US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Dowly

What comment is that? The one you are responding to is post #2805, in which Bilge_rat quotes Nippelspanner's post #2802, neither of which has been deleted by your request.

Do try to pay attention, Jimbuna.

Originally Posted by Dowly

I don't recall asking you about what comment he meant. Do correct me, if I am wrong.

Well, FYI, I was referring to the post #2765 and the comment " stop acting like a child" but I obviously forgot you're not able to read deletions.

Do try to pay proper attention, Dowly and furthermore do make a proper attempt to stop sniping me at every given opportunity.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Well, FYI, I was referring to the post #2765 and the comment " stop acting like a child" but I obviously forgot you're not able to read deletions.

Then why didn't you refer to that post? Instead you quoted Bilge_rat who quoted Nippelspanner? See where the confusion might be?

Do try to pay proper attention, Dowly

See, I did. That's why I asked what quoted comment you meant, as your quotation made no sense.

and furthermore do make a proper attempt to stop sniping me at every given opportunity.

Nah.

Originally Posted by GT182

Here's one thing to ponder. And I'm not naming names. I know you can figure that out.

How could you vote for and elect someone that would not and did not protect one of our Ambassadors in a foreign nation and the US personnel that were there to protect him and his staff, when US troops were able told to stand down? And then said person denies responsibility and the POTUS stands behind said person.

If you agree with , and vote for that said person then you are a bigger fool than that said person is.

Here's another thing to ponder.

With the sounds of gunfire in the distance and occasional tracer bullets flying overhead, the security team was eager to get going. Yet the officer in charge — the chief of base — was telling them to wait because the calls to the militias were not being answered. He and his deputy, who are unnamed, said they didn't want the team mistakenly getting into a firefight with friendly militia forces. Although sending the security squad and all the heavy weaponry from the annex to the mission would leave the annex defenseless, according to the report, the top officials at the annex gave them the green light, according to the testimony.
At 10:05 p.m., 23 minutes after the frantic call from the mission, the annex team was rolling.
Kris Paronto, a former Army ranger, is one of the men who rushed to the compound from the CIA annex to help bring people back. "Thirty minutes we were told to wait," he told Hannity June 28. "Twice the word 'wait' was used. Once the words 'stand down' was used. But to me that's semantics."
Not exactly. The dictionary definition of a stand-down order means your force is no longer on alert or operational. The chief of the annex was adamant that he never told the security team to actually stand down — only to wait. While members of the security team reported hearing the phrase "stand down," the narrative in the GOP report offers no evidence that, contrary to Hannity's claim, the team was told it wasn't going to be sent to help.

More here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-stand-down-o/

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Here's another thing to ponder.

More here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-stand-down-o/

To use the words of Hillary Clinton, at this late date what does it matter? those 4 Americans are still dead.

Originally Posted by MaDef

To use the words of Hillary Clinton, at this late date what does it matter? those 4 Americans are still dead.

It matters because some people still act as if she herself, with glowing demonic eyes, issued the order to stand down as in "do not help" - which is simply not true as the official report proves.
Further, the republicans tend to misunderstand, conveniently, the relevance and context of said order, as the article addressed.
If your name would be Hillary Clinton, would you still say it doesn't matter?

Be a little honest here.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

It matters because some people still act as if she herself, with glowing demonic eyes, issued the order to stand down as in "do not help" - which is simply not true as the official report proves.
Further, the republicans tend to misunderstand, conveniently, the relevance and context of said order, as the article addressed.
If your name would be Hillary Clinton, would you still say it doesn't matter?

Be a little honest here.

All politics aside let me put my answer in terms everyone here who has been in a Navy can understand. Hillary Clinton was responsible for what happened in Benghazi in the same way a ship's captain is responsible for the welfare of his ship and crew.

[em2nought]

[vienna]

For the DEMs, this has been Christmas and Trump has been their Santa Claus. The careless handling and misuse of highly classified intelligence is an exceedingly serious matter and fully a reason Trump should not be in the Oval Office; to support this view, I will quote an expert even Trump's most ardent supporters can believe and respect:

“This is really, if we bring it up, this is like Watergate, only it’s worse, because here our foreign enemies were in a position to hack our most sensitive national security secrets. We can’t have someone in the Oval Office who doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘confidential.’ ”

I mean, you gotta believe Donald Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f7e9e8c98293

The latest screw-up by Trump regarding his attempts to derail any investigation into Russian interference in US political matters has really put Trump into an even tighter corner. He has been unable to refute, with evidence, his denials while the balance of probability stacks even higher against him. If only there was some way of giving reliable, certain, proof of his denials... say, wait a minute!!,... I know!!,... what if there was a tape? You know, a recording of the actual conversation between Comey and Trump; I mean Trump has broadly hinted at such a tape system and Trump should really want to clear his name, so that tape would be ideal!...

Let's see where Trump stands: he seemingly doesn't want to release the tapes, so the tapes really must not have anything to back up Trump's side of the story, so he is actually guilty of criminal obstruction of justice. On the other hand, the tapes don't exist, which means Trump has openly lied to attempt to squelch Comey from making statements or giving possible testimony and he has no means to refute Comey, in which case Trump is actually guilty of criminal obstruction of justice. Seems Trump is in a 'lose-lose' position...

So far, there are two House committees, two Senate Committees, at least one open FBI investigation, and God knows how many other yet to be revealed investigations of Trump associates and, perhaps, even Trump himself, for his apparent attempts to impede investigations. The latest involving the reported existence of a memo by Comey documenting a meeting with Trump where Trump attempted to get Comey to drop the FBI investigation into Michael Flynn is going to prove very, very troubling for Trump; Comey is/was well known to be a meticulous documenter and note taker who exceeded even the high documentation standards of the Federal government in general, and the FBI, in particular. It isn't just the one memo, if it is proven to exist, that is the really big problem, its the strong likelihood all memos and documentation attendant to Comey's dealing with Trump and Trump's White House members will be opened up to examination; if the memo by Comey regarding the one-on-one Trump meeting about the Flynn investigation is found and verified, the probability is there is contemporaneous documentation of the other interactions Comey had with Trump; this does not bode well for the Trump tenure...

The House Oversight And Government Reform Committee, chaired by GOP Representative Jason Chaffetz, has formally requested the Justice department to turn over all “memoranda, notes, summaries, and recordings referring to and relating to any communications between Comey and the President”:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...report/526947/

Here is a link to the actual text of the letter from Jaffetz to the Acting Director McCabe; please note, on page four (4) of the letter, under Definitions, the full extent of what is being requested and the highly precise enumeration of terms:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/Se...BI%20Memos.pdf

Jaffetz has made it very clear, and public, he is more than willing to issue a subpoena if the Justice Department fails to comply with the request, a subpoena carrying with it the full force of law and the threat of criminal action if there is further non-compliance...

Jaffetz is also Trump's worst nightmare: Jaffetz has already announced he will not stand for re-election to Congress in 2018, so he is, in essence, a 'lame duck' and, as such, is pretty much immune to party pressure or pressure from the White House; Jaffetz has got nothing to lose and, it might be assumed, he would not want to exit his Congressional career as being part of a partisan cover-up; being pretty much answerable to no one has a very liberating effect...



<O>

[eddie]

Originally Posted by MaDef

All politics aside let me put my answer in terms everyone here who has been in a Navy can understand. Hillary Clinton was responsible for what happened in Benghazi in the same way a ship's captain is responsible for the welfare of his ship and crew.

So was Reagan when he got 200 Marines killed in Lebanon, but that doesn't mean as much as 4 Americans getting killed in Libya.

[vienna]

Just came across this this morning; it supplements the other links posted in my last post and further details just how serious Comey's memos could be:

...

Former top Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller pretty much called it on all of this about a week ago:

One thing I learned at DOJ about Comey: he leaves a protective paper trail whenever he deems something inappropriate happened. Stay tuned. https://t.co/sENlYyhL5B
— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) May 12, 2017

...


The reason we've learned about the Flynn memo appears to be because Comey shared it with others who are providing its details to the news media now. Perhaps other memos weren't shared with others, or not with people who would leak their details to the press. And if those other memos do come to light and show similar exchanges with Trump, that's going to be very difficult for the White House to combat in the court of public opinion.

That's because the notes will have been written before Trump fired Comey, and before Comey had an ax to grind. At that point, the White House would basically have to argue that Comey created a fictitious paper trail without a clear motivation.

There are a lot of ifs and assumptions in the above. We don't know how extensive Comey's notes are, how many of these situations there may have been with Trump or what will come to light. But the prospect of those memos seeing the light of day has to be frightening for a White House that is already taking on water.

And for a president who issued a pretty outlandish threat last week, it's a remarkable turn of events.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.4264e6429683


The GOP had better hope the Trump administration, via AG Jeff Session's DOJ doesn't get 'shredder happy' or try to make the memos get 'lost'; that would be very stupid and dumb move, but we all know Trump and his cohorts don't do stupid and dumb things...




<O>

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by eddie

So was Reagan when he got 200 Marines killed in Lebanon, but that doesn't mean as much as 4 Americans getting killed in Libya.

Seeing as how the circumstances and the lead-up to both those incidents are completely different, what's your point in bringing it up? And as I asked before, in the context of this discussion what does it matter? There's no way of putting those particular genie's back in their respective bottles.

Originally Posted by MaDef

Seeing as how the circumstances and the lead-up to both those incidents are completely different, what's your point in bringing it up?

I think, but I'm not sure, that this is the point:

Originally Posted by MaDef

All politics aside let me put my answer in terms everyone here who has been in a Navy can understand. Hillary Clinton was responsible for what happened in Benghazi in the same way a ship's captain is responsible for the welfare of his ship and crew.

[August]

Interesting article on the Comey firing and the lefts latest false allegations:

By Gregg Jarrett Published May 16, 2017 Fox News



Three months ago, the then-FBI Director met with President Trump. Following their private conversation, Comey did what he always does –he wrote a memorandum to himself memorializing the conversation. Good lawyers do that routinely.
Now, only after Comey was fired, the memo magically surfaces in an inflammatory New York Times report which alleges that Mr. Trump asked Comey to end the Michael Flynn investigation.
Those who don’t know the first thing about the law immediately began hurling words like “obstruction of justice”, “high crimes and misdemeanors” and “impeachment“. Typically, these people don’t know what they don’t know.
Here is what we do know.
Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law.
So, if Comey believed Trump attempted to obstruct justice, did he comply with the law by reporting it to the DOJ? If not, it calls into question whether the events occurred as the Times reported it.
Obstruction requires what’s called “specific intent” to interfere with a criminal case. If Comey concluded, however, that Trump’s language was vague, ambiguous or elliptical, then he has no duty under the law to report it because it does not rise to the level of specific intent. Thus, no crime.
There is no evidence Comey ever alerted officials at the Justice Department, as he is duty-bound to do. Surely if he had, that incriminating information would have made its way to the public either by an indictment or, more likely, an investigation that could hardly be kept confidential in the intervening months.
Comey’s memo is being treated as a “smoking gun” only because the media and Democrats, likely prompted by Comey himself, are now peddling it that way.
Comey will soon testify before Congress about this and other matters. His memo will likely be produced pursuant to a subpoena. The words and the context will matter.
But by writing a memo, Comey has put himself in a box. If he now accuses the President of obstruction, he places himself in legal jeopardy for failing to promptly and properly report it. If he says it was merely an uncomfortable conversation, he clears the president of wrongdoing and sullies his own image as a guy who attempted to smear the man who fired him.
Either way, James Comey comes out a loser. No matter. The media will hail him a hero.
After all, he gave them a good story that was better than the truth.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...ut-powder.html

[August]

Yet another article on the perils to our nation being created by the media:

The 25th Amendment is not, however, a way for elites to get rid of a president they despise without having to persuade the millions of people who voted for him that he is indeed unfit for office. Douthat is indulging a dangerous fantasy here. It might feel good to write a column calling for the president’s removal. It might give pundits a rush of blood to the head. But this is not a parlor game.
The country is deeply divided. People have taken to attacking each other in the streets and threatening congressmen when they venture outside Washington. We’re still recovering from a presidential election that actually ended marriages and tore families apart. Trump’s election was, more than anything else, a giant middle finger to the political establishment, which has lost the confidence of the American people.
If now seems like the right time for that establishment to launch an unconstitutional coup to remove the president through a specious application of the 25th Amendment, then I respectfully submit that you’re underestimating the precariousness of national life at this moment.


None of this is a defense of Trump. Perhaps it will turn out that he really is unfit for office. He certainly seems to be woefully deficient in the qualities necessary for a successful presidency, like prudence, patience, and a general seriousness and curiosity about the world. Of course, the torrent of news this week should worry every American.


But we should be equally worried about the illegal leaks that have fueled the news this week. Understand what these leaks mean: an unelected fourth branch of the government, the administrative state, is trying desperately to undermine the duly elected leader of the executive branch. The press is on the side of the administrative state, and would like nothing more than to be rid of this troublesome president, whom nobody important voted for anyway.


The argument for removing Trump at this juncture amounts to an elitist desire to nullify the votes of some 63 million Americans. Some, like Douthat, are no doubt motivated by a paternalistic urge to redirect the misguided frustrations of their benighted countrymen. Douthat took to Twitter Wednesday morning to bolster his case, saying that removing Trump “harnesses a central use of an elite—their ability to respond swiftly to a situation the public as a whole can’t reckon with.” He seems unaware that the public has already rendered judgement on the elite, and no longer wants their swift response. (Note that this was the exact same justification for the bank bailout, which incensed most Americans.)

http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/17/...-trump-office/

[Platapus]

Barring any health issue, the 25th amendment can't be used to remove Trump from office. The provisions of the 25th amendment do not replace the impeachment process.

Being a buffoon does not qualify as being "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,..." as stated in the 25th amendment. Being a buffoon is also not an impeachable offense.

If congress wishes to remove Trump from office, they will have to go through the impeachment process

Just like with the calls to impeach Bush and Obama, there has to be a federal law being broken.

There are no federal laws prohibiting egotistical, unprepared, inexperienced, buffoons from being president... even if they do dumb stuff.