192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
glitterbag
 
  4  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 01:14 am
@snood,
snood wrote:

β€œSoaking in a warm bath of right wing spin”...
So evocative...πŸ˜„


simple, yet elegant, 'evocative' !!! I doff my bonnetπŸ‘’
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 04:39 am
Quote:
US authorities have arrested an alleged member of a militia that has been stopping migrants trying to cross the US-Mexico border.

Larry Mitchell Hopkins, 69, was detained in New Mexico as a felon in possession of a weapon.

It comes just days after a video emerged of militia members detaining dozens of migrants in the desert.

The group, United Constitutional Patriots, has been condemned by civil rights groups and local officials.

"This is a dangerous felon who should not have weapons around children and families," said New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas.

"Today's arrest by the FBI indicates clearly that the rule of law should be in the hands of trained law enforcement officials, not armed vigilantes."

While his statement said Mr Hopkins had been arrested as a felon, it did not specify what the underlying conviction had been.

The alleged militia member is expected to appear in court on Monday.

United Constitutional Patriots, a small volunteer group, argues it is helping US Border Patrol to deal with a surge in migrants crossing America's southern border. It is one of several militias operating in the region.

As details of this week's latest video emerged, New Mexico governor Michelle Lujan Grisham said on Twitter that "menacing or threatening migrant families and asylum seekers is absolutely unacceptable and must cease".

US Customs and Border Protection have previously said they are opposed to civilians patrolling the border in search of illegal crossers.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48000774
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 06:44 am
Quote:
In expressing his condolences to those impacted by the Sri Lanka blasts, President Donald Trump initially claimed incorrectly that millions had died in the South Asia country on Easter Sunday.

(...)

Trump offered support for the blasts in the early morning tweet. "Heartfelt condolences from the people of the United States to the people of Sri Lanka on the horrible terrorist attacks on churches and hotels that have killed at least 138 million people and badly injured 600 more. We stand ready to help," the president said.

The president deleted the original tweet and added a corrected version with the nearly 140 people dead figure in the blasts.

usatoday
coluber2001
 
  4  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 06:58 am
Tom Perez: No one – not even President Trump – is above the law following Mueller report revelations

By Tom Perez | Fox News

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tom-perez-mueller-report-is-no-victory-for-trump-dont-believe-what-president-says
oralloy
 
  -3  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 07:06 am
@coluber2001,
Proof of Trump's supposed misdeeds is somewhat lacking.

But if a $25,000 fine and brief law license suspension was an appropriate penalty for Bill Clinton, it will be an appropriate penalty for Trump as well, should it ever be proven that he committed such crimes.
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 07:21 am
@oralloy,
I just absolutely love the fact you did not know Clinton plea bargained his way out of prosecution on his last day in office. Since you've learned that tidbit, you have proceeded to run with it on the grounds that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

I know, I know, lying IS lying. I'm glad your morals and ethics have the cross-hairs on your back standing up. But equating the national security risk of colluding with a foreign entity versus not wanting to admit an affair are not in the same league. At all.

Smh
revelette1
 
  2  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 07:32 am
@neptuneblue,
Trump's corruption is becoming hard to deny after reading the redacted Mueller report. I mean if someone on Fox News said so, it is pretty safe to assume more republicans (not those in congress) will finally come to accept it. Moreover, it ain't over as all the redacted parts of the report which were marked "ongoing matter" made clear.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  3  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 07:35 am
For all those who celebrate, Happy Easter.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 07:36 am
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:
Since you've learned that tidbit, you have proceeded to run with it

I'm a huge fan of facts.


neptuneblue wrote:
on the grounds that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

That was already my position. I just accepted the facts that you provided into my narrative.

I still consider this to be letting Bill Clinton off the hook, by the way. The penalty was trivial.


neptuneblue wrote:
equating the national security risk of colluding with a foreign entity versus not wanting to admit an affair are not in the same league. At all.

That's hardly a fair characterization.

If Trump had actually committed obstruction, it would have had nothing whatsoever to do with collusion, but would have been solely because he was annoyed at the suggestion that he didn't win the election fairly.

Bill Clinton's multiple counts of obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct were an attempt to avoid answering for his sexual predation.

Further, the idea that the severity of the crime depends on what is being covered up is morally untenable. If Bill Clinton had murdered someone in order to cover up an affair, would you say that the crime was no big deal because he was only covering up an affair?
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 07:47 am
@oralloy,
Oh.

Now we're playing the "What If" game...

Great...

The thing is, Clinton didn't murder anybody. You know those backward Arkansan males really don't differentiate between sheep, goats or women, so, there's that.

What if Putin told Trump he could have his tower in Moscow as long as he transferred ALL of his liquid assets into a Russian bank and Putin will dole out a stipend every 90 days or so? As long as Russian interests were...taken care of...
revelette1
 
  3  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 07:57 am
Quote:
Fact check: Trump team's distortions on Mueller report

WASHINGTON β€” Special counsel Robert Mueller all but boldfaced this finding in his report on the Russia investigation: No exoneration for President Donald Trump on whether Trump criminally obstructed justice.

But Trump and his aides are stating that Mueller's report did exonerate. No words from the report will throw them off their mischaracterization of it.

A look at claims by Trump and his people on a variety of subjects from the week that produced the Mueller report, which cleared Trump of criminal conspiracy with Russia, traced multiple ways he tried to interfere in the Russia inquiry to his benefit and came to no conclusion on whether those acts broke the law.

RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

TRUMP: "The end result of the greatest Witch Hunt in U.S. political history is No Collusion with Russia (and No Obstruction). Pretty Amazing! β€” tweet Saturday.

VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: "Today's release of the Special Counsel's report confirms what the President and I have said since day one: there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and there was no obstruction of justice." β€” statement Thursday.

KELLYANNE CONWAY, White House counselor: "What matters is what the Department of Justice and special counsel concluded here, which is no collusion, no obstruction, and complete exoneration, as the president says." β€” remarks Thursday to reporters.

THE FACTS: The special counsel's 400-plus-page report specifically does not exonerate Trump, leaving open the question of whether the president obstructed justice.

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state," Mueller wrote. "Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

The report identifies 10 instances of possible obstruction by Trump and said he might have "had a motive" to impede the investigation because of what it could find on a variety of personal matters, such as his proposal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

"The evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns," the report states.

In explaining its decision, Mueller's team said reaching a conclusion on whether Trump committed crimes would be inappropriate because of a Justice Department legal opinion indicating that a sitting president should not be prosecuted. It nevertheless left open at least the theoretical possibility that Trump could be charged after he leaves office, noting that its factual investigation was conducted "in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary material were available."

"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," the report states.

SARAH SANDERS, White House press secretary, on her statements from 2017 that many people in the FBI wanted James Comey, the director, fired: "The sentiment is 100% accurate." β€” "CBS This Morning," Friday.

THE FACTS: Her answer on this subject was far different when she gave it under oath.

After Trump fired Comey, she told reporters on May 10, 2017, that "the rank and file of the FBI had lost confidence in their director" and "accordingly" the president removed him. When a reporter said most FBI agents supported Comey, Sanders said, "Look, we've heard from countless members of the FBI that say very different things.

But when Mueller's team interviewed her under oath, she backed off that story. According to the Mueller report, she said it was a "slip of the tongue" to say that countless FBI people wanted Comey out, that her statement about the rank and file losing confidence in him was offered "in the heat of the moment" and that, in the report's words, it "was not founded on anything."

Now she's back to suggesting that Comey was in fact unpopular in the FBI. "I said that it was in the heat of the moment, meaning it wasn't a scripted thing," she said Friday. "But the big takeaway here is that the sentiment is 100% accurate."

The Mueller report says there is "no evidence" that Trump heard complaints about Comey's leadership from FBI employees before firing him.

Mueller evaluated nearly a dozen episodes for possible obstruction of justice and said he could not conclusively determine that Trump had committed criminal obstruction. Among those episodes was his manner of firing Comey. Mueller found "substantial evidence" corroborating Comey's account of a dinner at which he said Trump pressed him for his loyalty.

Although Sanders attributed her remark about Comey's unpopularity to "heat of the moment," Trump has voiced the same sentiment. As recently as January, he tweeted: "The rank and file of the FBI are great people who are disgusted with what they are learning about Lyin' James Comey and the so-called 'leaders' of the FBI."

ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR, asked if Mueller intended for Congress, not the attorney general, to decide whether Trump obstructed justice: "Well, special counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress. I hope that was not his view. ... I didn't talk to him directly about the fact that we were making the decision, but I am told that his reaction to that was that it was my prerogative as attorney general to make that decision."

THE FACTS: Mueller's report actually does indicate that Congress could make that determination.

The report states that no person is above the law, including the president, and that the Constitution "does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice."

In his four-page memo last month, Barr said while Mueller left open the question of whether Trump broke the law and obstructed the investigation, Barr was ultimately deciding as attorney general that the evidence developed by Mueller was "not sufficient" to establish, for the purposes of prosecution, that Trump obstructed justice.

But the special counsel's report specifies that Congress can also render a judgment on that question.

It says: "The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law."

BARR: "These reports are not supposed to be made public." β€” remarks Thursday at the Justice Department.

THE FACTS: The attorney general is not going out on a limb for public disclosure.

Justice Department regulations give Barr wide authority to release a special counsel's report in situations it "would be in the public interest." Barr had made clear during his Senate confirmation hearing in January that he believed in transparency with the report on Mueller's investigation into Russian election interference during the 2016 campaign, "consistent with regulations and the law."

BARR, saying it was "consistent with long-standing practice" for him to share a copy of the redacted report with the White House and president's attorneys before its release: "Earlier this week, the president's personal counsel requested and were given the opportunity to read a final version of the redacted report before it was publicly released. That request was consistent with the practice followed under the Ethics in Government Act, which permitted individuals named in a report prepared by an independent counsel the opportunity to read the report before publication." β€” remarks Thursday.

THE FACTS: Barr's decision, citing the Ethics in Government Act, is inconsistent with independent counsel Ken Starr's handling of his report into whether President Bill Clinton obstructed and lied in Starr's probe.

On Sept. 7, 1998, Clinton's attorney David Kendall requested that Starr provide him an opportunity to review the report before it was sent to Congress. Starr quickly turned him down.

"As a matter of legal interpretation, I respectfully disagree with your analysis," Starr wrote to Kendall two days later. Starr called Kendall "mistaken" regarding the rights of the president's attorneys to "review a 'report' before it is transmitted to Congress."

Starr's report was governed by the ethics act cited by Barr as his justification for showing the report to the president's team. It has since expired. Current regulations governing Mueller's work don't specify how confidential information should be shared with the White House.

Starr's report led to the impeachment trial of Clinton in 1999.

ECONOMY

TRUMP: "We cut your taxes. Biggest tax cut in history."β€” remarks Monday in Burnsville, Minnesota.

THE FACTS: His tax cuts are nowhere close to the biggest in U.S. history.

It's a $1.5 trillion tax cut over 10 years. As a share of the total economy, a tax cut of that size ranks 12th, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. President Ronald Reagan's 1981 cut is the biggest followed by the 1945 rollback of taxes that financed World War II.

Post-Reagan tax cuts also stand among the historically significant: President George W. Bush's cuts in the early 2000s and President Barack Obama's renewal of them a decade later.

TRUMP: "I believe it will be Crazy Bernie Sanders vs. Sleepy Joe Biden as the two finalists to run against maybe the best Economy in the history of our Country." β€” tweet Tuesday.

TRUMP: "We may have the best economy we've ever had." β€” remarks in Minnesota.

THE FACTS: The economy is healthy but not one of the best in history. Also, there are signs it is weakening after a spurt of growth last year.

The economy expanded at an annual rate of 2.9 percent last year, a solid pace. But it was just the fastest in four years. In the late 1990s, growth topped 4 percent for four straight years, a level it has not yet reached under Trump. And growth even reached 7.2 percent in 1984.

Independent economists widely expect slower growth this year as the effects of the Trump administration's tax cuts fade, trade tensions and slower global growth hold back exports, and higher interest rates make it more expensive to borrow to buy cars and homes.


AP
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 07:58 am
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:
Oh.
Now we're playing the "What If" game...
Great...

Hypothetical examples are a good way to illustrate points. In this case, the point being that "what is being covered up" doesn't really impact the severity of crimes committed in the course of a cover up.


neptuneblue wrote:
The thing is, Clinton didn't murder anybody.

He did, however, commit multiple counts of obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct.
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 08:14 am
@oralloy,
I expect a hypothetical example to equate apples to apples, not rocks and the color blue.

I'm finding fault with your logic.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 08:39 am
@neptuneblue,
Is a murder committed to cover up an affair "less bad" than a murder committed to cover up treason?
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 08:44 am
@oralloy,
There was NO murder. WTF is wrong with you??

oralloy
 
  -3  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 08:50 am
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:
There was NO murder.

I know. That is what is known as a hypothetical to illustrate a point.


neptuneblue wrote:
WTF is wrong with you??

Nothing. I'm doing OK.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 08:52 am
@hightor,
Quote:
Sri Lanka blasts

Wow. I just heard about this on the news. It looks like the Tamils don't consent to be genocide victims.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka%27s_Killing_Fields

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/apr/01/sri-lanka-india-tamil-tigers
livinglava
 
  -1  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 09:13 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Quote:
Sri Lanka blasts

Wow. I just heard about this on the news. It looks like the Tamils don't consent to be genocide victims.

What could it possibly mean to "consent to be genocide victims?"

How can you consent to others being killed because they share the same ethnicity with you?

That's like saying you have the right to kill others or have them killed as long as they are "your own people."
revelette1
 
  3  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 09:35 am
@oralloy,
In matters of state, yes. In moral and legality, no. Like Nep said, no one murdered anyone. Thank goodness. Well except the Russians of whom the Trump team was so cozy and all to willing to benefit and accept help from.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Sun 21 Apr, 2019 09:39 am
This is the main news story over here. More at link.

Quote:
At least 207 people have been killed and 450 hurt in explosions at churches and hotels in Sri Lanka, police say.

Eight blasts were reported, including at three churches in Negombo, Batticaloa and Colombo's Kochchikade district during Easter services.

The Shangri-La, Kingsbury and Cinnamon Grand hotels and one other, all in the capital, were also targeted.

A national curfew has been put in place "until further notice" and social media networks have been temporarily blocked.

A foreign ministry official has said at least 27 foreign nationals are among the dead.

Reports say seven people have been arrested, but it not yet clear who is responsible for the attacks.

Sri Lanka's defence minister has said the attacks were probably carried out by one group.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48001720
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.43 seconds on 05/23/2024 at 09:44:40