AuthorTopic: 🤡 Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread  (Read 190587 times)

Offline K-Dog

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3316
    • View Profile
    • K-Dog
Re: 🤡 Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
« Reply #2340 on: January 06, 2020, 12:12:06 PM »
Trump fucked up big and the only way our media will care to balance the situation is to ramp grief up a notch.  As explained:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/hPOy-LutJQg" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/hPOy-LutJQg</a>

Nathan is a good guy.
Under ideal conditions of temperature and pressure the organism will grow without limit.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39751
    • View Profile
🤡 John Bolton says he’s prepared to testify in impeachment trial
« Reply #2341 on: January 08, 2020, 07:27:52 AM »
Trumpovetsky & McConnell will undoubtedly block this.   ::)

RE

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/RPzkcecJYv4" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/RPzkcecJYv4</a>
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39751
    • View Profile
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/bwZzv4KbUQU" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/bwZzv4KbUQU</a>
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39751
    • View Profile
🤡 GOP rebellion breaks out on Iran as Senate inches toward impeachment
« Reply #2343 on: January 09, 2020, 03:40:40 AM »
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/09/politics/impeachment-watch-january-8/index.html

GOP rebellion breaks out on Iran as Senate inches toward impeachment


Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, CNN

Updated 12:11 AM ET, Thu January 9, 2020
Trump: Iran appears to be standing down

Trump: Iran appears to be standing down 01:33
A version of this story first appeared in CNN's Impeachment Watch newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.

(CNN)A President impeached at home and using lethal force abroad. Threats of a nuclear program in the Middle East, questions about an international coalition and a Gulf War in the not-so distant memory.
Those are the basic contours of Bill Clinton's address to the nation in December of 1998. They are the same for Donald Trump's address from the White House on Wednesday after Iran retaliated for the US strike that had killed the country's top general while he was visiting Iraq last week.
But history, rather than repeating itself, has become inverted with the blunt and deadly application of American military might. It's like bizarro world, because the elements are largely the same, just reversed.
I spent Wednesday looking more closely at the Clinton example and how Trump has riffed on it. Clinton said he was building up an international coalition. Trump has taken pride in breaking coalitions down. Clinton used the military to attack Iraq's weapons program. Trump took out an Iranian general visiting Iraq in part as an act of retribution. Clinton's enemy was Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Trump's enemy is Iran.

But the constant is that the problems created by despotic leaders in the Middle East -- and US responses to them -- carry on from President to President to President.
'There will be no haggling'
It's been three weeks since the House voted to impeach Trump on two articles over his attempts to pressure Ukraine's President into helping to damage former Vice President Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 election. There has been no movement toward the next step laid out in the Constitution, a Senate trial. (Also, it is now less than four weeks before the first vote of 2020 -- the February 3 Iowa caucuses.)
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tried Wednesday to end his stalemate with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the impeachment trial by exerting Senate dominance. He said on the Senate floor that the California Democrat has no leverage to influence the Senate impeachment trial. "There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure," McConnell said. "We will not cede our authority to try this impeachment. The House Democrats' turn is over. The Senate has made its decision."
sen mitch mcconnell no haggling senate trial procedure sot vpx_00010311

McConnell: There will be no haggling over Senate procedure 01:04
He was referring to his declaration that he has the votes to carry on with a trial and punt on whether to call witnesses like John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser, after the House presents its impeachment case.
McConnell's comments came after Pelosi wrote to House Democrats on Tuesday night that the Kentucky Republican must release the text of the resolution on the impeachment trial rules before she would send the articles to the Senate.
McConnell vs. Pelosi was the topic of Wednesday's Impeachment Watch podcast, featuring David Chalian, Marshall Cohen and CNN analyst Michael Zeldin.
Also on Wednesday, McConnell and Trump met at the White House and discussed the upcoming trial, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. One of the sources said McConnell walked Trump through the format and discussed how Senate Republicans were reacting to developments around the trial.
The senator has not shared the text of the resolution with the White House, according to one of the sources, who says there's no negotiation with McConnell's office on how the language should be drafted. But the meeting is likely to fuel Democratic accusations that McConnell is improperly coordinating with the President before the trial.
Time for the trial
There are growing signs that even Democrats are done waiting.
CNN's Manu Raju reports the delay is upsetting efforts for senators to plan — both their work and personal schedules as well as their legislative efforts — amid the uncertainty over the standoff, according to multiple senators.
While most Democrats said that when to send the articles was the speaker's decision to make, they made clear that the trial should start soon, hoping for as early as next week.
Here's what they said:

    Sen. Angus King, a Maine independent who caucuses with Democrats, said that "it's probably time" to begin the trial, but added he would leave the decision on sending the articles to Pelosi. "I think Mitch McConnell made clear what he's moving forward in terms of rules," he said.

Sen. Chris Murphy
Sen. Chris Murphy

    Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, said: "My hope is that we'll be able to get the trial started next week." Murphy added: "I think if we're trying to create leverage on the Republicans, that leverage really exists when we put them on the record on motions to call witnesses."

    Sen. Richard Blumenthal, the senior Connecticut Democrat, added: "I'm ready to begin the trial tomorrow. As a former prosecutor, I'm ready to go to court."

War powers vote is set
While the timing of the impeachment trial remains unclear, Pelosi did make clear Wednesday there will be a vote this week to curb Trump's war powers, even as the President backs down from the brink on Iran.
War powers vote in the House -- CNN's Capitol Hill team reports that House Democrats will take up legislation on Thursday to restrain Trump's military actions amid hostilities with Iran, Pelosi announced.
Rep. Elissa Slotkin
Rep. Elissa Slotkin
The resolution, sponsored by freshman Rep. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, a former CIA analyst, will be considered by the Rules Committee to set the parameters for the debate on Wednesday night, she said.
The decision to move forward with the bill follows Pelosi's initial announcement over the weekend that the House will take up a measure similar to one introduced in the Senate by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia.
What would the resolution do? -- It would force the removal of US forces from hostilities within 30 days short of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force by Congress. Read more.
GOP senator unloads re: Iran
The war powers issue, unlike impeachment, is drawing sharp criticism of Trump from Republicans, specifically from anti-interventionist conservatives like Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky. Which means the vote, when it comes to the Senate, will be a very interesting moment for Trump, whose party has been essentially unified behind him on the Ukraine scandal. (War powers matters are privileged under Senate rules and so this resolution will get a vote).
Sen. Lee on Iran briefing: Worst briefing I've seen on a military issue

Sen. Lee on Iran briefing: Worst briefing I've seen on a military issue 01:48
Lee unloaded on the administration after what was supposed to be an intelligence briefing for lawmakers. Lee was not impressed with what he heard. He pointed out that Congress is a coordinate branch of government in charge of funding and authorizing military activity.
"They had to leave after 75 minutes while they're in the process of telling us that we need to be good little boys and girls and run along and not debate this in public. I find this absolutely insane."
Wow.
Paul on Graham's comments: That's a low, gutter-type response

Paul on Graham's comments: That's a low, gutter-type response 01:43
What are we doing here?

The President has invited foreign powers to interfere in the US presidential election. Democrats impeached him for it. A Senate trial is next. It is a crossroads for the American system of government as the President tries to change what's acceptable for US politicians. This newsletter will focus on this consequential moment in US history.
Keep track of the action with CNN's Impeachment Tracker. See a timeline of events. And get your full refresher on who's who in this drama.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Mike Lee furious after an 'insulting' Senate briefing on Trump's Iran strike
« Reply #2344 on: January 09, 2020, 05:04:36 AM »
GOP Sen. Mike Lee furious after an 'insulting' Senate briefing on Trump's Iran strike: 'The worst briefing ... on a military issue I've seen in 9 years'



  • Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah was furious on Wednesday after a Senate briefing on President Donald Trump's decision to order an airstrike that killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
  • Lee called it "probably the worst briefing, at least on a military issue, I've seen in nine years I've been here."
  • He said he "walked into that briefing undecided" on whether to support a war-powers resolution being pushed by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. The resolution would limit the Trump administration's ability to take further military action against Iran without congressional authorization.
  • "That briefing is what changed my mind," Lee said. "I'm now going to support it."
  • Other lawmakers — both Republican and Democratic — also ripped the Trump administration after being briefed on the strike, saying they saw little evidence to support such drastic measures against Iran. 
  • Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah was furious on Wednesday after a Senate briefing on President Donald Trump's decision to order an airstrike that killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, which brought tensions with Iran to a boiling point.

Lee told reporters that he "walked into that briefing undecided" on whether to support a war-powers resolution being pushed by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. The resolution would limit the Trump administration's ability to take further military action against Iran without congressional authorization.

"That briefing is what changed my mind," Lee said. "I'm now going to support it."

He went on to call the briefing "probably the worst briefing, at least on a military issue, I've seen in nine years I've been here."

"Drive-by notification or after-the-fact lame briefings like the one we just received aren't adequate," he said.

"I find it insulting; I find it demeaning" to the Senate and the Constitution, the senator added. "It's un-American, it's unconstitutional, and it's wrong," he said after adding that the people who briefed senators on Trump's strike said the lawmakers could not debate the merits of the measure.

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who stood alongside Lee as they addressed reporters, said he would also support a war-powers resolution to block further action against Iran.

"Today, this is Sen. Lee and I saying we are not abdicating our duty," Rand said.

Several other congressional lawmakers have voiced their dissatisfaction with the administration's briefings on the strike against Soleimani, who was Iran's most powerful military official and a widely revered figure within the nation.

Asked if she was convinced that there was evidence that Soleimani was planning an "imminent" attack on US personnel, as the administration has said, Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts replied, "No" but said she could not elaborate further.

Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal echoed that, saying, "There was no raw evidence presented that this was an imminent threat."

On Tuesday, as questions swirled about how robust the intelligence supporting the Soleimani strike was, Defense Secretary Mark Esper was asked whether the Iranian attacks against US personnel were days or weeks away before Soleimani's death.

"I think it's more fair to say days, for sure," Esper said.

But reporting from The New York Times' Rukmini Callimachi indicated that the underlying intelligence for the strike was "razor thin."

Callimachi reported that one source told her there wasn't evidence of an "imminent" attack on US interests that could kill hundreds, as the White House has said. "The official describes the reading of the intelligence as an illogical leap," she reported.

In the days since the Soleimani strike, both Iran and the US ratcheted up their actions and rhetoric amid historically high tensions. Iran on Sunday withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and the US sent another 3,500 troops into Iraq after ordering Americans to evacuate the region in the wake of Soleimani's assassination.

Trump also ignited a firestorm when he tweeted on Saturday that he would target 52 Iranian cultural sites – which would constitute a war crime if carried out — if Iran retaliated for Soleimani's death. The president later walked back his comments and said he would "obey the law" with respect to military action.

On Tuesday, Iran retaliated against the US for the Soleimani strike by launching a missile attack on US and coalition forces in Iraq. However, Trump announced on Wednesday that the attack didn't result in any American casualties and said Iran "appears to be standing down."

Rather than retaliate with force, the US will impose tougher economic sanctions on Iran, Trump said, adding that the days of tolerating Iran's malign behavior "are over."

"Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief. Do justly now, love mercy now, walk humbly now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it."

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39751
    • View Profile
Why am I not surprised?  ???   :icon_scratch:

RE

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/trump-suggests-block-john-bolton-testimony-impeachment-trial.html

The Slatest
Trump Suggests He’d Block Bolton Testimony “For the Sake of the Office”

By Daniel Politi
Jan 11, 20203:06 PM

President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media as then-National Security Adviser John Bolton listens during a meeting with President of Romania Klaus Iohannis in the Oval Office of the White House on August 20, 2019 in Washington, D.C.
Alex Wong/Getty Images

Popular in News & Politics

    The GOP’s Endless War on Democrats
    The Courts Can Move Quickly. They’re Slow-Walking Trump Cases on Purpose.
    U.S. Rejects Iraqi Demand to Withdraw Troops. Can We Do That?
    Unity Will Be Required to Beat Trump, but It Won’t Be Bipartisan Unity

President Donald Trump indicated in an interview with Fox News Friday that he would invoke executive privilege to prevent former national security adviser John Bolton from testifying at the Senate impeachment trial. Earlier this week, Bolton said in a statement that he is “prepared to testify” if the Senate issues a subpoena for his testimony.

In the interview, Laura Ingraham asked Trump why he would not allow Bolton to testify if he knew that his former adviser had information that would help the president make the case that he had done nothing wrong. Trump said he would have “no problem” with Bolton testifying—“other than one thing.” Trump insisted he was watching out for his successors. “You can’t be in the White House as president, future, I’m talking about future—many future presidents—and have a security adviser, anybody having to do with security, and legal and other things but especially…,” Trump said before he was interrupted by Ingraham, who asked whether he would invoke executive privilege to block the testimony.

“I think you have to,” Trump said. “For the sake of the office.” The president went on to say that he would “love everybody to testify,” listing White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former Energy Secretary Rick Perry as examples. But doing so, would hurt presidents in the future, Trump insisted. “There are things that you can’t do from the standpoint of executive privilege,” he said. And Trump went on to make clear that Bolton’s testimony would be particularly harmful. “Especially, a national security adviser,” Trump said. “You can’t have him explaining all of your statements about national security concerning Russia, China, and North Korea—everything. We just can’t do that.”
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Why am I not surprised?  ???   :icon_scratch:

RE

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/trump-suggests-block-john-bolton-testimony-impeachment-trial.html

The Slatest
Trump Suggests He’d Block Bolton Testimony “For the Sake of the Office”

Well, there's Trump for you. Always thinking about others first.
"Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief. Do justly now, love mercy now, walk humbly now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it."

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39751
    • View Profile
So we will get a Show Trial?  ???  :icon_scratch:

RE

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/478080-gop-leadership-there-arent-51-votes-to-dismiss-trump-articles-of-impeachment

GOP leadership: There aren't 51 votes to dismiss Trump articles of impeachment
By Jordain Carney - 01/13/20 06:54 PM EST

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Lo8ogMhvnmI" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/Lo8ogMhvnmI</a>

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) told reporters on Monday that the Senate Republican caucus doesn't have the votes to dismiss the articles of impeachment against President Trump, who endorsed an "outright dismissal" over the weekend.
 
"I think our members generally are not interested in a motion to dismiss. ... Certainly there aren't 51 votes for a motion to dismiss," Blunt, the No. 4 Senate Republican, told reporters after a closed-door leadership meeting.
 
Republicans have warned for months that they will not dismiss the two articles of impeachment against Trump, predicting a trial will end with votes on either acquitting or convicting him.
 
But Trump revived talk of trying to dismiss the articles over the weekend, saying the Senate was "giving credence" to the allegations against him by having a trial.
 
"Many believe that by the Senate giving credence to a trial based on the no evidence, no crime, read the transcripts, 'no pressure' Impeachment Hoax, rather than an outright dismissal, it gives the partisan Democrat Witch Hunt credibility that it otherwise does not have. I agree!" Trump tweeted on Sunday.
 
Dismissing the articles of impeachment would require 51 votes. Because no Democrats would support the effort, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could afford to lose only two GOP senators and still successfully dismiss the articles.
 
Multiple Republicans, including Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Rob Portman (Ohio), have indicated they would oppose a motion to dismiss, arguing that both Trump's legal team and House impeachment managers should be able to make their case.
 
The resolution on the Clinton impeachment trial rules in the 1990s had a motion to dismiss built into it. The motion, made after opening arguments and questions from senators, was ultimately unsuccessful.
 
Republicans are still crafting the rules resolution for the Trump trial, but some GOP senators have suggested they will not include a specific motion to dismiss in the resolution. That would not, according to aides and senators, prevent a senator from trying to make a motion to dismiss during the trial.
 
“If 51 senators wanted to have that vote, we could have it at some point. I don’t believe it’s going to be baked into the underlying resolution,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), an adviser to McConnell, told The Hill.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39751
    • View Profile
🤡 House chairs send additional evidence for impeachment to Senate
« Reply #2348 on: January 14, 2020, 09:32:19 PM »
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/478270-house-chairs-send-additional-evidence-for-impeachment-to-senate

House chairs send additional evidence for impeachment to Senate
By Tal Axelrod and Marty Johnson - 01/14/20 06:31 PM EST


Related News

    Schiff calls for open hearings on Trump's Iran actions Schiff calls for open hearings on Trump's…

    House Foreign Affairs panel fires back at Trump in tweet: 'You're not a dictator' House Foreign Affairs panel fires back at…

    Alaska: Say Bye To Your Mortgage If You Live Near Palmer (You Must Qualify) Alaska: Say Bye To Your Mortgage If You Live… Sponsored | Mortgage Quotes | Fetcharate

    House GOP campaign arm faces ethics complaint over 'trackers' in Capitol buildings House GOP campaign arm faces ethics…
 

The four House committees at the center of the chamber’s impeachment proceedings against President Trump released additional evidence on Tuesday to be transmitted to the Senate ahead of its upcoming trial.

The Democratic chairmen of the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and Reform committees sent evidence to the House Judiciary Committee that was provided by Lev Parnas, an associate of Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. The Judiciary panel will incorporate the new evidence in the official record it will send to the Senate before it starts its proceedings next week.

Among the pieces of evidence from Parnas are phone records, documents and other materials regarding his role in efforts to convince the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of Trump's chief political rivals.

The documents include a photocopy of a note thought to be written by Parnas reading, "Get [Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky] to announce that the Biden case will be investigated." It also says to start communicating with Zelensky without two people described as "prominent and politically-connected Ukrainian oligarchs."

"Despite the President’s unprecedented and sweeping obstruction of our impeachment inquiry, we have continued to collect additional evidence relevant to the President’s scheme to abuse his power by pressing Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election for the President’s benefit," the House chairmen said in a statement Tuesday.

"All of this new evidence confirms what we already know: the President and his associates pressured Ukrainian officials to announce investigations that would benefit the President politically. There cannot be a full and fair trial in the Senate without the documents that President Trump is refusing to provide to Congress," they added.

Parnas has emerged as a focal figure in the impeachment process, with Democrats saying he played a key role in relaying Trump’s wishes to Ukrainian figures. In the documents released by House investigators, Parnas said he intended to work his “magic” to reach a deal with Kyiv. The documents indicate that Parnas tried to set up a meeting between Zelensky and Giuliani but was unsuccessful.

The documents also show Giuliani taking an active role in furthering Trump's personal interests in Ukraine. Included in the documents is a letter from Giuliani to Zelensky shortly after his surprise victory in the 2019 Ukrainian presidential election asking for a 30-minute meeting, saying he was making the request with Trump's "knowledge and consent."

It's unclear exactly what Giuliani wanted to discuss in the meeting, but he said he would "be accompanied by my colleague Victoria Toensing, a distinguished American attorney who is very familiar with this matter." Giuliani later canceled his planned trip to Ukraine following blowback.

Also in the documents is a text exchange between Giuliani and Parnas regarding former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch time-stamped April 23, 2019 — the day before Yovanovitch received a call from the State Department recalling her to the U.S. Giuliani texted Parnas, “He fired her again.” Parnas responded, “I pray it happens this time I’ll call you tomorrow my brother.”

Parnas was known to be one of several figures involved in the administration’s efforts to get Zelensky to investigate Biden as well as remove Yovanovitch, who some believed would be an obstacle to Trump’s efforts.

Parnas and Igor Fruman, also a Giuliani associate, were indicted in October for federal campaign finance violations centered around allegedly funneling donations to a group supporting Trump's reelection campaign. Both have pleaded not guilty.

The transmission of the new evidence follows a weeks-long feud between House Democrats and Senate Republicans in which Democrats in the lower chamber have tried to convince Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to agree to hear from witnesses prior to starting the trial.

The GOP leader has won enough support from Republicans to deal with the issue of witnesses after the proceedings are already underway, though some Republicans have indicated they still would like to hear from some administration officials and Trump associates.

The House will hold a vote Wednesday to transfer the two impeachment articles against Trump to the Senate, setting up a trial that McConnell said will start next Tuesday. The House passed the two articles last month, alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Like the Mob, But the Sopranos Had More Class
« Reply #2349 on: January 15, 2020, 06:27:38 AM »

Donald Trump goes completely berserk after Lev Parnas reveals plot to hire goons to target Marie Yovanovitch

Yesterday Lev Parnas turned over a treasure trove of Ukraine scandal evidence to the House. This evening the House released the first batch of that evidence, including WhatsApp text messages which revealed a bizarre plot to hire local goons in Ukraine to target US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch for some kind of surveillance, harassment, and/or harm.

Donald Trump had been quiet on Twitter all day. But just a few minutes after the House published this jarring new evidence, Trump suddenly came to life and went berserk with tweets. Trump began accusing Apple of siding with “killers” due to its refusal to unlock iPhones without a warrant. That’s ironic, considering Trump and his team were just exposed for hiring potential killers to target a United States Ambassador. Then Trump tweeted this crap:

Cryin’ Chuck Schumer just said, “The American people want a fair trial in the Senate.” True, but why didn’t Nervous Nancy and Corrupt politician Adam “Shifty” Schiff give us a fair trial in the House. It was the most lopsided & unfair basement hearing in the history of Congress!

What stands out is that Donald Trump is clearly worried about the growing possibility of Republican Senators voting to have witnesses testify against him at his impeachment trial. That was already a brewing problem for Trump as of yesterday, and now today Lev Parnas has placed even more pressure on GOP Senators to cover their own backsides by calling witnesses. Trump is clearly worried, and he’s right to be worried.



Donald Trump’s goon Robert Hyde goes off the deep end after Lev Parnas incriminates him

After the House released new Ukraine scandal text messages between Lev Parnas and Robert Hyde this evening, we all began asking the same question: who is Robert Hyde? That’s not a name that had previously been associated with the scandal. It turns out Hyde is deeply connected to Trump, however – and let’s just say that Hyde isn’t taking today’s developments well.

Last month, MSN and the Hartford Courant reported that Robert Hyde is a congressional candidate who has donated thousands of dollars to Donald Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign. Now the House has released a text message conversation between Hyde and Lev Parnas about hiring local goons in Ukraine to do something bad to U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.

Daily Beast managed to track down Robert Hyde, giving him the opportunity to tell his side of the story. But Hyde apparently didn’t bother to refute the legitimacy of the text messages, or even try to tamp down the interpretations of the text messages. Instead, Hyde’s response to today’s news was this: “Bull Schiff is a giant b*tch.”

We suppose this means Robert Hyde isn’t planning to cooperate with the impeachment process any time soon. But if these text messages are as legitimate as the House believes they are, then Hyde is looking at potential criminal liability in this Ukraine scandal. With Lev already in the process of cooperating, Hyde might want to change his tune fast.


Stay tuned to this one.
"Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief. Do justly now, love mercy now, walk humbly now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it."

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39751
    • View Profile
🤡 Iran has a 'shockingly strong' war-crimes case against Trump over Soleimani'
« Reply #2350 on: January 16, 2020, 05:35:13 AM »
Great!  Trumpovetsky will be on Trial in the FSoA Senate and at the Hague at the same time!  lol.

RE

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-iran-qassem-soleimani-war-crimes-lawsuit-could-win-2020-1

Iran has a 'shockingly strong' war-crimes case against Trump over Soleimani's killing — and it could win
Mitch Prothero
22 hours ago


US President Donald Trump and Iranian military commander Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Leah Millis/Reuters; Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via AP

    Iran says it will pursue war-crimes charges against President Donald Trump at the International Criminal Court in the Hague over this month's assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
    A legal expert told Insider that Iran would have a good chance of winning any case at the ICC.
    The US has defended the killing by saying that Soleimani posed an "imminent" threat to the US.
    Agnes Callamard, UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial Executions, tweeted that the bar for justifying lethal action in such circumstances is extremely high and requires a threat level that the US has so far failed to identify.
    A NATO military attaché in the Middle East told Insider that the case against the US is "shockingly strong."
    Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Iran will pursue war-crimes charges against President Donald Trump at the International Criminal Court in the Hague over the January 3 assassination of its top commander, Gen. Qassem Soleimani, outside Baghdad's international airport, according to Gholam Hossein Esmaeili, the spokesman for Iran's top judicial authorities.

"We intend to file lawsuits in the Islamic Republic, Iraq and The Hague Court [International Court of Justice] against the military and government of America and against Trump," Esmaeili said at a Tuesday press conference.

"There is no doubt that the US military has done a terrorist act assassinating Guards Commander Lt. Gen. Soleimani and Second-in-Command of Iraq Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis ... and Trump has confessed doing the crime."
iran missile soleimani
Iranians celebrate in Tehran after the country launched missiles at US-led forces in Iraq on January 8, 2020. The man on the poster is Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who died in a US airstrike on January 3. Nazanin Tabatabaee/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters

Since the killing, Iran's leadership has vowed political, military, and legal revenge for what they call an unlawful killing of one of their greatest military heroes.

Soleimani was well known throughout the Middle East for his diplomatic and military acumen.
The US faces a PR embarrassment if the case gets to trial — because Iran could win

Iran's response to the assassination so far has, however, been complicated by the accidental downing of a Ukrainian airliner last week.

While the US is not a signatory to the international court — US presidents have long contended the venue could be used by America's enemies in cases like this to pressure its foreign policy — it still faces a public-relations burden if the case goes to trial.

This is because according to at least one internationally recognized expert, Iran could win.

Shortly after Soleimani's death, Agnes Callamard, UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial Executions, tweeted that the bar for lethal action by a nation claiming self-defense — as the Trump administration has repeatedly claimed — is extremely high and requires an imminent threat that the US has so far failed to identify.

"The targeted killings of Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al Muhandi most likely violate international law [including] human rights law," she wrote. "Lawful justifications for such killings are very narrowly defined and it is hard to imagine how any of these can apply to these killings."
An attack needs to be imminent to justify such a killing, and this one may not meet the standard

In another tweet, Callamard explicitly broke down how the Trump administration's claims that Soleimani posed an imminent and ongoing threat to US interests failed to reach the bar set by international law.

The White House statement "mentions that it aimed at 'deterring future Iranian attack plans,'" she wrote. "This however is very vague. Future is not the same as imminent which is the time based test required under international law."
This photo released by the Iraqi Prime Minister Press Office shows a burning vehicle at the Baghdad International Airport following an airstrike in Baghdad, Iraq, early Friday, Jan. 3, 2020. The Pentagon said Thursday that the U.S. military has killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's elite Quds Force, at the direction of President Donald Trump. (Iraqi Prime Minister Press Office via AP)
This photo released by the Iraqi Prime Minister Press Office shows a burning vehicle at the Baghdad International Airport following an airstrike in Baghdad, Iraq, early Friday, Jan. 3, 2020. Associated Press

A NATO military attaché based in the region told Business Insider that while the case has yet to be formally filed, it could pose significant problems for the US and its NATO partners, should the court rule against the Trump administration.
'The case against the Americans is shockingly strong'

"Keeping distance between the Americans and Europe is most of Iran's broader plan right now."

"If this case happens — I suspect there are some reasons Iran might not want to take this mess to an international court for their own reasons — but if it does go forward, the case against the Americans is shockingly strong," the official, who asked not to be named, said.

"On the face of it, the killing of Soleimani for reasons specifically cited by Trump is probably illegal. Do the Americans have a stronger case then they're showing us?

"I would assume so, but there's little chance of them participating in a Hague trial, so all the evidence will be what Iran delivers along with public statements."

"And these statements will not look good in a courtroom," the official added.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17650
    • View Profile
Re: 🤡 Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
« Reply #2351 on: January 16, 2020, 06:00:42 AM »
War crimes tribunals are a joke when the perpetrator is the head of the Evil Empire..
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39751
    • View Profile
Re: 🤡 Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
« Reply #2352 on: January 16, 2020, 06:15:25 AM »
War crimes tribunals are a joke when the perpetrator is the head of the Evil Empire..

Perhaps true, but it isn't too good for your public image when you are running for reelection.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17650
    • View Profile
Re: 🤡 Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
« Reply #2353 on: January 16, 2020, 06:37:21 AM »
War crimes tribunals are a joke when the perpetrator is the head of the Evil Empire..

Perhaps true, but it isn't too good for your public image when you are running for reelection.

RE

Nothing succeeds in American politics like blatant demagoguery, 

Trump knows the way to get elected is to wrap himself in the flag, pretend to be pious, and to do anything he can to goose the markets.


Donald Trump Is Promising ‘Big Action’ on School Prayer to Rally Evangelical Voters


President Donald Trump, center, prays during an 'Evangelicals for Trump' Coalition launch event in Miami, Florida, on Jan. 3, 2020.
....and Lord, please acquit me of all charges and make me President-for-Life like you did Xi and Vlad.

BY KATIE REILLY

 10:25 PM EST

President Donald Trump is promising “big action” to promote school prayer, tapping into the long-controversial issue of religion in public schools as he seeks to rally the evangelicals who were key to his 2016 election.

“We will not allow faithful Americans to be bullied by the hard left,” Trump said at a rally with evangelical supporters at a Florida megachurch on Jan. 3. “Very soon, I’ll be taking action to safeguard students’ and teachers’ First Amendment rights to pray in our schools. We’re doing a big action, Attorney General Bill Barr.”

Trump did not elaborate on his plans, but he is scheduled to announce “guidance on constitutional prayer in public schools” on Thursday, according to his schedule released by the White House.

But while the First Amendment supports the free exercise of religion, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that public schools cannot promote prayer or religious symbols. And legal and religious experts say it’s not clear what meaningful action Trump could take without violating that precedent.



“Private prayer, to the extent that it would ever be interfered with, is already protected by the First Amendment and there are very, very few cases where any government official has tried to interfere with a private student’s right to pray,” says Frank Ravitch, a Michigan State University law professor who has written about school prayer.

Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to support school prayer, according to a Gallup poll showing that overall American support for daily prayer in public school classrooms had fallen from 70% in 1999 to 61% in 2014. Protestants and other Christians were also far more likely than people with no religious preference to support daily prayer in the classroom and student-led prayer at graduation ceremonies.

And Trump has seen consistently high support from white evangelicals throughout his presidency. Exit polls showed that Trump won 81% of the white evangelical vote in the 2016 general election, and a December poll conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 79% of white evangelical Protestants approve of how Trump is handling his job as president. By comparison, less than half of all other Americans approve.

There have been some cracks in that support, notably when Christianity Today, a leading evangelical magazine, published an editorial in December calling for Trump’s impeachment and removal from office, describing his conduct as “profoundly immoral.” But other evangelical leaders quickly rallied behind Trump in response.

“Essentially what’s going on here is it’s pandering to social conservatives,” Ravitch says. “That’s really what this is about.”

A lawsuit over ‘school-sponsored prayer’

In his remarks at the Miami rally, Trump criticized a lawsuit brought by atheist students and their families, who say the Smith County School System in Carthage, Tenn., has for years “routinely promoted and inculcated Christian religious beliefs by sponsoring religious activities and conveying religious messages to students.”

Get our Politics Newsletter. Sign up to receive the day's most important political stories from Washington and beyond.


 
The suit filed in November alleges that school staff often have incorporated official prayer into school assemblies, graduation ceremonies and athletic events, including pep rallies. Christian prayers are delivered over the loudspeaker before home football games, and athletic coaches participate in Christian prayers with students before games and practices. According to the lawsuit, Bible verses and other religious messages have been posted in school hallways, classrooms, a school cafeteria, and a school bathroom, and school leaders allowed the Gideons International, a Christian association, to distribute Bibles during class.

“All of these activities send a clear message to minority-faith and non-religious students that they are second-class members of the school community while their Christian peers are favored by school officials,” the suit says. It describes the plaintiffs, who include the father of two children and the mother and father of two other children, as feeling “coerced, both directly and indirectly, to participate in religious activities and expression that does not comport with their personal beliefs.”

“They feel like outsiders within their own school community,” the complaint says.

In a legal filing responding to the complaint, Smith County school officials denied many of the allegations, arguing that prayer by coaches before or after sporting events, over the loudspeaker at football games, or led by students at school events were not examples of “official” school prayer. The response described another alleged example of school-sponsored prayer as a “moment of silence.”

Smith County school officials named in the lawsuit and their attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.

In his remarks at the rally, Trump voiced support for the school district. “I love Tennessee for allowing prayer in schools and in football games, but we will not allow faithful Americans to be bullied by the hard left,” he said. “We’re not going to allow it, and we get involved with many of these cases.”

“Students already have broad rights to engage in religious exercise and expression in a public school, and that’s not what the case in Tennessee is about. This is about school officials imposing official prayer and religious messages on the student body, and that is not allowed,” says Heather Weaver, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief who is representing the families in the Tennessee case.

“What I hope for our clients is that they will be able to attend their public school and participate in their public school community without being made to feel like second-class citizens or lesser people, simply because they don’t share the faith of their peers or the faith of school officials.”

The lawsuit is similar to others brought by the ACLU in the past. In 2017, the organization sued a school district in Louisiana, accusing the district of promoting religion by broadcasting Christian prayers each morning over the public address system and incorporating official prayer into athletic events, pep rallies and assemblies. In a 2018 consent decree, a federal judge ordered the district to end school-sponsored prayer.

Weaver says the ACLU plans to closely monitor any school prayer guidance issued by the Trump Administration. “If [Trump] does take some kind of action to try to inject school-sponsored prayer into public schools, we’re going to oppose it vigorously,” she says.



Bruce Grelle — director of the Religion and Public Education Project at California State University, Chico — says the Supreme Court and lower courts have been clear: “Schools themselves, administrators, teachers, are supposed to be neutral when it comes to religion. They’re not to be promoting it. They’re not to be sponsoring or organizing religious activities or practices for students to participate in,” he says. “But students, themselves, are free to initiate and participate in various kinds of religious activities.”


The landmark 1962 Supreme Court ruling in Engel v. Vitale found that school-sponsored prayer, even if it’s nondenominational, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it represents government interference with religion. In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that states and school boards can’t require the reading of Bible passages or prayers in schools. In 2000, the Court ruled in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe that prayer over the public address system at school football games — even if it is student-led and student-initiated — was a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

But the role of religion in public schools remains a polarizing issue, and students’ encounters with it vary. Nearly 40% of public school teens say they see other students praying before school sporting events, according to a 2019 Pew Research Center survey. And 8% of public school teens say a teacher has led their class in prayer, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling against the practice.

Last year, lawmakers in several states debated bills that would require the national motto, “In God We Trust,” to be displayed prominently in schools. Supporters have described the bills as patriotic, while critics — including the ACLU and Freedom From Religion Foundation — have argued they pressure students into certain religious beliefs.

Trump has waded into the issue in the past. Last January, he tweeted support for controversial bills in several states to allow elective Bible literacy classes in public schools. It’s not unconstitutional for students to learn about the historical significance of the Bible in public schools, but critics argued that such legislation was an effort to promote Christianity.


Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
 Numerous states introducing Bible Literacy classes, giving students the option of studying the Bible. Starting to make a turn back? Great!

242K
7:21 AM - Jan 28, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

107K people are talking about this

In an October speech at Notre Dame Law School, Barr described public schools as “ground zero” for “attacks on religion,” warning that some public schools “are becoming secularized” and “inhospitable to families with traditional religious values.”


A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment, and a spokesperson for the Education Department referred all inquiries to the White House.

Grelle says he expects public schools to remain a battle ground in the debate over the role of religion.

“There’s so much misunderstanding about what can and cannot be done or what should and should not be done according to legal principles in public schools,” he says. “That ignorance allows politicians at local as well as national levels to whip up their constituencies.”

https://time.com/5765829/trump-school-prayer-evangelicals/

This from Time Magazine, your Billionaire-Owned glimpse into the American Scene.


« Last Edit: January 16, 2020, 06:42:41 AM by Eddie »
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: 🤡 Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
« Reply #2354 on: January 16, 2020, 10:07:00 AM »

Nothing succeeds in American politics like blatant demagoguery, 

Trump knows the way to get elected is to wrap himself in the flag, pretend to be pious, and to do anything he can to goose the markets.


Donald Trump Is Promising ‘Big Action’ on School Prayer to Rally Evangelical Voters

“When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

--attr. to Sinclair Lewis

"Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief. Do justly now, love mercy now, walk humbly now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it."

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
1870 Views
Last post January 13, 2017, 04:34:48 PM
by RE
1 Replies
2011 Views
Last post January 18, 2017, 12:55:29 AM
by RE
3 Replies
1523 Views
Last post June 02, 2018, 09:43:37 AM
by agelbert