

Pelosi says we should yell at Trumpsters. Trumpsters say she's calling for violence.

Trump says people should get rough with anyone he doesn't like, and even calls for violence. Trumpsters suddenly have amnesia and forget all of it.

[Tenlo]

Pelosi says we should yell at Trumpsters. Trumpsters say she's calling for violence.

Trump says people should get rough with anyone he doesn't like, and even calls for violence. Trumpsters suddenly have amnesia and forget all of it.

As We've learned in the Thanos thread: Anything the right says, "Its a joke gawsh guis get over it!!13" anything said that is negative about Trump, doesn't even have to be a left leaning person "AUTHORITARIAN COMMIE BASTARD STFU" It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad

[Adam Jensen]

Yes, Pelosi and Trump actually reached a deal of sorts. Trump will tout it as the best bestiest best but, yeah, it's incremental and Canada got a few things in that help them a lot.

So the --

McConnell: Senate will not take up new NAFTA deal this year

Oh, those Do-Nothing Democrats! Always ruining everything!

Gaslight
Obstruct
Project

- - - Updated - - -

In a Movie series starring Captain America, Trump Chooses to be Thanos.

Best part: it's seconds before Thanos realizes Tony stole his power from him and then gets defeated.

- - - Updated - - -

I know you're not the brightest crayon in the box but no one can be dumb enough to have said this and mean it. If it was confirmed by court precedents than it is almost by definition according to the law as the entire purpose of the courts is to interpret the law and adjudicate disputes based on the law. No one's gonna pretend there haven't been terrible interpretations or even some seriously failures to hold people to account but if that's your point it couldn't have been phrased more stupidly.

Seriously I wonder if half you read what you write at all.

Justice Tawny stated (Dredd Scott decision), as his own interpretation of the law, that black people weren't really citizens of the United States and weren't deserving of the same rights.

Should we keep that "precedence" intact?

[Shadowferal]

Trump Blocked by Second Judge on Military Funds for His Wall

A second federal judge barred President Donald Trump from using military construction funds for his Mexico border wall, with a U.S. court ruling Wednesday in Oakland, California, echoing one Tuesday in El Paso, Texas.

[Beefhammer]

It'd be extra sad if we needed multiple accounts to post with.

I wonder who that burner account it. It really is sad but then it totally explains why they have nonissue with dear leader breaking the law. They can break forum rules make another account and continue sithposting with no consequences. So it makes sense they feel attacked when rational humans want Trump to pay for his crimes. They are scared little children afraid they will have to get punished as well.

[Gestopft]

https://www.propublica.org/article/t...dangered-sheep

So...Donnie Jr. was on a trip to Mongolia recently.

And he killed an endangered sheep because...I don't know, because that's what he does.

Problem is, the didn't have the permit required to do that. Oops.

But that's fine, he can just leverage his position as the son of the POTUS to be retroactively granted a permit, of which only 3 have been handed in that region (including his), and of which retroactive permits are even more rare.

What did he and the president of Mongolia speak about? Was he speaking in an official capacity for the US government? If not, then why was he meeting with him?

Yeah....but he doesn't like nepotism, right? Also, but....Hunter Biden?

I just read that story today; was about to bring it up if nobody else had.

[Dacien]

Oh do go ahead and say them. Trump and Barr didn't get what they wanted, and neither did Fox. For once just agree there's no Deep State spying on Trump.

I guess all I wanted to say was something I read in a Twitter thread by Kimberley Strassel.

At the time it dropped, the Nunes Memo made a big splash, with many people (myself included) who had argued the FISA process with Carter Page had potentially serious problems feeling vindicated. And the Nunes Memo is in complete accord with the IG report.

But Schiff came out with his own competing memo at the time, and it came to completely different conclusions than the Nunes Memo. It is also at odds with what we know now from the IG report. He had the same information Nunes had, yet contradicted what we now know to be the facts. His job at the time seems to have been, in hindsight, to just control the narrative. Who could possibly know who was telling the truth at the time, and by the time people knew, it would be well past the expiration date. Who even remembers the Nunes Memo? It was just two entities with security clearance arguing about what the secure documents said; they could get away with a lot. And it turns out it wasn't Nunes fudging the facts, it was Schiff.

I bring it up because this is the guy who just ran the impeachment process, as Strassel notes. Schiff pulled a fast one and nobody is too fired up about it. I would have genuinely been disappointed if Nunes had tried to put up his memo as a stunt when he knew there were little grounds for his claims. But it wasn't a stunt. So Schiff threw out a competing memo at odds with the facts from the same source material, and that turned out to be the stunt, we now know.

It's a good thread:

https://www.twitter.com/KimStrassel/...00899133919232

[Stormspellz]

I guess all I wanted to say was something I read in a Twitter thread by Kimberley Strassel.

At the time it dropped, the Nunes Memo made a big splash, with many people (myself included) who had argued the FISA process with Carter Page had potentially serious problems feeling vindicated. And the Nunes Memo is in complete accord with the IG report.

But Schiff came out with his own competing memo at the time, and it came to completely different conclusions than the Nunes Memo. It is also at odds with what we know now from the IG report. He had the same information Nunes had, yet contradicted what we now know to be the facts. His job at the time seems to have been, in hindsight, to just control the narrative. Who could possibly know who was telling the truth at the time, and by the time people knew, it would be well past the expiration date. Who even remembers the Nunes Memo? It was just two entities with security clearance arguing about what the secure documents said; they could get away with a lot. And it turns out it wasn't Nunes fudging the facts, it was Schiff.

I bring it up because this is the guy who just ran the impeachment process, as Strassel notes. Schiff pulled a fast one and nobody is too fired up about it. I would have genuinely been disappointed if Nunes had tried to put up his memo as a stunt when he knew there were little grounds for his claims. But it wasn't a stunt. So Schiff threw out a competing memo at odds with the facts from the same source material, and that turned out to be the stunt, we now know.

It's a good thread:

https://www.twitter.com/KimStrassel/...00899133919232

Interesting take on it, One of Nunes's biggest push was that the FBI acted with bias, which the IG report flatly denies. Nunes memo largely inflated the seriousness of the transgressions as this part of the the IG report reinforeces

“we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted OI [the National Security Division’s Office of Intelligence] in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures,”

“In most instances, witnesses told us that they either did not know or recall why the information was not shared with OI, that the failure to do so may have been an oversight, that they did not recognize at the time the relevance of the information to the FISA application, or that they did not believe the missing information to be significant,”

On this last point, we believe that case agents may have improperly substituted their own judgments in place of the judgment of OI to consider the potential materiality of the information, or in place of the court to weigh the probative value of the information.”

So in re reading both of their memos from a few months back Nunes comes off less of a political hack, but still a political hack as he was pushing FBI deeps state none sense , and Schiff a bit of a stooge

[Rokom]

I guess all I wanted to say was something I read in a Twitter thread by Kimberley Strassel.

At the time it dropped, the Nunes Memo made a big splash, with many people (myself included) who had argued the FISA process with Carter Page had potentially serious problems feeling vindicated. And the Nunes Memo is in complete accord with the IG report.

But Schiff came out with his own competing memo at the time, and it came to completely different conclusions than the Nunes Memo. It is also at odds with what we know now from the IG report. He had the same information Nunes had, yet contradicted what we now know to be the facts. His job at the time seems to have been, in hindsight, to just control the narrative. Who could possibly know who was telling the truth at the time, and by the time people knew, it would be well past the expiration date. Who even remembers the Nunes Memo? It was just two entities with security clearance arguing about what the secure documents said; they could get away with a lot. And it turns out it wasn't Nunes fudging the facts, it was Schiff.

I bring it up because this is the guy who just ran the impeachment process, as Strassel notes. Schiff pulled a fast one and nobody is too fired up about it. I would have genuinely been disappointed if Nunes had tried to put up his memo as a stunt when he knew there were little grounds for his claims. But it wasn't a stunt. So Schiff threw out a competing memo at odds with the facts from the same source material, and that turned out to be the stunt, we now know.

It's a good thread:

https://www.twitter.com/KimStrassel/...00899133919232

I may be wrong on this because I'm tired, but I believe the Nunes memo asserts that the Steele dossier was a key part in the actual application for the FISA warrant, while the IG report states that it was only a motivating factor in choosing to seek the warrant and gather more information to prove probable cause for the application.

[Dontrike]

I guess all I wanted to say was something I read in a Twitter thread by Kimberley Strassel.

At the time it dropped, the Nunes Memo made a big splash, with many people (myself included) who had argued the FISA process with Carter Page had potentially serious problems feeling vindicated. And the Nunes Memo is in complete accord with the IG report.

But Schiff came out with his own competing memo at the time, and it came to completely different conclusions than the Nunes Memo. It is also at odds with what we know now from the IG report. He had the same information Nunes had, yet contradicted what we now know to be the facts. His job at the time seems to have been, in hindsight, to just control the narrative. Who could possibly know who was telling the truth at the time, and by the time people knew, it would be well past the expiration date. Who even remembers the Nunes Memo? It was just two entities with security clearance arguing about what the secure documents said; they could get away with a lot. And it turns out it wasn't Nunes fudging the facts, it was Schiff.

I bring it up because this is the guy who just ran the impeachment process, as Strassel notes. Schiff pulled a fast one and nobody is too fired up about it. I would have genuinely been disappointed if Nunes had tried to put up his memo as a stunt when he knew there were little grounds for his claims. But it wasn't a stunt. So Schiff threw out a competing memo at odds with the facts from the same source material, and that turned out to be the stunt, we now know.

It's a good thread:

https://www.twitter.com/KimStrassel/...00899133919232

See, it's all calm responses. My issue though is that you couldn't just say there's no Deep State spying on Trump.

I wouldn't trust anything Nunes puts out, that man is begging to be Trump's favorite.

[Beefhammer]

I guess all I wanted to say was something I read in a Twitter thread by Kimberley Strassel.

At the time it dropped, the Nunes Memo made a big splash, with many people (myself included) who had argued the FISA process with Carter Page had potentially serious problems feeling vindicated. And the Nunes Memo is in complete accord with the IG report.

But Schiff came out with his own competing memo at the time, and it came to completely different conclusions than the Nunes Memo. It is also at odds with what we know now from the IG report. He had the same information Nunes had, yet contradicted what we now know to be the facts. His job at the time seems to have been, in hindsight, to just control the narrative. Who could possibly know who was telling the truth at the time, and by the time people knew, it would be well past the expiration date. Who even remembers the Nunes Memo? It was just two entities with security clearance arguing about what the secure documents said; they could get away with a lot. And it turns out it wasn't Nunes fudging the facts, it was Schiff.

I bring it up because this is the guy who just ran the impeachment process, as Strassel notes. Schiff pulled a fast one and nobody is too fired up about it. I would have genuinely been disappointed if Nunes had tried to put up his memo as a stunt when he knew there were little grounds for his claims. But it wasn't a stunt. So Schiff threw out a competing memo at odds with the facts from the same source material, and that turned out to be the stunt, we now know.

It's a good thread:

https://www.twitter.com/KimStrassel/...00899133919232

No it's not. This is just you pushing more false narratives.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting take on it, One of Nunes's biggest push was that the FBI acted with bias, which the IG report flatly denies. Nunes memo largely inflated the seriousness of the transgressions as this part of the the IG report reinforeces







So in re reading both of their memos from a few months back Nunes comes off less of a political hack, but still a political hack as he was pushing FBI deeps state none sense , and Schiff a bit of a stooge

I love how these guys believe if someone in government supports a Dem they are biased. But have no issues with Repubs having biases. You know like the AG, who is the top attorney of the land. But it's totally OK for hem to be biased and act as if he is the Presidents personal lawyer spinning false narratives and pushing lies that help the GOP. Which as you stated, there was no bias in any investigation. Just in personal communications.

[Paranoid Android]

JUST IN: Trump goes after Thunberg after "Person of the Year" win: “So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem" https://t.co/hVZaB9A92G https://t.co/ZLnEuQ3GIO

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1...592993282?s=19

The reason we have this Mega-thread.

Wait. Wasn't not even a week ago the Trumpkins were upset bringing up Barron Trump (oh gosh, do I dare mention the name).

Let's add to his narcassim, pettiness and conduct unbecoming of POTUS.

Oh there is more to the Trump tweet. I was going to link it but couldn't find it. So maybe he deleted it. Anyways full tweet in link or you can find it.

[Nellise]

Of course they are:

Trump administration proposes Social Security rule changes that could cut off thousands of disabled recipients

[Fahrenheit]

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1...592993282?s=19

The reason we have this Mega-thread.

Wait. Wasn't not even a week ago the Trumpkins were upset bringing up Barron Trump (oh gosh, do I dare mention the name).

Let's add to his narcassim, pettiness and conduct unbecoming of POTUS.

Oh there is more to the Trump tweet. I was going to link it but couldn't find it. So maybe he deleted it. Anyways full tweet in link or you can find it.

Imagine someone telling you back in 2014 that the next POTUS after Obama will have regular and very public Twitter beef with a teenage European girl over the weather. Fucking wild...

[zorkuus]

“So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem"

He's projecting again. The most sensitive person on the planet award goes to...

[Breccia]

So Trump must have been watching CNN again because his unmatched wisdom and best memory caught that, during the Horowitz hearing, CNN went to commercial during Graham's statement.

"Oh, CNN didn't cover evidence?"

No, Graham was just giving his opinion.

"Okay, but CNN is required to show everything that happens on the floor!"

No, that's C-SPAN.

"...you're going to throw in a link to FOX News not covering something, aren't you?"

FOX News canceling Comey's interview, yes.

Trump calling FOX News useless and...I mean, CNN completely fake and corrupt is nothing new, despite no actual evidence of corruption because Trump doesn't know what that word actually means. The RNC is getting into it, this time. I do wonder, however, when Turmp and the RNC say "Don't watch CNN!" how many people are going to say "Shit, you're right! We have been watching CNN all this time, but their refusal to cover someone spouting their opinion without evidence is the last straw! I'm going to watch anything else! *click* ah, that's better, some guy named Breccia is rating shower doors by their waterproofing."

EDIT: Never hit "submit" without hitting "refresh".

Chris Wallace: Trump waged "most direct sustained assault" on press in U.S. history

Fox News host Chris Wallace delivered a vehement critique of President Trump on Wednesday, accusing him of engaging in the most "direct sustained assault" on the free press in U.S. history, The Guardian reports.

Wallace's comments come amid a schism between Fox News' daytime anchors, who have largely stuck to straight news reporting, and primetime opinion hosts, who tend to fervently defend the president.

“He has done everything he can to undercut the media, to try and delegitimize us, and I think his purpose is clear: to raise doubts when we report critically about him and his administration that we can be trusted," Wallace said in a speech at the Newseum in Washington, D.C.

"Back in 2017, he tweeted something that said far more about him than it did about us: 'The fake news media is not my enemy. It is the enemy of the American people.'”

[Benggaul]

Regardless of your opinion of Greta, if you are behind Trump repeatedly attacking a 16 year old girl on Twitter because she's on a magazine cover and he isn't then you are as much a piece of shit as he is. You can disagree with her views or claim she is just some liberal figurehead all you want, but if you're cheering on the "leader" of a nation while he Tweets vitriolic ad hominens out of jealousy over a teen then you are genuinely a horrible person and you need to examine your life and get help.

[Cerilis]

Regardless of your opinion of Greta, if you are behind Trump repeatedly attacking a 10 year old girl on Twitter because she's on a magazine cover and he isn't then you are as much a piece of shit as he is. You can disagree with her views or claim she is just some liberal figurehead all you want, but if you're cheering on the "leader" of a nation while he Tweets vitriolic ad hominens out of jealousy over a pre-teen then you are genuinely a horrible person and you need to examine your life and get help.

isn't she actually 16?^^

not that it matters to your point though...