Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[BasilValentine]

Five Trump trips to Mar-a-Lago would cover Betsy Devos's proposed Special Olympics cuts.


A senator's argument against the Green New Deal: A machine gun-toting Ronald Reagan riding a velociraptor.


House Democrats request 10 years of Trump financial records

A Republican state lawmaker begged for forgiveness from Jesus just before the Pennsylvania statehouse swore in its first Muslim woman

Thank you Simon for posting this crazy stuff from the other side of the world. It is appreciated!

[SimonNZ]

Thanks!


a couple of well worded comments I saw elsewhere:

1.

"He's only exonerated from a tiny, wafer-thin sliver of a definition of collusion--very specifically parsed to ensure that it's technically true.

Like saying, I didn't rob the bank on tuesday afternoon between 3:30 and 3:35 using a Colt 45 with ivory handles and wearing black leather boots and a red handkerchief, right after I had a half-caff soy latte and a scone.

I had a full-dailry latte. That makes the above statement technically true. Even if I did the rest of it, scone included."

2.

"A while back you responded to one of my offhand comments where I quoted the R's as claiming there's no "evidence" of collusion and then I went on to say I put the word in quotes because as a lawyer I'm deeply skeptical that the report said any such thing.

Just to be clear, this is what I was getting at: the word "evidence" in a legal context has a specific meaning. It doesn't mean the same thing as "proof." And, saying there's "insufficient evidence to bring charges" is not saying the same thing as "there's no evidence." So what I meant by that (clumsy) offhand comment, was that the R's are playing semantic games here. Even lawyers like Giuliani are playing the game, and he knows better.

"Evidence" is (basically) something that's more or less relevant if it makes a fact likely to be true. "Circumstantial evidence" requires some process of deduction; "direct evidence" does not.

If you find mouse droppings on the kitchen floor ... that's circumstantial evidence that you have a mouse problem.

If you find the actual mouse on the kitchen floor ... that's direct evidence.

"Proof" is what you have when the available evidence adds up to a certain standard (depending on the area of law involved).

So if a jury says "there was no proof that OJ Simpson killed his wife" it is NOT the same thing as saying "the jury found absolutely no evidence whatsoever that OJ Simpson killed his wife."

See the game they're playing? They're claiming there was no evidence of collusion. That's wrong. There's plenty of evidence in plain sight.

That's why I don't for one minute believe that Mueller wrote a report saying he could not find evidence of any collusion. The evidence would include circumstantial evidence such as Trump's obstruction, the Trump Tower meeting, and the solicitous way the administration has fawned over Putin. All of those things are evidence. Manafort sharing polling data isn't merely circumstantial evidence, it's direct evidence."

[bhodges]

Thank you Simon for posting this crazy stuff from the other side of the world. It is appreciated!

Yes, thanks from me, too. I'd like to think I catch most of these (e.g., on Twitter) but not always. Also, I like being reminded that there are sympathetic, outraged people outside the US--helps keep me sane. 

--Bruce

[Karl Henning]

Thanks!


a couple of well worded comments I saw elsewhere:

1.

"He's only exonerated from a tiny, wafer-thin sliver of a definition of collusion--very specifically parsed to ensure that it's technically true.

Like saying, I didn't rob the bank on tuesday afternoon between 3:30 and 3:35 using a Colt 45 with ivory handles and wearing black leather boots and a red handkerchief, right after I had a half-caff soy latte and a scone.

I had a full-dailry latte. That makes the above statement technically true. Even if I did the rest of it, scone included."

2.

"A while back you responded to one of my offhand comments where I quoted the R's as claiming there's no "evidence" of collusion and then I went on to say I put the word in quotes because as a lawyer I'm deeply skeptical that the report said any such thing.

Just to be clear, this is what I was getting at: the word "evidence" in a legal context has a specific meaning. It doesn't mean the same thing as "proof." And, saying there's "insufficient evidence to bring charges" is not saying the same thing as "there's no evidence." So what I meant by that (clumsy) offhand comment, was that the R's are playing semantic games here. Even lawyers like Giuliani are playing the game, and he knows better.

"Evidence" is (basically) something that's more or less relevant if it makes a fact likely to be true. "Circumstantial evidence" requires some process of deduction; "direct evidence" does not.

If you find mouse droppings on the kitchen floor ... that's circumstantial evidence that you have a mouse problem.

If you find the actual mouse on the kitchen floor ... that's direct evidence.

"Proof" is what you have when the available evidence adds up to a certain standard (depending on the area of law involved).

So if a jury says "there was no proof that OJ Simpson killed his wife" it is NOT the same thing as saying "the jury found absolutely no evidence whatsoever that OJ Simpson killed his wife."

See the game they're playing? They're claiming there was no evidence of collusion. That's wrong. There's plenty of evidence in plain sight.

That's why I don't for one minute believe that Mueller wrote a report saying he could not find evidence of any collusion. The evidence would include circumstantial evidence such as Trump's obstruction, the Trump Tower meeting, and the solicitous way the administration has fawned over Putin. All of those things are evidence. Manafort sharing polling data isn't merely circumstantial evidence, it's direct evidence."

Thank you.

[JBS]

Thanks!


a couple of well worded comments I saw elsewhere:

1.

"He's only exonerated from a tiny, wafer-thin sliver of a definition of collusion--very specifically parsed to ensure that it's technically true.

Like saying, I didn't rob the bank on tuesday afternoon between 3:30 and 3:35 using a Colt 45 with ivory handles and wearing black leather boots and a red handkerchief, right after I had a half-caff soy latte and a scone.

I had a full-dailry latte. That makes the above statement technically true. Even if I did the rest of it, scone included."

2.

"A while back you responded to one of my offhand comments where I quoted the R's as claiming there's no "evidence" of collusion and then I went on to say I put the word in quotes because as a lawyer I'm deeply skeptical that the report said any such thing.

Just to be clear, this is what I was getting at: the word "evidence" in a legal context has a specific meaning. It doesn't mean the same thing as "proof." And, saying there's "insufficient evidence to bring charges" is not saying the same thing as "there's no evidence." So what I meant by that (clumsy) offhand comment, was that the R's are playing semantic games here. Even lawyers like Giuliani are playing the game, and he knows better.

"Evidence" is (basically) something that's more or less relevant if it makes a fact likely to be true. "Circumstantial evidence" requires some process of deduction; "direct evidence" does not.

If you find mouse droppings on the kitchen floor ... that's circumstantial evidence that you have a mouse problem.

If you find the actual mouse on the kitchen floor ... that's direct evidence.

"Proof" is what you have when the available evidence adds up to a certain standard (depending on the area of law involved).

So if a jury says "there was no proof that OJ Simpson killed his wife" it is NOT the same thing as saying "the jury found absolutely no evidence whatsoever that OJ Simpson killed his wife."

See the game they're playing? They're claiming there was no evidence of collusion. That's wrong. There's plenty of evidence in plain sight.

That's why I don't for one minute believe that Mueller wrote a report saying he could not find evidence of any collusion. The evidence would include circumstantial evidence such as Trump's obstruction, the Trump Tower meeting, and the solicitous way the administration has fawned over Putin. All of those things are evidence. Manafort sharing polling data isn't merely circumstantial evidence, it's direct evidence."

Add to that second comment something very relevant: the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt".  Ethically speaking a prosecutor should not charge a person unless he thinks the evidence meets that standard, although in real life that does not always happen.
A civil case needs only meet the standard of "preponderance of the evidence". But this is not a civil case.
On the other hand, searches and arrests only need "probable cause", the lowest standard.
Here, almost all the apparent acts of collusion and obstruction can be justified on other grounds, especially the firing of Comey. So although it walks like a duck, and squawks like a duck, the law does not allow Mueller to say it's a duck.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

So far I see this as a failure of the Federal Justice system. The entire point of the special council is to take the decision out of the hands of those who have a political interest. What has Mueller done but give the decision to Barr, who was appointed by Trump based on Barr's somewhat out-of-mainstream views on obstruction of justice as applied to the president? Mueller has failed to isolate the investigation from political influence.

I see no excuse for this report to be held back from the public. After all, in the case of the Clinton impeachment the results of the investigation were not concealed, and we were even given the dubious privilege of watch video of Clinton's deposition.

[drogulus]

So far I see this as a failure of the Federal Justice system. The entire point of the special council is to take the decision out of the hands of those who have a political interest. What has Mueller done but give the decision to Barr, who was appointed by Trump based on Barr's somewhat out-of-mainstream views on obstruction of justice as applied to the president? Mueller has failed to isolate the investigation from political influence.

I see no excuse for this report to be held back from the public. After all, in the case of the Clinton impeachment the results of the investigation were not concealed, and we were even given the dubious privilege of watch video of Clinton's deposition.

     Congress demanded and got excruciating detail about HRC's email case. Conflicted Repubs got what they asked for.

[North Star]

New documents raise questions over State Dept. move to rescind honor for Trump critic

[SimonNZ]

Under partisan fire, Adam Schiff presents his case without apology

they print Schiff's own words at length:

"My colleagues might think it's OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what's described as the Russian government's effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that's OK.

"My colleagues might think it's OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president's son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would 'love' the help with the Russians.

"You might think it's OK that he took that meeting. You might think it's OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it's OK that the president's son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it's OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it's OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn't better. You might think that's OK.

"You might think it's OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it's OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that's OK. I don't.

"You might think it's OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that's OK, I don't.

"You might think it's OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don't think that's OK.

"You might think it's OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent's emails, if they were listening. You might think it's OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don't think that's OK.

"You might think it's OK that the president's son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don't think that's OK.

"You might think it's OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it's OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.

"You might think it's OK that the national security adviser designate secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it's OK that he lied about it to the FBI.

"You might say that's all OK, that's just what you need to do to win. But I don't think it's OK. I don't think it's OK. I think it's immoral, I think it's unethical, I think it's unpatriotic and, yes, I think it's corrupt – and evidence of collusion."

"Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of that crime would be up to the special counsel, and I would accept his decision, and I do. He's a good and honorable man, and he is a good prosecutor.

"But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that's OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way."

"And I will tell you one more thing that is apropos of the hearing today: I don't think it's OK that during a presidential campaign Mr. Trump sought the Kremlin's help to consummate a real estate deal in Moscow that would make him a fortune – according to the special counsel, hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't think it's OK to conceal it from the public. I don't think it's OK that he advocated a new and more favorable policy towards the Russians even as he was seeking the Russians' help, the Kremlin's help to make money. I don't think it's OK that his attorney lied to our committee. There is a different word for that than collusion, and it's called 'compromise.'

"And that is the subject of our hearing today."

[lisa needs braces]

Oh boy this thread sure has gotten quite lately.

Russia Hysteria was largely concocted by Clinton Democrats to deflect blame away from themselves for the loss to the oaf.

Given the venality of Republicans perhaps this ploy could have been cynically justified but the only result now is that Clintonites are once again embarrassed and, much worse, Trump is now emboldened.

But hey it isn't all bad news. At least you managed to drown out Bernie types with the relentless focus on this hysteria thereby preventing necessary reallignment that would have made Third Way types uncomfortable!

[lisa needs braces]

The collusion we had to worry about all along was the one between the center-right/center-left axis and the corporate media.

[BasilValentine]

The collusion we had to worry about all along was the one between the center-right/center-left axis and the corporate media.

No, Adam Schiff summed up the collusion quite well, his points all factually established. Simon posted the text above, but the performance must be seen to be truly appreciated because a more thorough and articulate public ass-kicking has not been delivered in recent memory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8gAYUupm2k

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

The collusion we had to worry about all along was the one between the center-right/center-left axis and the corporate media.

The inconclusive nature of Mueller's findings regarding Trump himself is a disappointment, but I withhold judgement until the Mueller report is substantially released. On the other hand, we got most of Mueller's findings in the form of indictments, Trump's campaign manager convicted or pleads to a dozen felony counts, Trump's National security advisor pleads to a Felony, both related to work for Trump. Other Trump campaign officials plead or indicted on felony counts. Russian Agents and corporations indicted. Trump's lawyer pleads guilty to lying to Congress regarding Trump's activities. If all of that had been revealed with the "report" it would have landed like a ton of bricks.

The biggest problem with the U.S. government is influence of money and corporate influence. It will take public outrage to put an end to that. It is a tragedy that people angry about that were duped into voting for a con man whose only goal is to enrich or glorify himself, and who finds it expedient to pander to big money interests and the worst instincts of his "base."

[SimonNZ]

The collusion we had to worry about all along was the one between the center-right/center-left axis and the corporate media.

The single biggest factor in Trump's winning both the primary and the general was the free wall to wall 24/7 coverage the media gave him His miserly campaign survived and flourished through that alone. If the media were "colluding" with the left instead of, you know, just pointing out the many ways he is so clearly a total dick and unfit for higher office, then they would have stopped feeding him the free publicity oxygen he needed.

He should be thanking them from the bottom of his heart and sending them chocolates every day.

He's unhappy with the reporting after the election? Well stop doing dumb shit and people will stop reporting that you did dumb shit. Sorry to hear the no-such-thing-as-bad-publicity game doesn't work once you're president.

[SimonNZ]

On April 3, Brunei will legalize the stoning to death of LGBT people. After 24 hours of silence, the U.S. government tells The Daily Beast it is 'concerned' about the law - but won't directly condemn it.

[SimonNZ]

Kushner Appears to be Extorting Qatari Government

"While America's attention has been focused primarily on the Mueller report, over the course of the last several weeks, a story that likely isn't clearly captured in the Mueller report has been building steam. For well over a year now, there has been speculation about Jared Kushner's security clearance, as well as his meetings and ties with various leaders within the Middle East. Now it appears as if this speculation is becoming a full-blown scandal.

[...]

It all started back in April of 2017, after Jared Kushner's father, Charles Kushner, met with the Qatari finance minister at the St. Regis Hotel in New York City.

"Charles Kushner asked for $1 billion according to someone in that meeting, to whom I have spoken. The Qataris turned Charles Kushner down because the deal was a bad deal," Ward explained to KrassenCast.

The deal she is talking about was in regards to a building owned by Kushner Properties located at 666 5th Ave. At the time, the company was headed towards a foreclosure of the property as a balloon payment came due in January of 2019. According to some sources, the revenue from the building only covered approximately 50% of the mortgage payment.

Ward then went on to explain the shocking details of what happened next, according to Qatari officials:

"What I have learned is that in the ensuing month [May 2017] before the US visit to Riyadh, Jared Kushner got on a plane and flew to Doha, the Qatari capital, and he reamed the Qatari ruling family, the al-Thanis, for not doing the deal with his father... They began to feel that he was indirectly threatening their sovereignty. The next thing they know, when they show up to the summit in Riyadh, the Emir, the ruler of Qatar, arrives with an entourage, but his entourage is suddenly cut off from him, and not allowed into the summit at the same time by the Saudis, which he felt was a move to deliberately make him look weak. You have to remember during this summit, Jared and Ivanka go off for a cozy secret unmonitored dinner with [Saudi Crown Prince] MBS. Nobody knows what they talked about," Ward explained to KrassenCast.

Just ten days later, against the advice of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis, the United States supported the Saudi and UAE-led blockade of Qatar. On June 6, 2017 President Trump shockingly supported the blockade of a key US ally in the region, forcing many within his own Administration and the GOP to question the move publicly.

"What the Qataris found was not just a blockade. There were Saudi [and] Emerati troops on their border," Ward explained to KrassenCast. "What they interpreted this as, was Jared Kushner basically saying, 'if you don't pay my father and pay off this building, look what's going to happen. We're going to, I'm going to, the Americans are going to sanction an invasion of your country.' Sources in the State Department say, yes, it's true; troops were on the border," Ward continued.

Nine months later, a Canadian company, Brookfield Partners, who the Qatari Investment Authority owns a $1.8 billion or 9% stake in, bailed out Kushner Properties, with a 99-year lease agreement for 666 5th Ave.

"They bail it out in a deal that makes absolutely no economic sense. They do a 99-year lease and they pay the entire 99-year lease up front. You don't need to be good at math, you don't need to be in the New York real estate community to understand how crazy that is," Ward told KrassenCast.

Around this same time, President Trump publicly shifts course, no longer supporting the blockade, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tells Saudi Arabia to stop the embargo.

[SimonNZ]

House Democrats increasingly troubled by Barr's plan for Mueller report

posting for this sentence in the middle which seems like it should be the lede:

"Staffers also said Barr acknowledged making a mistake by speaking extensively with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina, over dinner before he had spoken with Nadler."

[arpeggio]

Just because the President may be innocent of collusion with the Russians, that does not mean that he is innocent of fraud, obstruction or other crimes. 

Just common sense would dictate that. 

[BasilValentine]

Just because the President may be innocent of collusion with the Russians, that does not mean that he is innocent of fraud, obstruction or other crimes. 

Just common sense would dictate that.

There's no reason to assume he's innocent of collusion/conspiracy yet. Billy the Barrel's recent equivocations suggest the summary was a con job. Why on earth is that weasel given control over the report and its release? All previous special counsel reports of this kind were released in total to Congress almost immediately. Barr is pissing on precedent and subverting the whole idea of a special counsel, which is to have someone independent and non-partisan conduct a politically sensitive investigation. And he seems to be careening toward obstruction of justice.

Kushner Appears to be Extorting Qatari Government

'Dat story's got whiskas on it! Someone broke that at the time of the Qatar embargo. Okay, sorry. I just read the whole thing and there's a lot more there now. If that's all true and documented then it is clear Kushner used his position for financial gain. He should end up in jail.

[SimonNZ]

Keeping it klassy: available for purchase at the Trump store website:

A "Mr. Pencil Neck" T-shirt mocking Adam Schiff.