US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[vienna]

Two items of interest came to my attention today; one involves yet another of Trump's highly questionable and appalling lack of proper and/or sane judgement, bordering on willful neglect, in the appointment of the minions who work for him in the US Government and how astoundingly unqualified, duplicitous, and, basically, idiotic they are; this article, published 12 Nov 2019, gives the story of Mina Chang, the deputy assistant secretary in the State Department's Bureau of Conflict and Stability Operations, who seems to be not very far off the 'Trump Standard of Honesty And Integrity' when it come to stretching the truth to its breaking point:


Senior Trump official embellished résumé, had face on fake Time cover --

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...cover-n1080356

A senior Trump administration official has embellished her résumé with misleading claims about her professional background — even creating a fake Time magazine cover with her face on it — raising questions about her qualifications to hold a top position at the State Department.

An NBC News investigation found that Mina Chang, the deputy assistant secretary in the State Department's Bureau of Conflict and Stability Operations, has inflated her educational achievements and exaggerated the scope of her nonprofit's work.

Whatever her qualifications, Chang had a key connection in the Trump administration. Brian Bulatao, a top figure in the State Department and longtime friend of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, attended a fundraiser for her nonprofit in Dallas and once donated $5,500 to her charity, according to a former colleague of Chang's.

Chang, who assumed her post in April, also invented a role on a U.N. panel, claimed she had addressed both the Democratic and Republican national conventions, and implied she had testified before Congress.

She was being considered for an even bigger government job, one with a budget of more than $1 billion, until Congress started asking questions about her résumé.

The gap between Chang's actual qualifications and her claims appears to be the latest example of lax vetting by the Trump administration, which has become known for its many job vacancies and appointments made without thorough screening.

This level of malfeasance and neglect of duties and obligations by Trump and his minions is why his administration is the sad, pathetic wreck it is; this is more than mere mismanagement, it is almost literally no management at all, an administration that fails at administering...




I wonder where Ms. Chang got here idea of using a fake Time Magazine cover to embellish her status? May be it was inspired by this situation...


Time Asks Donald Trump's Golf Clubs to Remove Phony Magazine Cover --

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...gazine-n777546


I guess its a case of if you're gonna steal, steal from the worst...





The second item, and arguably the worst of the two, is described in this film clip from Seth Meyers' program, also 12 Nov 2019, about the level of incompetence of the candidates Trump has nominated to Federal Judge positions, which are lifetime appointments; if it weren't for the fact the scenes in the clip are from actual Senate confirmation hearings, a casual observer would be inclined to think they were from a bad comedy skit; truth is stranger than fiction and, in this case, the truth is our Federal Court system is being crippled when such losers as these are even, in the wildest of imaginations, deemed to be acceptable candidates to hold highly responsible, lifetime judicial positions; only a complete and total idiotic fool would seriously think these are good choices...





I don't care about the party or political stance of any President who is doing the nominations to lifelong Federal Court appointments since that should not be a litmus test factor superseding the basic competency, ethics, integrity, and experiential background qualifications of a candidate. According to the ABA records, in the past thirty (30) years since 1989, twenty-one (21) nominees to the Federal Courts have received ABA ratings of "Not Qualified"; of these 21, nine (9) were nominated by Trump, a rate of 43% of the "Not Qualified" nominees in that 30 year period; Clinton had four (4) total nominees rejected by the ABA, and GW Bush had eight (8) nominees rejected, but it should be well noted both Clinton and Bush each had those many respective rejections over a period of two terms spanning eight (8) years, while Trump racked up his total in two and three-quarter years. The ABA also lists the degree of the overall ABA's reviewers' dissatisfaction with proffered nominees with the levels being: "Majority not qualified", "Substantial majority not qualified", and "Unanimously not qualified"; Clinton had none of his four listed nominees given the "Unanimously not qualified" rating, Bush had three of his eight listed nominees given the "Unanimously not qualified" rating, and Trump has had three of his nine listed nominees given the "Unanimously not qualified" rating over his two and three-quarter years; this is not a bell-ring endorsement of his past critical judgement, nor of hi present or possible future judgement...


ABA ratings during the Trump administration --

https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_...administration


It looks like Trump actually likes The Swamp... as long as its stocked with his gators...



Like I said, I don't care about which party or which part of the political spectrum is doing it when it is obvious bad is bad...

...and Trump is a very, very bad president doing a very, very bad job...







<O>

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

It may be what some 'fervid pro-Trump defenders' are saying but it is not what I am saying. If and it is still an if, Eric Ciaramella is the whistleblower his history is not a secret nor are his friends and associates.



https://heavy.com/news/2019/10/eric-ciaramella/

Alexandra Chalupa is one of the more interesting 'friends' that Ciaramella has.



https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/11/i...ine-reporting/



What's that old saying ... “A man is known by the company he keeps”

Still, regardless of all the Trump minions and Trumpettes blatherings, the substance and specifics of the complaint have, as much has been made public, been borne out by the testimony in the depositions, the statements of minions like Giuliani, among others, the White Hose Transcript/Memo, and various other revelations. Whoever the WB may be, at this point, it is almost irrelevant to the process as it goes forward; there is too much corroboration to make anything the WB could add or say to really make a difference, one way or another; the WB, at this point, could neither further the defense of Trump, nor the efforts to impeach him. Whatever the background or associations of the WB, the facts are the facts, the testimony of those so far deposed, and who will soon testify in public hearings, has not only substantiated the main claims of the complaint, and who or what the WB is will not change any of that; I still fully expect the WB will, eventually, be called to testify, but, really, what could their testimony do to alter what is already known, or may be revealed, in the coming hearings?...


In the end, whatever action will be taken will have t be based on the facts, testimony, and evidence gathered, presented, and vetted by the House Committees, hearings into what Trump and/or his minions did or did not do; the WB is not the one accused of violation of the Constitution and the law and the WB is not the one who will face possible legal ramifications from the Trump & minions' actions. The persons accused are Trump and his administration and only the evidence or testimony relevant to the Trump & minions is what will matter; and there is ample evidence even without the WB, including the big fat present Trump gave the DEMs with that Zelensky transcript. And the loud cries, wails, moans and bitching by Trump, the minions, and Trumpettes about 'second and third hand' information and 'hearsay' have all but been totally dissolved by the depositions thus far by first hand witnesses backing up the WB's complaint(s); the case has gone past the speculative to the factual...


Besides, no matter what the background of the WB, what, legally could be done to s/he? Charge them with perjury or lying to federal agents? That won't fly because proof of corroboration kills those charges. Sue for defamation? Again, moot since pretty much none of the WB's complaint has been proven false. Really I can't think of a credible, reasonable charge or suit to be levied; maybe someone else can...

It should be kept in mind the charges and allegations against the Trump White House go well beyond just the Zelensky phone call and the claims of extortion and abuse of power. There are also the questions of violations and/or compromising of National Security, coverup of possible criminal acts, witness tampering, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and probably several other legal woes for Trump...


One event going on now may have other grave implications for Trump going forward: the trial of Roger Stone. In what has been rather surprising testimony thus far, one of Trump's own people served up Stone on a platter and, in the process linked Trump and his campaign to Stone's misdeeds, all but saying Trump was more personally involved than Trump has publicly stated. In addition, Stone's own former right-hand man, Rick Gates, has furthered the evidence of a direct connection to Trump and Trump's knowledge of and complicity in Stone's activities. The biggest problem for Trump may be his written responses to the written questions posed by Mueller during Mueller's investigations, which are being contradicted, under oath, by the accounts of Bannon and Gates. If it is proven Trump lied (and, I know, Trump lying is hardly possible ) in his responses, he is open to charges of lying to a Federal Agent, at best, or direct perjury, at worst, either of which is, actually, a Federal felony and an impeachable offense...


Trump 2016 details hidden in Mueller report revealed in Roger Stone trial --

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/12/polit...tes-testimony/


And what has come out is only the result of two witnesses' testimonies. There is more trial to come and, if it amplifies on what has come so far, future charges of campaign law violations and obstruction og justice may loom on Trump's horizon...


My medication has finally begun to kick in and I need to ride it out; I guess I'll have to settle for watching the first day's hearings later on YT...






<O>

[Mr Quatro]

Now being beamed live on all major channels on my TV ...

I'm going to go defrost my freezer

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...uct/ar-BBWEQMz

The House will begin the public phase of its impeachment inquiry Wednesday with Democrats and Republicans prepared to offer competing narratives of whether President Trump inappropriately pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rivals, during televised hearings that could determine the fate of his presidency.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

Whoever the WB may be, at this point, it is almost irrelevant to the process as it goes forward

Well it may be irrelevant to the phone call but as we are about to find out in the FISA case there is always an underlying story. It seems like most of the lefty MSM and people like yourself have an utter lack of curiosity about certain things. If the narrative is not 'orange man bad' then it is not worth examining. It is possible you know that wrong doing can occur on both sides. That is the kind of thing I am interested in. I've been following US politics most of my adult life and I think we are the same age. It is never white hat/black hat. Never. The abuse of power takes place on both sides and we are about to see that exposed. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is expected to release his report around Thanksgiving. U.S. Attorney John Durham's administrative review has shifted to a criminal inquiry. Bad news for some people.

This brings us back to Eric Ciaramella. Nothing happens in a vacuum. If the same characters that were involved in the Russia Collusion scam are now popping up in relation to Mr. Ciaramella my instinct is to sit up and take notice. And if the same type of bias exists we should ask who and why. And that is why this guy needs to be put under oath and questioned. It has nothing to do with Trump's guilt or innocence. It is about the process.

[Mr Quatro]

The motives of the President are being examined then so should the motives of the WB be examined

[mapuc]

Am I wrong when I say

I presume most of you Americans will be away from Subsim the next couple of days or weeks-´cause this hearing is a must-see.

Markus

[Aktungbby]

/\ Nah; so far all the Democrat parlimentary harrassment leads to boring smoke and 'quid pro quo' does not add up to the necessary 'high crime and misdemeanor'. Like previous impeachees, Andrew Johnson and Clinton, the motion will fail to carry...Moreover, cooler heads will prevail; does anyone really want VP Pence to take over!!?? I'm stickin' with!

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

/\ Nah; so far all the Democrat parlimentary harrassment leads to boring smoke and 'quid pro quo' does not add up to the necessary 'high crime and misdemeanor'. Like previous impeachees, Andrew Johnson and Clinton, the motion will fail to carry...Moreover, cooler heads will prevail; does anyone really want VP Pence to take over!!?? I'm stickin' with!

I agree with Aktungbby

Plus qualifies for quote of the year:

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

does not add up to the necessary 'high crime and misdemeanor'. Like previous impeachees, Andrew Johnson and Clinton, the motion will fail to carry...

We have better things to do my leaves are pilling up

But what I have watched is very sobering of the Presidents personality behind the scenes ...

I honestly don't think that he thinks that he has done anything wrong.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

I agree with Aktungbby

Plus qualifies for quote of the year:
I honestly don't think that he thinks that he has done anything wrong.

YOUR CHEQUE IS IN THE MAIL BBY! PLUS YOUR COMMENT IS STRANGELY CORRECT; ONE OF THE 'ELEMENTS OF A CRIME IS INTENT' WITH THE SECONDARY 'ABILITY TO COMMIT THE CRIME'. IN ORDER TO CONVICT, YA GOTTA HAVE BOTH ELEMENTS. HE CERTAINLY LACKS ABILITY AND HIS Y-CHROMOSOME MEGALOMANIAC EGO IS SO HIGH HE'S INCAPABLE OF INTENT....

 

ALL OF WHICH MAKES HIM THE PERFECT COUNTERWEIGHT TO FATBOY IN N. KOREA... AND HIS FINGER IS ON THE BIGGER BUTTON

[Catfish]

"I was drunk when i drove, i did not see the pedestrian."

There is a german saying, which is relevant for court decisions:
"Unwissenheit schützt vor Strafe nicht."
~ Innocence does not protect from punishment when you commit a crime.

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

"I was drunk when i drove, i did not see the pedestrian."

There is a german saying, which is relevant for court decisions:
"Unwissenheit schützt vor Strafe nicht."
~ Innocence does not protect from punishment.

Your example of drunk driving is hardly "innocence". There must be something lost in translation. "Intent" perhaps?

[Catfish]

^ Yes, it is more like e.g. "i never knew i had to pay VAT", hard to believe the person saying this did not do it intentionally.

[skidman]

Ignorantia juris non excusat is a legal principle based on Roman law. While it is a general rule in many European countries, in the US there are some restrictions: A person cannot be convicted of violating it if there was no probability he could have known the law existed (Lambert v. California, 1957), however this exception does not apply when a reasonable person would expect their actions to be regulated (United States v. Freed, 1971).

So, can Trump be considered as a reasonable person? In other words: Is he possibly too stupid to be held responsible?

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

^ Yes, it is more like e.g. "i never knew i had to pay VAT", hard to believe the person saying this did not do it intentionally.

Ah, I think I know of a similar phrase:


"Ignorance of the law is no excuse"

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by skidman

So, can Trump be considered as a reasonable person? In other words: Is he possibly too stupid to be held responsible?

This phrase made me remember all those cases who have been on the news and where the defense tried to convince the court that his/her client was insane at the time of the crime.

To your information I do not accuse Trump being insane because I do not have any education in psychology.

Markus