Donald Trump 2020

[WhatTheBuck 28,808]

5 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Got it.  I've never been good at spotting photoshops.  But that is a young Ivanka with her hand on her dad's vibrating hog?  that part is real, right?  The incest part?  

Yeah, it's a composite of two photos. One of Trump & Ivanka and one of Epstein. There are lots of creepy photos of Trump & Ivanka over the years. 

[henrygandorf 29,197]

8 minutes ago, mdmost said:

It's his only move. Everyone knows he's not a uniter. His entire rise was built on fomenting division around Obama's legitimacy to be President. He got elected on dividing people and using white man rage over the changing of society. The upside is he'll play this move into defeat as he'll keep the rift open until November. 

until now, we've had two different types of presidents - those who try to unite the country and succeed, and those who try to unite the country and fail.  until now, every president has at least pretended to try, even if they weren't that interested or didn't need the support/votes.

trump is a new, third kind of president - those who don't try to unite the country, but instead actively try to divide the country.  this is not accidental.  he thinks it's the only way he can win, and he's probably right.  he won't win, but it's his best strategy.  he doesn't have the capacity to do it any other way.

about a week ago, stories started circulating about how the administration was divided on whether trump should make an oval office address to try to unite the country.  meadows and others thought he should.  kushner and others thought he shouldn't.  people who only read the headlines probably thought, yeah, that figures. 

but i read the actual articles and found something interesting.  kushner said he opposed the speech, not because of the messaging, but because he felt that in previous instances when trump read a prepared statement in the oval office with hopes of reassuring the country, he had failed spectacularly.  that's why he opposed it.  and he's not wrong.

[heso 2,816]

nsiap 

 

[Guest Lobo]

I think Bunker Boy is too kind.  Are we going with Bunker Bitch from now on, or?  

How about

Catacomb Cuckhold?  

Catacomb Cunt?

Catacomb Coward?

Vault Vagina? 

Vault Vulva? 

Wither Underground?  

 

 

[henrygandorf 29,197]

"too weak to lead" is good.  and accurate.

[heso 2,816]

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

until now, we've had two different types of presidents - those who try to unite the country and succeed, and those who try to unite the country and fail.  until now, every president has at least pretended to try, even if they weren't that interested or didn't need the support/votes.

trump is a new, third kind of president - those who don't try to unite the country, but instead actively try to divide the country.  this is not accidental.  he thinks it's the only way he can win, and he's probably right.  he won't win, but it's his best strategy.  he doesn't have the capacity to do it any other way.

about a week ago, stories started circulating about how the administration was divided on whether trump should make an oval office address to try to unite the country.  meadows and others thought he should.  kushner and others thought he shouldn't.  people who only read the headlines probably thought, yeah, that figures. 

but i read the actual articles and found something interesting.  kushner said he opposed the speech, not because of the messaging, but because he felt that in previous instances when trump read a prepared statement in the oval office with hopes of reassuring the country, he had failed spectacularly.  that's why he opposed it.  and he's not wrong.

His only play is to try to paint the left with the brush of illegals, criminals, abortionists, communists, etc. 

If you’re not in favor of giving the country to those groups, you have to vote for me. They’re going to take your guns, abort your babies, raise your taxes and give the money to illegal immigrants and gang members. 

If he tries to unite he loses his base. He has no choice but to try to make the left look worse than the right to pick up the white middle. It worked spectacularly in rural and suburban PA, MI, and WI. He took a group of people that weren’t  entirely comfortable with the openness and inclusiveness of the 21st century and he gave them the comfort of good old fashioned racism.

Im pretty optimistic that the suburbs are going to swing pretty hard against him this time around. 

[Guest Lobo]

Did he ever walk back his "I was down there for a very short period of time, in the bunker.....inspecting it." comments/excuse?  Even Bill Barr said he was whisked away down there when the shit got dicey in Lafayette Park the other night.  

I think Trump just said that so he could have Eric make up, "FBI:  Female Bunkher Inspector" shirts made up for their upcoming trip to some shithole in Florida.  With Ivanka's silhouette on the back.  You have to admit, it's so fitting the whole clan is moving to where they should have been from all along.  

Edited June 12, 2020 by Lobo

[henrygandorf 29,197]

8 minutes ago, heso said:

Im pretty optimistic that the suburbs are going to swing pretty hard against him this time around. 

the suburbs, women, people of color, educated, independents, and people who dislike both options.

white uneducated male is the only bloc that seems to remain in trump's corner.  olds will be close.

[Brandywine 1,317]

I hope Trump loses so badly In November that he, and his family, are embarrassed with their tails between their legs. Thing is they’ll make sure the taxpayers pay millions for their moving expenses and write offs for years to come. They’re takers and they believe they’re the only ones who deserve it because they think they’re American royalty. At least they act like it. 

[Pancho 45,072]

 

[Rabidhorn 121]

New Biden video has it's latest Trump quote

BREAKING: Donald Trump just said Lincoln ending slavery turned out “questionably.”

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

37 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

until now, we've had two different types of presidents - those who try to unite the country and succeed, and those who try to unite the country and fail.  until now, every president has at least pretended to try, even if they weren't that interested or didn't need the support/votes.

trump is a new, third kind of president - those who don't try to unite the country, but instead actively try to divide the country.  this is not accidental.  he thinks it's the only way he can win, and he's probably right.  he won't win, but it's his best strategy.  he doesn't have the capacity to do it any other way.

about a week ago, stories started circulating about how the administration was divided on whether trump should make an oval office address to try to unite the country.  meadows and others thought he should.  kushner and others thought he shouldn't.  people who only read the headlines probably thought, yeah, that figures. 

but i read the actual articles and found something interesting.  kushner said he opposed the speech, not because of the messaging, but because he felt that in previous instances when trump read a prepared statement in the oval office with hopes of reassuring the country, he had failed spectacularly.  that's why he opposed it.  and he's not wrong.

just read a dictator's handbook.  it is basically 200 pages of saying "you only need to keep happy the group necessary to keep you in power."  In dictatorships, that is a small group of military leaders and what not.  In a democracy it is harder.  However, Trump is definitely trying.  He wants to keep the people happy that give him 51% of the electoral vote.  everyone else can fuck themselves. 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

I think Bunker Boy is too kind.  Are we going with Bunker Bitch from now on, or?  
How about
Catacomb Cuckhold?  
Catacomb Cunt?
Catacomb Coward?
Vault Vagina? 
Vault Vulva? 
Wither Underground?  
 
 

Come up with fewer gendered insults challenge.

[SimonBolivar 10,961]

36 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the suburbs, women, people of color, educated, independents, and people who dislike both options.

white uneducated male is the only bloc that seems to remain in trump's corner.  olds will be close.

Interesting that he's gone from + to - with the olds since 2016. He has to win them in key states to win. 

[Native Horn 3,516]

37 minutes ago, Brandywine said:

I hope Trump loses so badly In November that he, and his family, are embarrassed with their tails between their legs. Thing is they’ll make sure the taxpayers pay millions for their moving expenses and write offs for years to come. They’re takers and they believe they’re the only ones who deserve it because they think they’re American royalty. At least they act like it. 

Millions is a small price to pay in relation to the trillions that this dumbass has cost the taxpayers.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6,559]

2 minutes ago, Native Horn said:

Millions is a small price to pay in relation to the trillions that this dumbass has cost the taxpayers.

Trillions is a small price to pay for the lives he has cost people in America.

[Horn Dogg 3,977]

20 minutes ago, Native Horn said:

Millions is a small price to pay in relation to the trillions that this dumbass has cost the taxpayers.

Fuck it, let’s just give Trump $1 billion to close his twitter account and go away for good.  At this point that would be the best investment the US could make.

[A-Tex Devil 2,463]

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

 

It's worse live.  He seems to suggest what Lincoln did may not have been good.  Jesus.

[Michael Knight 12,995]

1 minute ago, A-Tex Devil said:

It's worse live.  He seems to suggest what Lincoln did may not have been good.  Jesus.

Unintended consequences, first you free them now those blacks want equality. Whats next, a black president?

[Guest Lobo]

48 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Come up with fewer gendered insults challenge.

That's kind of the point.  To compare him to being a "pussy", et. al.  That's what stings him.  yeah, it's sexist...that's what gets him off his rocket .  You want this guy out of office, and I'm guessing you'd probably have no issue with him being dead?...you're gonna have to bait him into even more deeply troubling racist and sexist inflammatory remarks.  But you think insults directed at him that aren't gender-woke are too special for the fight ahead?  You can wage your gender wars when the adults have removed this guy from office and extracted his operators from inside the government. . Then you can play Girl Box Hero on Nintendo Wii. 

Meantime,  let the adult women wage the war that needs to be waged.  Elizabeth Warren joined our call earlier this week for "Republicans for the Rule of Law".  She knows how to corral support against a common enemy.  She has no issue with calling Trump a 'Pussy", precisely because she knows how well that will resonate with his base.  If she doesn't have a problem with it, maybe you get the fuck over yourself this week.  I'll get back to telling my 2 daughters what's appropriate and what's not appropriate to say in front of a woman when this piece of cunt-ass shit is gone from this fucking planet.  Meantime, we're gonna play dirty and over-explain shit at Sunday brunch after church because daddy got vulgar for a few minutes.  But you play your dumbass game that goes nowhere.  The grownup table will be over here when you're ready to join. 

[henrygandorf 29,197]

6 hours ago, Chooky said:

Melania Trump is a prostitute. 

we prefer the term "sex worker".

[burntorangebongos 10,752]

Get some mandol, lobo, your pms is showing. Ive been calling him bunker bitch since it happened but you went into stupid shit territory. You dont need to mansplain shit about this to us women, boy. Your joke fell flat and made Bama wince.like me. Bitch is fine and I know what Warren can do a lot better than you seeing as how I am a Warren Democrat. Seriously, that is what her newsletter calls me and I'm good with it.

Edited June 12, 2020 by burntorangebongos

[Guest Lobo]

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

we prefer the term "sex worker".

Is she Slovenian or Slovakian?  

Neither.  She's a Whore. 

[Brandywine 1,317]

I would really like to know from our Trump supporters what Trump has specifically done that is so great for the black community, outside of trying to make everyone believe he’s done so much for the black community. 

[Pig Bellmont 8,741]

1 minute ago, Brandywine said:

I would really like to know from our Trump supporters what Trump has specifically done that is so great for the black community, outside of trying to make everyone believe he’s done so much for the black community. 

Trump’s theory on this is tied to black unemployment numbers prior to the pandemic and something something Diamond & Silk

[Guest Lobo]

Just now, burntorangebongos said:

Get some mandol, lobo, you're pms is showing. Ive been calling him bunker bitch since it happened but you went into stupid shit territory. You dont need to mansplain shit about this to us women, boy. Your joke fell flat and made Bama wince.like me. Bitch is fine and I know what Warren can do a lot better than you seeing as how I am a Warren Democrat. Seriously, that is what her newsletter calls me and I'm good with it.

Your continued absolute inconsequential bitching about Trump has gotten this country nowhere.  My point was you need to pique the anger of his base.  Anyway, keep up the benign efforts.  Is Trump mean to women?  Oh noes, that obviously lost him an election already.  Were my terms too harsh for this website which is prides itself on defending moronic Trump voters are very software update?  Fine, I'll delete the post...you back to your completely ineffective efforts to turn Texas blue.  Jesus, you guys think this operation is gonna be accomplished with flyers and crying online?  It will be won our way.  I'll see you on the shore.  

[UpperWestside 6,190]

20 minutes ago, A-Tex Devil said:

It's worse live.  He seems to suggest what Lincoln did may not have been good.  Jesus.

Listening to that was just another incredible moment where he says something that would have been a moment that any other president would have been immediately called out on and it would have been news for weeks. He has done and said so much heinous and racist shit that this won't be in the news cycle for a full 24 hours.

[Pancho 45,072]

During Pride Month and on the anniversary of the Pulse Nightclub massacre

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

27 minutes ago, A-Tex Devil said:

It's worse live.  He seems to suggest what Lincoln did may not have been good.  Jesus.

It’s a dog whistle to his racist base.  

[High Plains Drifter 11,052]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s a dog whistle to his racist base.  

 

its not a dog whistle. Its plain as fucking day.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,131]

9 minutes ago, Pancho said:

During Pride Month and on the anniversary of the Pulse Nightclub massacre

 

 

It is things like this that have made it increasingly hard for me to counsel my Trump supporting family members to stay the fuck home til we have a plan of attack for COVID.  I'm still doing it, because its the right thing to do, but there are times where I wish I didn't have to do the right hting.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

4 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

its not a dog whistle. Its plain as fucking day.

Perhaps but more overt would be him blaming Lincoln for the Civil War and destroying the “true American way of life.”

[BrickHorn 18,290]

13 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Get some mandol, lobo, your pms is showing. Ive been calling him bunker bitch since it happened but you went into stupid shit territory. You dont need to mansplain shit about this to us women, boy. Your joke fell flat and made Bama wince.like me. Bitch is fine and I know what Warren can do a lot better than you seeing as how I am a Warren Democrat. Seriously, that is what her newsletter calls me and I'm good with it.

Wait. The poster with the most, uh... titillating avatar on the site is female?  Huh. 

 

[henrygandorf 29,197]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s a dog whistle to his racist base.  

it's not a dog whistle if everyone can hear it.

[Francisco 2.0 32,432]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/john-boltons-trump-white-house-book-is-due-out-soon-but-his-lawyer-just-threw-him-under-the-bus-2?via=newsletter&source=BI-end-week-digest

 

Quote

John Bolton, Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, wanted to write a book. He knew that the White House would do everything it could to stop him. He hired a flashy white-shoe law firm to handle the prepublication review process required by the nondisclosure agreement he signed when he got his security clearance. As expected, the White House weaponized the prepublication review process against him to keep him from publishing. If he published without approval, it said, he could face severe legal consequences.

Then his lawyer, Chuck Cooper, wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week intended to put public pressure on the White House. In it, Cooper volunteered that Bolton had violated both his NDA and perhaps a few criminal laws, including the Espionage Act. Now, even if Bolton’s book is never released, he is facing stiff penalties. As unforced legal errors go, that’s a doozy.

 

Quote

Here are the two sentences that could cost Bolton a big stack of money, or worse: “He instructed me, as his lawyer, to submit the manuscript to Ellen Knight, the NSC’s senior director for prepublication review of materials written by NSC personnel. I sent Ms. Knight the manuscript on Dec. 30, days after the House had impeached the president and amid speculation that the Senate would subpoena Mr. Bolton to testify.”

See, here’s the thing about prepublication review: “Publication” means giving potentially classified information to anyone the government has not approved to receive it. Bolton and his lawyer committed one of the classic blunders that a national-security lawyer would have seen coming a mile away. Simply put, someone who has signed an NDA and received a clearance has to put anything they want to write through prepublication review before they can give it to anyone. Even their lawyer. 

 

Quote

Lawyers who represent intelligence personnel drill this into clients at the very beginning. I regularly have my clients—especially the whistleblowers—write everything they want to tell me and send it to the prepublication review office before they tell me a single word of it. It’s a major hassle, and sometimes it alerts the agency that a lawyer is involved, but it keeps them from losing their clearances or their freedom. Some agencies—like the Central Intelligence Agency—will outright refuse to even discuss a prepublication review matter with anyone but the author, let alone allow the lawyer to submit the document.

 

Spoiler

The reason for this is simple. To an intelligence professional, there is little distinction between giving classified information to the general public and giving it to your priest. Once classified information is known by someone the government cannot control, it is in the wild and the assumption must be that it will be further disseminated. A security breach is a security breach. A television audience and a private lawyer are equally unauthorized to receive the information. It is why former CIA Director David Petraeus pleaded guilty to mishandling classified informationsimply because he gave it to his biographer. 

“But what if Bolton’s lawyer has a clearance?” This was one of the key questions raised when it was revealed that former FBI Director James Comey had given a copy of a memo to a lawyer who apparently held a clearance at the time. The simple answer is, it doesn’t matter. In order to be approved to see any specific piece of classified information, a person must both have the appropriate level of security clearance and the “need to know” that particular piece of information. “Need to know” is roughly described as the need to know that information to perform the duties for which you were given the clearance. It is why people on the CIA Indonesia Desk cannot go read classified briefings on Poland; they do not have the requisite “need to know.” So even if Bolton’s lawyer had a clearance to handle classified information in some other context (as some private national security lawyers do), he would only be able to handle Bolton’s manuscript if he had been specifically approved for that specificinformation. 

I chose the word “handle” here instead of “read” because it is currently unclear if Bolton’s lawyer actually read the manuscript or simply forwarded it along to the NSC unopened, but this is a distinction without a difference. The mere act of giving the manuscript to his lawyer was sufficient to violate Bolton’s NDA, regardless of whether or not his lawyer read it. Moreover, as far as criminal prohibitions go, the law does not always even require that the information be given to anyone, let alone given to anyone who read it. As one CIA contractor learned, merely taking classified information home and not sharing it is still a violation of the law. If you can be prosecuted for keeping a classified document in your garage, you can be prosecuted for giving it to your lawyer.

Which brings us to the key argument: Bolton says the manuscript contained no classified information, while the White House says it did. This might be enough to allow Bolton to defeat an Espionage Act charge, but that’s not a sure thing. Some aspects of the Espionage Act do not require active knowledge that information is classified, but instead include a lesser standard which is best summed up as “they should have known better.” And it is extremely difficult to defeat an Espionage Act charge based on the argument that “the information should not have been classified.” It has been done, but it is exceedingly rare and requires almost a perfect storm of mistakes on the government’s part. The reason is that courts almost religiously defer to the executive branch on classification matters, so a judge will almost always overrule a defendant who challenges the classification of information, primarily because the actual scope of what can be classified is much broader than most people realize. Additionally, it should not be overlooked that the Espionage Act does not actually mention “classified information,” but only “national defense information,” which does not always have to be classified. 

Even if the government elects not to pursue criminal charges against Bolton, though, he is not out of the woods yet. In fact, the violation of his NDA is not even a question of criminal law; it is a question of contract law. The most that the government can do in civil court to someone who violates an NDA is sue him for breach of contract, a power that it employs freely. After winning such a lawsuit, the government is entitled to all of the author’s proceeds from the publication, past and future. The author is no worse off than he was before the publication, but he is no better off either, and all his work will net him zero return.

Most importantly, even if Bolton was correct and his manuscript contained no classified information, that was simply not his call to make. Put simply, someone who writes a piece of information that he does not believe to be classified may not always be in a position to know for a fact whether or not it is classified. He may have a good faith belief that he is simply relating an unclassified fact, but he may not realize that by writing it he is inadvertently revealing classified information about another government project he knows nothing about. This is obviously not always—or even often—the case, but there is no practical way for any particular author to know whether it is or is not the case in his particular situation. Complicating the matter further is the fact that the agency may decide to retroactively classify information the author believed to be unclassified, as occurred with Comey and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Evidence that the government retroactively classified previously unclassified information might be enough to defeat a criminal charge, but it would not help an author in civil litigation.

Because of this, the Supreme Court has held that the government can impose an NDA which requires everyone with a security clearance to first obtain the agency’s permission through prepublication review before publishing anything related to his work. As a result, someone can be successfully sued by the government for publishing completely unclassified information, simply because they did not use the process first to ensure that it was unclassified. There have been attempts to overturn this jurisprudence in light of the arbitrary and inconsistent manner in which the government actually conducts prepublication review, but so far it remains the law of the land. The system may be broken, but it remains the system. The only current way around this is to sue the government first under the First Amendment, which Bolton has so far chosen not to do.

It remains an open question whether Bolton could be forced to turn over proceeds of the book if he doesn’t actually publish it until the prepublication review is complete, amd if his only violation of his NDA was giving the manuscript to his lawyer (and probably his publisher), but given that his lawyer has stated that he will go through with the publication regardless, this question will probably not be answered, at least not in this case.

However, Bolton should not be complacent in this matter. He may have an “in for a penny, in for a pound” mindset, especially if he reads this op-ed, but he should be fully aware of the legal jeopardy that his lawyer’s op-ed has placed him in. His lawyer should also be concerned, since the last time a lawyer advised his client not to worry about prepublication review, his client sued him for malpractice after losing all the proceeds of his hard work.

For Bolton’s sake, I hope the op-ed was worth it.

 

[Guest Lobo]

Bolton is an ineffectual cunt.  As is Anonymous with their "hacked goods on Trump"  I've listened to Bolton clamor on and on at AEI dinner after AEI dinner with no reporters, no outside parties, nothing.  Just a few drunken people in a small room.  And he's a zero-effect cunt.  He's got tons on Trump and he'll never do a fucking thing with it because he thinks he'll be important forever.  We can smell each other from across the room. Nothing's happening with these guys.  No whistleblower from Ukraine call.  Nothing.  None of it comes to fruition.  They're dangling this shit in front of America because they want you to stay home and think Biden will beat Trump based on suspicions of all this shit.  Nothing is coming out in the next six months.  Not a damn thing.  Just the shit he spews out at press conferences (and I guess that's not nothing).  They want you to drop your guard and think the election is done for already, that all these bombshells will be out shortly.  They ain't.  Don't fall for it.  Bolton fucking hates Trump, but he's rather fuck Trump in the ass than let Joe Biden win.  You gotta start putting the puzzle together ladies.  Oh, sorry...you cunts. 

[WhatTheBuck 28,808]

1 hour ago, Horn Dogg said:

Fuck it, let’s just give Trump $1 billion to close his twitter account and go away for good.  At this point that would be the best investment the US could make.

Right, he'd take the money and go away. Because he's known for keeping his word. He totally wouldn't renege on that deal. 

[Michael Knight 12,995]

42 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Trump’s theory on this is tied to black unemployment numbers prior to the pandemic and something something Diamond & Silk

Black unemployment was pretty low before the Civil War so he's gonna need more

[StassneyHorn 6,643]

23 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Wait. The poster with the most, uh... titillating avatar on the site is female?  Huh. 

 

Women love boobs. That’s why sometimes they buy more boobs. Guys like boobs too, and they aren’t mad when women decide to buy more boobs. But then it gets complicated.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

29 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

it's not a dog whistle if everyone can hear it.

We need to come up with a new term because his racist base’s interpretation of that message is different from everyone it offended.  

[tx 3 putt 77,550]

13 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

Black unemployment was pretty low before the Civil War so he's gonna need more

Diamond and Silk need to be at his upcoming rallies 

[elfenix 34,339]

On 6/11/2020 at 4:21 PM, 4th&Five said:

the campaign ads literally write themselves. 

[softlynow 1,840]

8 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

Women love boobs. That’s why sometimes they buy more boobs. Guys like boobs too, and they aren’t mad when women decide to buy more boobs. But then it gets complicated.

I represented a woman who had made such a purchase. The husband complained about the purchase. I made him explain to the jury why he didn’t like the purchase of boobs. For about an hour I talked about boobs and compelled opposing counsel and a judge, both women, to talk about boobs to 12 jurors. Bikini pics were put in evidence and published to the jury on a big tv. In the end everyone had to agree with me that the boobs were a desired addition to the community estate. The judge was amused. So, yeah, complicated sometimes, but it was resolved that boobs were things people liked, and getting more is desirable. 

[RomaVicta 30,032]

3 hours ago, Lobo said:

I think Bunker Boy is too kind.  Are we going with Bunker Bitch from now on, or?  

How about

Catacomb Cuckhold?  

Catacomb Cunt?

Catacomb Coward?

Vault Vagina? 

Vault Vulva? 

Wither Underground?  

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

 

Meantime,  let the adult women wage the war that needs to be waged.  Elizabeth Warren joined our call earlier this week for "Republicans for the Rule of Law".  She knows how to corral support against a common enemy.  She has no issue with calling Trump a 'Pussy", precisely because she knows how well that will resonate with his base.  If she doesn't have a problem with it, maybe you get the fuck over yourself this week.  I'll get back to telling my 2 daughters what's appropriate and what's not appropriate to say in front of a woman when this piece of cunt-ass shit is gone from this fucking planet.  Meantime, we're gonna play dirty and over-explain shit at Sunday brunch after church because daddy got vulgar for a few minutes.  But you play your dumbass game that goes nowhere.  The grownup table will be over here when you're ready to join. 

Really? The grownup table has concluded that yelling cunt and bitch and pussy in a largely private conversation is in someway effective at displacing Trump? The grown-ups are dumber and more arrogant than I thought.

Spewing sexist garbage is no more grown up than smoking cigarettes and threatening to fight everybody. Defending unclever, foul language as the mature, hard-nosed way to approach Trump is just idiotic. (I will give Wither Underground a nod for clever even if obscure. Maybe even because it's obscure.)

Consistent use of female metaphors and anatomy to identify weakness and wickedness suggests sexism and is offensive. Calling Trump a cunt or a dick as part of a rotation isn't.

You will, of course, say what you please. Some of it is actually quite good sometimes. Getting defensive and self-righteous about some pretty dull sexist language isn't a good look. Abandon it, my friend.

[henrygandorf 29,197]

47 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/john-boltons-trump-white-house-book-is-due-out-soon-but-his-lawyer-just-threw-him-under-the-bus-2?via=newsletter&source=BI-end-week-digest

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The reason for this is simple. To an intelligence professional, there is little distinction between giving classified information to the general public and giving it to your priest. Once classified information is known by someone the government cannot control, it is in the wild and the assumption must be that it will be further disseminated. A security breach is a security breach. A television audience and a private lawyer are equally unauthorized to receive the information. It is why former CIA Director David Petraeus pleaded guilty to mishandling classified informationsimply because he gave it to his biographer. 

“But what if Bolton’s lawyer has a clearance?” This was one of the key questions raised when it was revealed that former FBI Director James Comey had given a copy of a memo to a lawyer who apparently held a clearance at the time. The simple answer is, it doesn’t matter. In order to be approved to see any specific piece of classified information, a person must both have the appropriate level of security clearance and the “need to know” that particular piece of information. “Need to know” is roughly described as the need to know that information to perform the duties for which you were given the clearance. It is why people on the CIA Indonesia Desk cannot go read classified briefings on Poland; they do not have the requisite “need to know.” So even if Bolton’s lawyer had a clearance to handle classified information in some other context (as some private national security lawyers do), he would only be able to handle Bolton’s manuscript if he had been specifically approved for that specificinformation. 

I chose the word “handle” here instead of “read” because it is currently unclear if Bolton’s lawyer actually read the manuscript or simply forwarded it along to the NSC unopened, but this is a distinction without a difference. The mere act of giving the manuscript to his lawyer was sufficient to violate Bolton’s NDA, regardless of whether or not his lawyer read it. Moreover, as far as criminal prohibitions go, the law does not always even require that the information be given to anyone, let alone given to anyone who read it. As one CIA contractor learned, merely taking classified information home and not sharing it is still a violation of the law. If you can be prosecuted for keeping a classified document in your garage, you can be prosecuted for giving it to your lawyer.

Which brings us to the key argument: Bolton says the manuscript contained no classified information, while the White House says it did. This might be enough to allow Bolton to defeat an Espionage Act charge, but that’s not a sure thing. Some aspects of the Espionage Act do not require active knowledge that information is classified, but instead include a lesser standard which is best summed up as “they should have known better.” And it is extremely difficult to defeat an Espionage Act charge based on the argument that “the information should not have been classified.” It has been done, but it is exceedingly rare and requires almost a perfect storm of mistakes on the government’s part. The reason is that courts almost religiously defer to the executive branch on classification matters, so a judge will almost always overrule a defendant who challenges the classification of information, primarily because the actual scope of what can be classified is much broader than most people realize. Additionally, it should not be overlooked that the Espionage Act does not actually mention “classified information,” but only “national defense information,” which does not always have to be classified. 

Even if the government elects not to pursue criminal charges against Bolton, though, he is not out of the woods yet. In fact, the violation of his NDA is not even a question of criminal law; it is a question of contract law. The most that the government can do in civil court to someone who violates an NDA is sue him for breach of contract, a power that it employs freely. After winning such a lawsuit, the government is entitled to all of the author’s proceeds from the publication, past and future. The author is no worse off than he was before the publication, but he is no better off either, and all his work will net him zero return.

Most importantly, even if Bolton was correct and his manuscript contained no classified information, that was simply not his call to make. Put simply, someone who writes a piece of information that he does not believe to be classified may not always be in a position to know for a fact whether or not it is classified. He may have a good faith belief that he is simply relating an unclassified fact, but he may not realize that by writing it he is inadvertently revealing classified information about another government project he knows nothing about. This is obviously not always—or even often—the case, but there is no practical way for any particular author to know whether it is or is not the case in his particular situation. Complicating the matter further is the fact that the agency may decide to retroactively classify information the author believed to be unclassified, as occurred with Comey and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Evidence that the government retroactively classified previously unclassified information might be enough to defeat a criminal charge, but it would not help an author in civil litigation.

Because of this, the Supreme Court has held that the government can impose an NDA which requires everyone with a security clearance to first obtain the agency’s permission through prepublication review before publishing anything related to his work. As a result, someone can be successfully sued by the government for publishing completely unclassified information, simply because they did not use the process first to ensure that it was unclassified. There have been attempts to overturn this jurisprudence in light of the arbitrary and inconsistent manner in which the government actually conducts prepublication review, but so far it remains the law of the land. The system may be broken, but it remains the system. The only current way around this is to sue the government first under the First Amendment, which Bolton has so far chosen not to do.

It remains an open question whether Bolton could be forced to turn over proceeds of the book if he doesn’t actually publish it until the prepublication review is complete, amd if his only violation of his NDA was giving the manuscript to his lawyer (and probably his publisher), but given that his lawyer has stated that he will go through with the publication regardless, this question will probably not be answered, at least not in this case.

However, Bolton should not be complacent in this matter. He may have an “in for a penny, in for a pound” mindset, especially if he reads this op-ed, but he should be fully aware of the legal jeopardy that his lawyer’s op-ed has placed him in. His lawyer should also be concerned, since the last time a lawyer advised his client not to worry about prepublication review, his client sued him for malpractice after losing all the proceeds of his hard work.

For Bolton’s sake, I hope the op-ed was worth it.

 

i'd like to hear what bolton has to say, and i think america would find it interesting.  i also think it'll embarrass the president.

so sometimes sacrifice is necessary, and i'd be totally ok with bolton spending some time in a minimum security prison once the book comes out.  it only seems fair.

[Guest Lobo]

ROMA-----------Bunker Bitch is literally the prevailing term for him all across the left this week in our nation.  #BunkerBitch.  It's fucking everywhere right now.  But yeah, mine were too sexist.  

Got it, chief.  My simple point was to belittle him using the very sexist terminology he would use.  I get your point that there is a serious downside to doing that.  Guy raised by 4 women and in a house right with 3 women, message received.  I was over the line.  But the current trending hashtag is "bunker BITCH"    And that one's okay, right?  Got it.  

https://twitter.com/hashtag/bunkerbitch

All those are just sexist men posting that shit, right?  Oh wait, "Bitch" is just a female dog, right...nothing about the female anatomy.  This massive, hundreds of thousands strong trend prove my point.  Call him out by shit he would use to call out other people, and he caves.  You think Bunker Bitch stuck as a term because the alliteration?  

Edited June 12, 2020 by Lobo

[henrygandorf 29,197]

7 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Consistent use of female metaphors and anatomy to identify weakness and wickedness suggests sexism and is offensive.

i just like using the words he uses, which should sting the most.

loser.  dog.  etc.

let's vote that loser out like a dog in november, etc.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

1 hour ago, BrickHorn said:

Wait. The poster with the most, uh... titillating avatar on the site is female?  Huh.

Wait, you didn't know that?

19 minutes ago, Lobo said:

 You think Bunker Bitch stuck as a term because the alliteration?  

Partly, yes. Because MoscowMitch preceded it. BunkerBitch and MoscowMitch. Come up with one for Barr like WillieWitch or some such and you can claim the trifecta.

 

I'm not wild about some of the female terms, no. But Trump is of a time when that (the gender disparagement) was THE insult. He's from a boys military school background, he's a bully, a coward, he uses adolescent boy bully tactics, and attacking a bully when you can't punch him in the nose requires knowing his weak spots. One of his weak spots is women. Strong women he fears. He would love to grind them underneath his heel. Weak women are used or condescended to with a smirk. You've seen his smirk.

He has issues. The only problem I see is making sure the line is tread very carefully.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Mrs Whiggins
correction

[burntorangebongos 10,752]

28 minutes ago, softlynow said:

I represented a woman who had made such a purchase. The husband complained about the purchase. I made him explain to the jury why he didn’t like the purchase of boobs. For about an hour I talked about boobs and compelled opposing counsel and a judge, both women, to talk about boobs to 12 jurors. Bikini pics were put in evidence and published to the jury on a big tv. In the end everyone had to agree with me that the boobs were a desired addition to the community estate. The judge was amused. So, yeah, complicated sometimes, but it was resolved that boobs were things people liked, and getting more is desirable. 

Why was he against her new boobs? Was he afraid she was going to press them against other ardent admirers?

When I was looking for an avatar, I googled burnt orange bongos and this hot chick popped up, I shit you not. How in hell was I not going to choose her for a football message board? 

[WhatTheBuck 28,808]

9 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Why was he against her new boobs? Was he afraid she was going to press them against other ardent admirers?

When I was looking for an avatar, I googled burnt orange bongos and this hot chick popped up, I shit you not. How in hell was I not going to choose her for a football message board? 

You know who she is, right?