It has nothing to do with what I want. It's just not there unless Mueller produces something. The jail sentences don't have anything to do with collusion. Why do you think the democrats on the senate intelligence committee are closing their investigation with a bipartisan conclusion of no direct evidence? Because they don't fucking have it. If the circumstantial evidence suggested the direct evidence was mere inches away you know damn well they wouldn't agree to wrapping it up. Mueller might have the smoking gun, but would they really be freaking the fuck out like this accusing everyone of a cover up BEFORE the report is even released if they thought he did? If by benefit of the doubt you mean I want to see the evidence before I buy into this shit entirely, well yeah. That's kind of my default approach with these sorts of things. Trump has already done things that are impeachable in my mind. Skepticism does not equal disbelief or fuk da libtards. And of all the people discussing this on here do you really think I'm the one so emotionally invested in the outcome?
Yeah, I think Mr. Transparency is going down hard on this one. I dont know how the judicial system in Canada works, but if there is any paper trail of the kind of pressure shes claiming, its over.
It's petty as hell, but Fordham University confirmed that Trump sent a threatening letter instructing them not to release his grades or test scores, even though they're already bound by federal law not to release them. There is a non zero chance that my SAT score might be literally double that of the President of the United States, which would be a sad commentary indeed.
The way people were talking I thought he sexually assaulted someone. All he did was lean on the attorney general? Trump did that every other day on Twitter for a year straight.
Bwahaha. If that was the worst one of our leaders had done it would put him in the top 5%, ethically speaking. We reelect representatives who rob sick people's healthcare funds and spend their charity's money on private jets. I think people would be legit confused if someone went down over that.
It reminds me of this book on Soviet history I read a while back. When Watergate happened, there were several conversations by the politburo in the kremlin about it; they legitimately could not see what the big deal was. They were making jokes about having broke into each other’s offices “just last week” and shit like that. It was actually kind of surreal to read.
Remember when the Virginia governor who wore black face in his yearbook pinkie swore he really wasn't racist? Virginia First Lady Criticized for Handing Cotton to Black Students Like, that's the actual headline. And it's not meant to be click-baity. She literally did exactly that.
Yeah, I'm SURE she did it to show how racist she is. Goddamn, people are retarded. "Whaa whaa she brought up history at a historical place. I wasn't even there, but I cried in my pillow all night." Fucking kill yourselves.
It's just one of those things you don't do. Especially if your husband just made national news for wearing black face. It would be like if Louis CK started telling jokes again about masturbating in front of women.... like dude, now you're just making it awkward. Or if Harvey Weinstein tried to hire female defense attorneys on the cheap by saying it would be good for their career..... oh wait....
New York Times with the scoop: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/us/politics/jared-kushner-security-clearance.html Despite bald faced denials from Trump and Ivanka, it was in fact the case that Trump ordered Kushner be given a security clearance over objections. Whatever the CIA/FBI/etc found on the little rat so worried White House officials that both Chief of Staff Kelly and White House Counsel McGahn wrote contemporaneous memos to the effect of "I was ordered to do this by POTUS/This was done over my objection(s)" lest they later be blamed for it.
Could trump et. al. face legal repercussions for lying about this? Or is it basically just egg on their face and corroborating what cohen said yesterday?
In terms of legality, what is and is not classified, and who has the right to see it, draws directly from the authority of the President, so he can grant clearance to whoever he wishes. Overruling the system put in place to do background checks is terribly unwise, but not illegal. False statements however, are illegal when made in the course of "any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch," and one of the articles of impeachment of Richard Nixon was preventing, obstructing, and impeding the administration of justice via, among other methods, "making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct," so depending on the lie it may be impeachable on its own. However, if Trump were going to face consequences for telling lies, it would have happened long before now, considering his lies now number around 7,000 by the count of The Washington Post.
Does it honestly take a NYT scoop to come up with this knowledge? As if this wasn’t obvious a long time ago? Every other government employee in America must be just so totally cool with this after hearing it. Everyone loves Nepotism and severe security endangerment.
A great deal of journalism in the Trump era is getting the receipts to things we know Trump has fucked up. NYT came with the memos from Kelly and McGahn and other sourcing within the White House.
Like those hush money payments. Everyone knew trump had knowledge of and paid for them, but then cohen comes in with his signature on the reimbursement check.
Just because the people you know don't pay attention doesn't mean we are all suffering from a made up disease designed to make people who are seeing real criminality think that WE are the crazy ones. That we are just so consumed with hate for the president that we are unable to look at something objectively while you just incuriously write off actual evidence is the essence of gaslighting.