Jump to content

Donald Trump 2019

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Eskimohorn

Eskimohorn 5635

Posted
Posted
Jesus fuck, I'm reading more of the excerpt documents. There's some bad bad bad shit in there.
I'm just gonna put a few more "top line" quotes from excerpts in line here just to underscore how fucked everything is right now.
  • In late 2018, Ukrainian officials informed Ambassador Yovanovitch about Rudy Giuliani’s plans to target her. (Page 27-28)
  • In the same time period, Ambassador Yovanovitch learned that Rudy Giuliani met with Yuriy Lutsenko, the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, who was looking to “hurt” her “in the U.S.” (Page 31-32)
  • Mr. Giuliani sought to override a visa denial for former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin—whom consular officials determined was ineligible based on his “known corrupt activities”—by claiming to the White House and State Department that Ambassador Yovanovitch was improperly blocking the visa. (Page 264-266)
  • When Ambassador Yovanovitch sought advice from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, he recommended that she tweet her praise of President Trump. (Page 267-268, 306)
  • In March 2019, Ambassador Yovanovitch transmitted a classified email, at the request of Under Secretary of State David Hale, documenting the disinformation campaign against her. (Page 61)
  • The smear campaign and social media postings questioning Ambassador Yovanovitch’s loyalty “cut the ground out from underneath” U.S. diplomatic efforts. (Page 313-314)
 
  • Ambassador McKinley proposed issuing a public statement in support of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch in the aftermath of the release of the President’s July 25, 2019, call record. (Page 38-39)
  • Ambassador McKinley asked Ambassador Yovanovitch if she would welcome a statement from the State Department, and she told him he was the first senior Department official to contact her. (Page 60, 65)
  • Senior State Department officials supported Ambassador McKinley’s proposal, but Secretary Pompeo “decided that it was better not to release a statement at this time.” (Page 57-58)
  • Secretary Pompeo was non-responsive when Ambassador McKinley requested multiple times that the State Department defend Ambassador Yovanovitch—including when Ambassador McKinley told the Secretary he was resigning because “this is unacceptable.” (Page 47-48, 49)
  • On October 3, 2019, Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent emailed Ambassador McKinley a memo documenting the Department’s failure to timely gather information for Congress and questioning the accuracy of Secretary Pompeo’s letter to the Committees two days earlier. (Page 92-94)
  • Ambassador McKinley sent Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent’s memorandum to other senior State Department officials because it identified “allegations of intimidation and bullying,” as well as questions about “accuracy” and whether there were “lies in statements.” (Page 94, 100-101, 110)
There's a pretty goddamn verifiable paper trail here. And this is just the first two witnesses testimony being released. Buckle the fuck up, buckaroos.


Well, democracy had a nice run.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 48.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2695

  • 4th&Five

    1699

  • jimmyjazz

    1286

  • atomheartbevo

    1219

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

GHOSTUSER
GHOSTUSER

I fucking love this President. My 2 faves during my lifetime are Trump and Nixon. They share a lot of similarities and were besieged by the same groups of assholes. No I’m not trolling. Y’all, the lef

Francisco 2.0
Francisco 2.0
Brisketexan
Brisketexan

This.....is magnificent. The "younger generation" is going to have to work double-time to fund YOUR Social Security, which YOUR generation of elected officials raided the fuck out of.  And which,

Posted Images

henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29191

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Captainant said:
  • When Ambassador Yovanovitch sought advice from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, he recommended that she tweet her praise of President Trump. (Page 267-268, 306)

yeah, sondlond might be dumb, but he's not stupid.

the big picture thing here that really bothers me, is that trump's whole twitter schtick (along with his real-life bully tactics) actually work really well.  to get anywhere, you have to flatter him, ideally in a public setting.  and nobody anywhere will stand up to him, out of fear that he'll make their life a living hell (and encourage others to do the same).  i didn't quote it, but later in your bullet point list, it says that several people encouraged the state dept to stand up and defend yovanovich, but they said they couldn't, because of how trump might react.

what the fucking fuck.

twitter has completely enabled this monster, and it won't stop until twitter stops allowing him to do it.  how many diplomats, patriots, veterans, witnesses or public servants need to be shit on, lied about, smeared, or "discredited", not to mention tampered with or flat-out intimidated before twitter fucking does something.

if i tweeted everything he did, i would have my acct suspended in 45 minutes, and homeland security would probably be at my house.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45684

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

if i tweeted everything he did, i would have my acct suspended in 45 minutes, and homeland security would probably be at my house.

Someone should try this.  Start a twitter account, post what their plan is, and tag twitter and jack every time they paraphrase the president, or tweet something along the same general lines that the dotard does.  Dare twitter to stop them.  Someone should do this.  Someone other than me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17681

Posted
Posted
Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Someone should try this.  Start a twitter account, post what their plan is, and tag twitter and jack every time they paraphrase the president, or tweet something along the same general lines that the dotard does.  Dare twitter to stop them.  Someone should do this.  Someone other than me.

Why?  Twitter would just ban you, and because you're not the POTUS, no one would give a flying fuck.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16929

Posted
Posted
Promoting your kid's book. I'm sure the Republicans would not have an issue with this if Clinton was president and Chelsea came out with a book.
 

I don’t know why people still type this. Yeah it is true and we all know it, but really this is the least example of graft by this family.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SimonBolivar

SimonBolivar 10958

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Jack Straw said:

without question.  Id bet just about anything on it.  

It would be a pretty big leap for them to overturn it. Most observers seem to think the 2nd circuit's judgement is pretty tight compared to Trump's "I can do anything". It would have to overturn US vs Nixon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89666

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

twitter has completely enabled this monster, and it won't stop until twitter stops allowing him to do it.  how many diplomats, patriots, veterans, witnesses or public servants need to be shit on, lied about, smeared, or "discredited", not to mention tampered with or flat-out intimidated before twitter fucking does something.

Shame that, unless he goes looking for it, unlike the boos in Washington and the MMA fight, he will never see how many people on twitter hate him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted
Quote

"Throughout this season the Nationals have captured the hearts of baseball fans across the region and across the country. America fell in love with the Nats baseball," Trump said. "They just fell in love with Nats baseball. That's all they wanted to talk about -- that and impeachment. I like Nats baseball much more."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/04/politics/washington-nationals-world-series-white-house/index.html

my eyes can't roll back far enough in my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89666

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, seven said:

Serious question, are black people even allowed in the stands at an Alabama football game? 

Tuscaloosa area is bordered by 3 or 4 counties that went for Hillary.

I would imagine that many Alabama players, and LSU as well, remember what he thinks of black NFL players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SameSame

SameSame 1704

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Tuscaloosa area is bordered by 3 or 4 counties that went for Hillary.

I would imagine that many Alabama players, and LSU as well, remember what he thinks of black NFL players.

It's 1 v 2 they got more important shit to worry about than this monkey ass begging for praise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

$20 says the heavily mike the areas where the white Alabama alumni are sitting.  I would think the average LSU fan who can afford to travel to Alabama is a little less of a Trump supporter than the average Alabama home crowd fan, but not by much.  The players family sections, as well as former players---they're gonna be a little less pro-Trump than most being largely people of color.  The student section is gonna be a little less pro-Trump.  As well as the faculty areas, premium seating, and neutral parties (bands, staff, etc.).  So not gonna make a huge dent, he'll get cheered but it'll be a less convincing cheer than the boos he received at UFC and Nats game.  But the areas that love him, and I'm sure Cambridge-Analytica can pinpoint those folks and tell CBS/'Bama how to better mike those sections.  

He'll get a better reception that these other two events, but it won't be the love-fest he thinks it'll be.  Guy didn't go to any major sporting events I can think of in last 4 years, but suddenly he's at 3 huge ones in 10 days.  Sorry, yuge ones.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

I mean, the Alabama home crowd isn’t poor white trash but sure.

We gave up our tickets for two college tuitions so that should tell you something.

Your stereotypical sidewalk Bama fan can’t afford this game.

Saban is an admitted Democrat and I cannot imagine he’s happy about this only for the impression it will leave on black recruits.

And the student body is now majority OOS students so that figures in too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DigDug

DigDug 1669

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

“When you’re a star they let you do it.”

 

He does that to him then he should get to do it to Melanie.

Of course her brain might instantly trigger back to her porn call girl days, and there'd be a real show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14339

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Jack Straw said:

without question.  Id bet just about anything on it.  

If SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump on this it could bring down the entire system.

I would imagine Roberts would not let this happen solely to protect the legitimacy of the court.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45951

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

If SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump on this it could bring down the entire system.

I would imagine Roberts would not let this happen solely to protect the legitimacy of the court.

Can you provide a Cliff's Notes on the deliberation in question?  What's the precedent, what would they be overturning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14339

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Can you provide a Cliff's Notes on the deliberation in question?  What's the precedent, what would they be overturning?

I haven't read the briefing or the Second Circuit opinion, but based on what I have read in the media about the nature of the arguments, the Trump position is basically frivolous.  I have been meaning to skim the actual papers but it's not been a priority for me.  Will see if I can look at them this week.

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SimonBolivar

SimonBolivar 10958

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Can you provide a Cliff's Notes on the deliberation in question?  What's the precedent, what would they be overturning?

A lot of it is US vs Nixon. Here is the ruling from the 2nd:

Quote

 

The most relevant precedent for present purposes is United States v. Nixon,
418 U.S. 683 (1974). There, a subpoena directed President Nixon to “produce
19
certain tape recordings and documents relating to his conversations with aides
and advisers” for use in a criminal trial against high‐level advisers to the
President. Id. at 686. Nixon objected on two grounds: first, that the
communications memorialized in the requested materials were privileged;
second, that the separation of powers “insulates a President from a judicial
subpoena in an ongoing criminal prosecution.” Id. at 705–06. The Supreme Court
unanimously disagreed, noting that “neither the doctrine of separation of
powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high‐level communications, without
more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity
from judicial process under all circumstances.” Id. at 706. The Court explained
that “a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary
and nondiplomatic discussions” was insufficient to justify non‐compliance with
a subpoena “requiring the production of materials for use in a criminal
prosecution.” Id. at 707, 710. The Court noted that privileges “are not lightly
created nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for
truth.” Id. at 710. And this was true even of executive privilege, a doctrine
“fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the
separation of powers under the Constitution.

The President has not persuasively explained why, if executive privilege
did not preclude enforcement of the subpoena issued in Nixon, the Mazars
subpoena must be enjoined despite seeking no privileged information and
bearing no relation to the President’s performance of his official functions. The
Nixon Court explained that even the President’s weighty interest in candid and
confidential conversations with his advisers could not justify a blanket privilege
that would “cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of law and gravely
impair the basic function of the courts.

 

Here, none of the materials sought by the Mazars subpoena implicates
executive privilege.

 

Edited by SimonBolivar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SameSame

SameSame 1704

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

NY Times leading with polls showing trump competitive or leading in battleground states against top Dems. 

I have never doubted for one second that he will be re-elected.  We're all basically counting on the upper midwest to change their mind, I don't see it happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29191

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

i mean, they shook hands seconds later.  

epa-usa-trump-world-series-baseball-wash

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/11/nationals-strasburg-trump-handshake-video-white-house-snub

but it is kind of fun to imagine him intentionally snubbing trump.

the dude who snubbed mcconnell at the cummings memorial became a celebrity over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13512

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Mo Horn said:

SCOTUS will rule for Trump. We won't ever see them. 

SCOTUS would effectively have to rule that the president is not only immune from prosecution but also from any and all investigations. Personally I don't buy the argument that the President can't be prosecuted but that has been the DOJ stance Watergate.  But even if that is the practice, how in the world can you state that the President's action cannot even be investigated.

Now this doesn't mean that SCOTUS can't find a reason that walks a fine line to protect Trump but not give the office complete protection from investigations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

While I’m not fond of the Supreme Court’s current makeup, I can assure you that they aren’t ruling in favor of President shitstain on this one. The only thing president shitstain’s lawyers are doing with their completely frivolous arguments is delaying the inevitable (hopefully until after the next election) and trashing their own reputations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mo Horn

Mo Horn 8841

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

While I’m not fond of the Supreme Court’s current makeup, I can assure you that they aren’t ruling in favor of President shitstain on this one. The only thing president shitstain’s lawyers are doing with their completely frivolous arguments is delaying the inevitable (hopefully until after the next election) and trashing their own reputations.

With all due respect we are not living in anything close to normalcy. Nothing is assured, and nothing would surprise me. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...