The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[Unagi]

Hmm, maybe it's the Witnesses I'm thinking about... that can't be compelled to not talk. (although I've just read there are cases where even they are gagged from sharing things they learned as a result of the trial)

[Rip]

I believe that is during the Proceedings.

In any case, I was worried you had some bad news for us anti-trumpers... and I don't feel bad from what you've shared... So - that's gotta be a fail for you. Sorry.

Perhaps you should have read the paper I linked.

A survey of the conflicting case law on the issue almost certainly would
leave a juror confused.5 Decisions have held both that secrecy is not limited
by time and circumstance,' and that secrecy is no longer necessary when
the grand jury has been discharged and the accused apprehended.7 This
confusion has produced an unacceptable chilling effect on the press' first
amendment freedoms, since communication between the press and a grand
juror could result in a contempt action.8 The solution is the formation of a
judicial test that protects and balances the purposes and goals of grand jury
secrecy and first amendment rights, and at the same time protects grand
jurors and press members from contempt actions for secrecy violations.

[Rip]

Hmm, maybe it's the Witnesses I'm thinking about... that can't be compelled to not talk. (although I've just read there are cases where even they are gagged from sharing things they learned as a result of the trial)

That is true, a witness may disclose their own testimony and can't be prevented from doing so without specific order. I would assume anyone working for the government who testified would be bound to not talk by other restrictions.

[Rip]

Holy hell.

He's now tweeting as an endorsement the bullshit lie that a general shot Muslims with bullets dipped in pigs blood.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 9511129088

STOP THE INSANITY!

Or was he maybe referring to this?

“The bodies were publicly buried in the same grave with a dead pig,” “It was not pleasant to have to take such measures, but the prospect of going to hell instead of heaven sometimes deterred the would-be assassins.”

edit:

I know, I know, I missed my calling as the White House Communications Director.

[Alefroth]

Rep. Senator Bob Corker on Trump today:

I don't really get what he's asking for though...

Radical changes in the White House. (i.e. is that code for: Fire Bannon?)

For Trump to do some 'self reflection' that results in radical changes in his approach to politics? Seems like a tone-deaf request.

His sentiment is correct, and it took some courage for him to state that, but Trump doesn't deserve any more time to 'aspire'. They need to be working to replace him.

[Smoove_B]

Or was he maybe referring to this?

Ok, I'll do the heavy lifting.

[Rip]

Or was he maybe referring to this?

Ok, I'll do the heavy lifting.

Pershing: A Biography

The dipping bullets in pig's blood is not true, but the burial with dead pigs is very true.

[Smoove_B]

So if you go ahead and read what I linked, it indicates:

It was Colonel Alexander Rodgers of the 6th Cavalry who accomplished by taking advantage of religious prejudice what the bayonets and Krags had been unable to accomplish. Rodgers inaugurated a system of burying all dead juramentados in a common grave with the carcasses of slaughtered pigs. The Mohammedan religion forbids contact with pork; and this relatively simple device resulted in the withdrawal of juramentados to sections not containing a Rodgers. Other officers took up the principle, adding new refinements to make it additionally unattractive to the Moros. In some sections the Moro juramentado was beheaded after death and the head sewn inside the carcass of a pig. And so the rite of running juramentado, at least semi-religious in character, ceased to be in Sulu. The last cases of this religious mania occurred in the early decades of the century. The juramentados were replaced by the amucks … who were simply homicidal maniacs with no religious significance attaching to their acts.

[Rip]

So if you go ahead and read what I linked, it indicates:

It was Colonel Alexander Rodgers of the 6th Cavalry who accomplished by taking advantage of religious prejudice what the bayonets and Krags had been unable to accomplish. Rodgers inaugurated a system of burying all dead juramentados in a common grave with the carcasses of slaughtered pigs. The Mohammedan religion forbids contact with pork; and this relatively simple device resulted in the withdrawal of juramentados to sections not containing a Rodgers. Other officers took up the principle, adding new refinements to make it additionally unattractive to the Moros. In some sections the Moro juramentado was beheaded after death and the head sewn inside the carcass of a pig. And so the rite of running juramentado, at least semi-religious in character, ceased to be in Sulu. The last cases of this religious mania occurred in the early decades of the century. The juramentados were replaced by the amucks … who were simply homicidal maniacs with no religious significance attaching to their acts.

Colonel Rodgers may have inaugurated it, but pershing knew about and endorsed it obviously. Being his commander the ultimate responsibility for permitting it belongs to Pershing. Anything a soldier does with the knowledge of his commander is the same as that commander doing it themselves. Not like any General actually ever did anything, they are leaders not doers.

[Smoove_B]

Colonel Rodgers may have inaugurated it, but pershing knew about and endorsed it obviously. Being his commander the ultimate responsibility for permitting it belongs to Pershing. Anything a soldier does with the knowledge of his commander is the same as that commander doing it themselves. Not like any General actually ever did anything, they are leaders not doers.

I mean...that's one way to look at it. Also from my linked item above:

During a campaign rally in South Carolina, [Donald] Trump told his audience a story about General John Pershing executing Muslim prisoners in the Philippines. Trump said Pershing, in the early 1900’s, “caught 50 terrorists that did tremendous damage and killed many people and he took the 50 terrorists and he took 50 men and he dipped 50 bullets in pig’s blood.”

Trump went out to describe a mass execution shooting of 49 of the prisoners, with the last one being sent to tell the others what happened. It was Trump using this “story” to demonstrate that America needed to get tough on terrorism, using brutal methods, and that he would be the man to do it.

But the story is not true. There was no mass execution led by Pershing. That is a rumor created on the Internet.

So there's any number of things Trump could have been referencing here, I guess...whatever.

[Kraken]

Rep. Senator Bob Corker on Trump today:

I don't really get what he's asking for though...

Radical changes in the White House. (i.e. is that code for: Fire Bannon?)

For Trump to do some 'self reflection' that results in radical changes in his approach to politics? Seems like a tone-deaf request.

I read it as "Hire some real professionals and defer to their expertise." That's the only way this administration could suddenly exhibit competence. Trump himself can't change.

My favorite part is urging Trump to "demonstrate competence". Yeah, could you work harder to be less stupid?

Take a 3-year non-working vacation. Play a lot of golf, stop by now and then to sign what you're told to sign, and STFU on the twitter. If you want to keep being the president, stop presidenting!

From what I know, I believe Mueller to be a man of impeccable integrity. If his investigation concludes that there was no collusion, I'm perfectly fine in accepting that our POTUS is simply an inept, blundering, racist, raging asshole, but is not guilty of that particular crime.

Agreed. And if Russia doesn't bring him down, there are at least two other legitimate reasons to remove him from office (emoluments and mental incompetence). I still think it's going to be Russia, though.

[Rip]

I don't think he is going anywhere for this term.

What should be interesting is to hear how much mental gymnastics will be required to vilify the next candidate to avoid having fear of them pale in comparison to Trump. But then of course I thought it was going to be hard to top the Bush/Cheney hate and we blew past that long ago.

I do enjoy hearing liberals long for the good ol days of Bush/Cheney though.

[Unagi]

Perhaps you should have read the paper I linked.

For that to have happened, you would need to have a better history of sharing things worth reading.

But - anyhow - the part you bolded... seems to support my statement of 'secrecy during proceedings', no?

[Unagi]

Hmm, maybe it's the Witnesses I'm thinking about... that can't be compelled to not talk. (although I've just read there are cases where even they are gagged from sharing things they learned as a result of the trial)

That is true, a witness may disclose their own testimony and can't be prevented from doing so without specific order. I would assume anyone working for the government who testified would be bound to not talk by other restrictions.

Classified information, yes.
'Executive Privilege' - no... that's designed to give cover to someone that doesn't want to talk, it can't keep someone from talking that wants to.

Russian money laundering will not be 'classified' information.

[Unagi]

The dipping bullets in pig's blood is not true, but the burial with dead pigs is very true.

So, what's the distinction here?

I just want to follow. It's not what this general did that we are giving any measure to right now, right?

It's just that Trump was told something with some historical truth behind it, repeated it, and you need that point scored?

It's important because Trump is such an idiot that any small "he's actually right" is critically important to get on the scoreboard? I'm following this debate correctly, right?

We aren't talking (yet) about Trumps point of view being wrong-headed, right?

[Unagi]

Colonel Rodgers may have inaugurated it, but pershing knew about and endorsed it obviously. Being his commander the ultimate responsibility for permitting it belongs to Pershing. Anything a soldier does with the knowledge of his commander is the same as that commander doing it themselves. Not like any General actually ever did anything, they are leaders not doers.

I mean...that's one way to look at it. Also from my linked item above:

During a campaign rally in South Carolina, [Donald] Trump told his audience a story about General John Pershing executing Muslim prisoners in the Philippines. Trump said Pershing, in the early 1900’s, “caught 50 terrorists that did tremendous damage and killed many people and he took the 50 terrorists and he took 50 men and he dipped 50 bullets in pig’s blood.”

Trump went out to describe a mass execution shooting of 49 of the prisoners, with the last one being sent to tell the others what happened. It was Trump using this “story” to demonstrate that America needed to get tough on terrorism, using brutal methods, and that he would be the man to do it.

But the story is not true. There was no mass execution led by Pershing. That is a rumor created on the Internet.

So there's any number of things Trump could have been referencing here, I guess...whatever.

Ripcrickets

[Unagi]

I don't think he is going anywhere for this term.

What should be interesting is to hear how much mental gymnastics will be required to vilify the next candidate to avoid having fear of them pale in comparison to Trump. But then of course I thought it was going to be hard to top the Bush/Cheney hate and we blew past that long ago.

I do enjoy hearing liberals long for the good ol days of Bush/Cheney though.

Bush.

No one remotely longs for Cheney at all.

[Rip]

Perhaps you should have read the paper I linked.

For that to have happened, you would need to have a better history of sharing things worth reading.

But - anyhow - the part you bolded... seems to support my statement of 'secrecy during proceedings', no?

No it said there have been decisions that they are unlimited by time AND there have been decisions that it only lasts until discharged. Not sure what the legal term is for having conflicting rulings like that but it is obviously not settled law. Perhaps this will be the case that tests it up the pole.

[gbasden]

I do enjoy hearing liberals long for the good ol days of Bush/Cheney though.

I don't recall hearing Bush call Nazis "very fine people".

[Rip]

I do enjoy hearing liberals long for the good ol days of Bush/Cheney though.

I don't recall hearing Bush call Nazis "very fine people".

Didn't stop people on the left referring to them as Hitler and Darth Vader, etc.

It isn't about what they did or didn't do but how the each guy is so much worse than the last one spin that is unsustainable. At some point that won't be able to pass muster anymore.

[Holman]

The only thing that makes liberals remember Bush semi-fondly is his relative decency compared to Trump or to anyone in Trump's circle.

There's been no reassessment of the policy disasters that defined Bush's presidency.

[gbasden]

It isn't about what they did or didn't do but how the each guy is so much worse than the last one spin that is unsustainable. At some point that won't be able to pass muster anymore.

I know you won't believe this, but I would kneel down and give thanks if the Republican party could stop it's practice of nominating candidates that are progressively worse than the previous one. It would be a welcome break in a long tradition, and very overdue.

[Rip]

The only thing that makes liberals remember Bush semi-fondly is his relative decency compared to Trump or to anyone in Trump's circle.

There's been no reassessment of the policy disasters that defined Bush's presidency.

But how are you going to demonize the next conservative Republican POTUS, you can't possible paint them with as fear and loathing as Trump has been. President Cruz is going to look like a brilliant statesman in comparison and that will be much more difficult to combat. Especially when I suspect he or Pence would manage to get things done that are far more damaging to the liberal agenda.

Should make for an interesting narrative.

[Zaxxon]

You really are something else, Rip. Clearly the problem with Donald Trump is the preconceived liberal narrative.

[Holman]

Is it your belief that we despise Trump's policies only because we despise Trump personally? Because otherwise what you're saying makes no sense.

[Rip]

You really are something else, Rip. Clearly the problem with Donald Trump is the preconceived liberal narrative.

No the problem is him being an idiot and tweeting/saying ignorant things that have no upside.

Pence and Cruz are far more crafty and politically wise. Trump's policies aren't doing him in, his being an uncontrollable douchebag is.

[Jolor]

The only thing that makes liberals remember Bush semi-fondly is his relative decency compared to Trump or to anyone in Trump's circle.

There's been no reassessment of the policy disasters that defined Bush's presidency.

But how are you going to demonize the next conservative Republican POTUS, you can't possible paint them with as fear and loathing as Trump has been. President Cruz is going to look like a brilliant statesman in comparison and that will be much more difficult to combat. Especially when I suspect he or Pence would manage to get things done that are far more damaging to the liberal agenda.

Should make for an interesting narrative.

I would suggest judging them on their own merits and actions. Applies to nominees and candidates on all sides in my simplified world view. (gentle reminder: non-American here)

[Skinypupy]

The only thing that makes liberals remember Bush semi-fondly is his relative decency compared to Trump or to anyone in Trump's circle.

There's been no reassessment of the policy disasters that defined Bush's presidency.

But how are you going to demonize the next conservative Republican POTUS, you can't possible paint them with as fear and loathing as Trump has been. President Cruz is going to look like a brilliant statesman in comparison and that will be much more difficult to combat. Especially when I suspect he or Pence would manage to get things done that are far more damaging to the liberal agenda.

Should make for an interesting narrative.

When the crux of your argument is "Oh yeah, what if we CAN'T find anyone shitter? What will you do then, liberals??", it says a lot about your current position.

[Rip]

The only thing that makes liberals remember Bush semi-fondly is his relative decency compared to Trump or to anyone in Trump's circle.

There's been no reassessment of the policy disasters that defined Bush's presidency.

But how are you going to demonize the next conservative Republican POTUS, you can't possible paint them with as fear and loathing as Trump has been. President Cruz is going to look like a brilliant statesman in comparison and that will be much more difficult to combat. Especially when I suspect he or Pence would manage to get things done that are far more damaging to the liberal agenda.

Should make for an interesting narrative.

When the crux of your argument is "Oh yeah, what if we CAN'T find anyone shitter? What will you do then, liberals??", it says a lot about your current position.

That you were unable to defeat someone so bad as to put me in that position says a lot about your current position.....

[Skinypupy]

The only thing that makes liberals remember Bush semi-fondly is his relative decency compared to Trump or to anyone in Trump's circle.

There's been no reassessment of the policy disasters that defined Bush's presidency.

But how are you going to demonize the next conservative Republican POTUS, you can't possible paint them with as fear and loathing as Trump has been. President Cruz is going to look like a brilliant statesman in comparison and that will be much more difficult to combat. Especially when I suspect he or Pence would manage to get things done that are far more damaging to the liberal agenda.

Should make for an interesting narrative.

When the crux of your argument is "Oh yeah, what if we CAN'T find anyone shitter? What will you do then, liberals??", it says a lot about your current position.

That you were unable to defeat someone so bad as to put me in that position says a lot about your current position.....

Last I checked, I don't think many of us are arguing that Hillary wasn't a terrible candidate.

[Rip]

You will be when your party runs with her again next election......

[Skinypupy]

I'll go ahead and proactively get this out there. This woman is an idiotand deserves every bit of ridicule coming her way.

A Democratic Missouri state senator from University City posted, then quickly deleted, a comment on Facebook saying she hoped President Donald Trump would be assassinated.

As a result of Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal’s comment, the U.S. Secret Service’s St. Louis field office is investigating and both Sen. Claire McCaskill and the chairman of the Missouri Democratic Party have called on her to resign.

Chappelle-Nadal told The Star she posted the comment out of frustration with the “trauma and despair” the president is causing with his statements about the events in Charlottesville, Va.

“The way I responded this morning was wrong,” she told The Star. “I’m frustrated. Did I mean the statement? No. Am I frustrated? Absolutely. The president is causing damage. He’s causing hate.”

Chappelle-Nadal posted the comment on her personal Facebook page, which is not open to the public.

“On my personal Facebook, I put up a statement saying, ‘I really hate Trump. He’s causing trauma and nightmares.’ That was my original post,” she said. “A whole bunch of people responded to that.”

Later in the thread, in response to another commenter, she wrote: “I hope Trump is assassinated!”

She later deleted the comment.

yourenothelping.jpg

[Unagi]

The only thing that makes liberals remember Bush semi-fondly is his relative decency compared to Trump or to anyone in Trump's circle.

There's been no reassessment of the policy disasters that defined Bush's presidency.

But how are you going to demonize the next conservative Republican POTUS, you can't possible paint them with as fear and loathing as Trump has been. President Cruz is going to look like a brilliant statesman in comparison and that will be much more difficult to combat. Especially when I suspect he or Pence would manage to get things done that are far more damaging to the liberal agenda.

Should make for an interesting narrative.

AND what the narrative you would like to hear? nothing, right? nada.

[Unagi]

The only thing that makes liberals remember Bush semi-fondly is his relative decency compared to Trump or to anyone in Trump's circle.

There's been no reassessment of the policy disasters that defined Bush's presidency.

But how are you going to demonize the next conservative Republican POTUS, you can't possible paint them with as fear and loathing as Trump has been. President Cruz is going to look like a brilliant statesman in comparison and that will be much more difficult to combat. Especially when I suspect he or Pence would manage to get things done that are far more damaging to the liberal agenda.

Should make for an interesting narrative.

When the crux of your argument is "Oh yeah, what if we CAN'T find anyone shitter? What will you do then, liberals??", it says a lot about your current position.

That you were unable to defeat someone so bad as to put me in that position says a lot about your current position.....

No. What's it say about you.

[Rip]

The only thing that makes liberals remember Bush semi-fondly is his relative decency compared to Trump or to anyone in Trump's circle.

There's been no reassessment of the policy disasters that defined Bush's presidency.

But how are you going to demonize the next conservative Republican POTUS, you can't possible paint them with as fear and loathing as Trump has been. President Cruz is going to look like a brilliant statesman in comparison and that will be much more difficult to combat. Especially when I suspect he or Pence would manage to get things done that are far more damaging to the liberal agenda.

Should make for an interesting narrative.

AND what the narrative you would like to hear? nothing, right? nada.

I would like them to say that that candidate (whoever it ends up being) is a far better choice than Trump. Which will never happen. I will go ahead and predict that whoever the next person not named Trump to run on the Republican ticket will be widely vilified as being even worse than Trump. Although if you asked any of them right now they would say that no one could be worse than Trump because Hitler is dead.

Just like it was said at the time the only person that could be a worse POTUS than Bush was Cheney.

[Unagi]

I will go ahead and predict that whoever the next person not named Trump to run on the Republican ticket will be widely vilified as being even worse than Trump. Although if you asked any of them right now they would say that no one could be worse than Trump because Hitler is dead.

Just like it was said at the time the only person that could be a worse POTUS than Bush was Cheney.

And you will make that person your avatar. yep.

[YellowKing]

Criticism of Bush and criticism of Trump is apples and oranges. Hell, it might be apples and chimpanzees, it's so far apart.

There seems to be this delusion among the Trump faithful that somehow the criticism leveled against Trump is on the same level and of the same degree as past Presidents. It's not, and even worse, it's OBJECTIVELY not.

Trump's bottom-of-the-barrel approval ratings can't be explained away through "liberal agendas." Neither can the open criticism he receives on a nearly weekly basis from members of his own party. Or multiple CEOs resigning from his councils. Or the staggeringly high turnover rate for any position in his administration. Or the unprecedented number of leaks coming from within.

I remember rolling my eyes when people talked about "moving to Canada" when Bush was elected. There's always hyperbole and over-reaction when your party's not in office. But this administration is not "normal," and it's not some left-wing agenda creating that narrative out of thin air. Trump has completely destroyed Presidential norms, and not in a good way. In fact, almost every norm he has violated has led to a further erosion of his own political fortunes.

When you're in a room with 99 people who disagree with you, you have to ask yourself which is more likely: 1) These people are right and I am wrong or 2) I'm the smartest person here and these people are obviously conspiring against me.

Unfortunately, a lot of Republicans are going with option 2, even though there's zero evidence for it and plenty to back up #1.

[Combustible Lemur]

I do enjoy hearing liberals long for the good ol days of Bush/Cheney though.

I don't recall hearing Bush call Nazis "very fine people".

Didn't stop people on the left referring to them as Hitler and Darth Vader, etc.

It isn't about what they did or didn't do but how the each guy is so much worse than the last one spin that is unsustainable. At some point that won't be able to pass muster anymore.

Then perhaps republicans should stop becoming more radicalized?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Pyperkub]

I do enjoy hearing liberals long for the good ol days of Bush/Cheney though.

I don't recall hearing Bush call Nazis "very fine people".

Didn't stop people on the left referring to them as Hitler and Darth Vader, etc.

It isn't about what they did or didn't do but how the each guy is so much worse than the last one spin that is unsustainable. At some point that won't be able to pass muster anymore.

Seeing as how Darth Cheney and the Rumsfelds lied us into a war and essentially created the surveillance state in the US (with a lot of unconstitutional portions, as we've found out since ), I feel the term is still warranted.

But I will grant that he was a lot more competent than anyone currently serving, just missing a moral compass (torture memos. ..).

[Rip]

I will go ahead and predict that whoever the next person not named Trump to run on the Republican ticket will be widely vilified as being even worse than Trump. Although if you asked any of them right now they would say that no one could be worse than Trump because Hitler is dead.

Just like it was said at the time the only person that could be a worse POTUS than Bush was Cheney.

And you will make that person your avatar. yep.

If it is Rand Paul or Ted Cruz or Mike Pence, sure.

If it is Jeb Bush, no way in hell.