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

[Turner]

"President Donald Trump's willingness to crack down on Russia will be seriously tested come Monday."
- https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/28/trump-russia-sanctions-deadline-373106


Paul Manafort. A life contrasting with that of most of us. Detailed story:
"https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/paul-manafort-american-hustler/550925/"

[Karl Henning]

And, back at the ostrich ranch:

How much evidence do Republicans need?

If Trump's own advisers think he has obstructed justice, how could Republicans decide otherwise?

One day, law professors may use [El Presidente Tupé's] case in a law school exam: Find all the evidence of obstruction of justice. Diligent students will find a wealth of material, if news accounts are proven to be true: requesting a loyalty oath from then-FBI Director James B. Comey; pressuring Attorney General Jeff Sessions to remain in charge of the Russia investigation to protect [El Tupé]; leaning on Comey to let former national security adviser Michael Flynn off; firing Comey; cooking up a pretext for firing Comey; telling Lester Holt of NBC News that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation; falsely suggesting there were White House tapes so as to affect Comey's testimony; threatening some kind of legal action against Comey for "leaking"; launching spurious conspiracy theories (unmasking, accusing Barack Obama of wiretapping [Tupé Tower] while he was president, smearing FBI officials who could be witnesses) to discredit the investigation; trying to get one of the potential FBI witnesses, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, fired; drafting a misleading statement about [El Tupé niño's] June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer in [Tupé Tower]; ordering that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III be fired; and publicly denying he ever considered firing Mueller. We've probably missed a few, but even a mediocre law student could get an A on that test.

[zamyrabyrd]

And, back at the ostrich ranch:

How much evidence do Republicans need?

If Trump's own advisers think he has obstructed justice, how could Republicans decide otherwise?

One day, law professors may use [El Presidente Tupé's] case in a law school exam: Find all the evidence of obstruction of justice. Diligent students will find a wealth of material, if news accounts are proven to be true: requesting a loyalty oath from then-FBI Director James B. Comey; pressuring Attorney General Jeff Sessions to remain in charge of the Russia investigation to protect [El Tupé]; leaning on Comey to let former national security adviser Michael Flynn off; firing Comey; cooking up a pretext for firing Comey; telling Lester Holt of NBC News that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation; falsely suggesting there were White House tapes so as to affect Comey's testimony; threatening some kind of legal action against Comey for "leaking"; launching spurious conspiracy theories (unmasking, accusing Barack Obama of wiretapping [Tupé Tower] while he was president, smearing FBI officials who could be witnesses) to discredit the investigation; trying to get one of the potential FBI witnesses, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, fired; drafting a misleading statement about [El Tupé niño's] June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer in [Tupé Tower]; ordering that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III be fired; and publicly denying he ever considered firing Mueller. We've probably missed a few, but even a mediocre law student could get an A on that test.

Nothingburger. Russia has not been considered a hostile country during wartime. Someone spoke to a Russki lawyer, SO WHAT?
"Obstruction of justice" is as vapid a term as "racist". A better word for "justice" in the above context would be "procedure" or "witch hunt".

[Todd]

Calm, rational discourse from Twitter.

[zamyrabyrd]

Calm, rational discourse from Twitter.

Is that a joke or satire?

[Todd]

Is that a joke or satire?

Given that the author appears as a bobblehead on MSNBC, I'm thinking she's serious.

[amw]

Are people surprised that the NYT is basically a conservative, american imperialist publication where it comes to the opinion pages? Were they completely skipping over all the columns by Maureen Dowd, George Will, Tom Friedman, etc, for the last 10+ years? All the pieces defending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Literally just read the journalism pieces and ignore the rest lol (and bear in mind that they also are happy to suppress journalism pieces at the request of the US government)

[amw]

(I mean obviously it's because MSNBC was also defending those wars and is only anti government when the president has an approval rating below 40% because otherwise they won't make enough money)

[Todd]

...George Will...

Will doesn't write for the failing New York Times.

[Daverz]

You really took that out of context

Alex Jones is a garbage human being who should be reviled and shunned by any decent person.  That's the only context needed.

[amw]

Will doesn't write for the failing New York Times.

NYT, Washington Post.... same difference
>.>

(I totally knew that I was just testing y'all)

[Karl Henning]

The President sets the tone for all his supporters here:  if it bolsters my narrative, it's legitimate news.

[Todd]

NYT, Washington Post.... same difference
>.>

Not really.  AmPo is owned by the richest man in the world.  The failing New York Times can only rely on the sixth richest man in the world to bail them out in a pinch.  Big difference.

[Mirror Image]

Don't forget to watch Trump's State of the Clown speech tomorrow night. I'm sure he'll explain why he's a 'very stable genius.'

[Karl Henning]

Couldn't pay me to watch

[Mahlerian]

Couldn't pay me to watch

Sarah Sanders says it's "must-see TV," but I too shall shirk that mandate.

[André]

Sarah Buckaroo Sanders will no doubt term it « the most presidential State of the Disunion address ever » without blinking. The WH should save a salary and give the job to a robot.

[milk]

Nothingburger. Russia has not been considered a hostile country during wartime. Someone spoke to a Russki lawyer, SO WHAT?
"Obstruction of justice" is as vapid a term as "racist". A better word for "justice" in the above context would be "procedure" or "witch hunt".

Race is probably an outdated and unuseful concept, though the term "racist" is for people who believe in it.

[SimonNZ]

Apparently he wants the names of his donors flashed up on the screen during the speech as a reward for them and as an encouragement for future donors.

[kishnevi]

Given that the author appears as a bobblehead on MSNBC, I'm thinking she's serious.

Be it noted that she was targeting an op-ed that said Stephen Miller represents a large portion of Republican voters, and no immigration deal is possible unless you include them in the deal.