The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. - Page 2000 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

...

Page 2000 of 5382

1000 1500 1800 1900 1950 1980 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2050 2100 2200 2500 3000

Last

Page 2000 of 5382

First

1000 1500 1800 1900 1950 1980 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2050 2100 2200 2500 3000

Last

08-02-2017 , 10:42 AM

#49976

nyc999

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 18,688

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyebooger

Were these protest no votes, as in "it's bull**** Comey was fired" or "Trump really shouldn't be nominating anyone given that he's under investigation"? Or did these people have problems with Wray specifically?

My guess is Gillibrand and Warren are both eyeing 2020 and don't want any Hillary Iraq votes on their record (not that this would be so severe).

08-02-2017 , 10:43 AM

#49977

Money2Burn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,628

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinopoker

And now we know the answer: pretty much everything that's been gained in the last 50 years.

What next, a movement to declare the Negro Baseball leagues racist because there were no white people playing in them?

Remember, for every "whites only" water fountain, there was a "blacks only" rusty water spigot. It takes two to tango.

08-02-2017 , 10:43 AM

#49978

prana

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 8,094

Trump signed the sanctions bill.

08-02-2017 , 10:45 AM

#49979

eyebooger

Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 60,034

Quote:

Originally Posted by zikzak

This is the only statement I could find from one of the five, but I didn't look very hard.

"In his public and private statements, Chris Wray failed to oppose government backdoors into Americans' personal devices, or to acknowledge the facts about encryption," Wyden said. "That it isn't about liberty versus security, it's about more security versus less security."

Surprised that Rand Paul went for it. Isn't that a very similar reason to why he opposed Comey?

Spoiler:

08-02-2017 , 10:57 AM

#49980

Our House

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 28,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyebooger

Trump has apparently signed the sanctions bill

Great, Trump saw his shadow. Now we have 6 more weeks of listening to how Trump proved he's so tough on Putin.

08-02-2017 , 11:08 AM

#49981

Chippa58

veteran

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 2,259

Quote:

Originally Posted by Our House

Great, Trump saw his shadow. Now we have 6 more weeks of listening to how Trump proved he's so tough on Putin.

I don't think he'll say much about it. He hasn't exactly been the voice of anti-Russian rhetoric. He said nothing about Russia expelling American diplomats in response to the new sanctions. Yesterday Tillerson said neither he nor the President wanted these sanctions. Again, the Trump administration's suspicious behavior surrounding Russia really seems to be the textbook definition of suspicious behavior. And the question must be asked "what would a Russian puppet do that Trump isn't doing?"

08-02-2017 , 11:31 AM

#49982

Our House

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 28,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chippa58

That's not how it works with the groundhog either. He sees his shadow, and groundhog supporters tell the tale.

08-02-2017 , 11:40 AM

#49983

rockfsh

veteran

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,530

Perry for DHS Chief? We'll all be safer?

All the best people.

08-02-2017 , 11:42 AM

#49984

prana

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 8,094

He signed it but thinks it is flawed and unconstitutional.

08-02-2017 , 11:46 AM

#49985

AllTheCheese

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 11,898

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyA

The problem with this story is that Rod Wheeler does seem extremely shady and there are good reasons to doubt his credibility. He voluntarily took this job to help smear Rich and it seems at worst, Butowski and others pushed the envelope a bit further than he wanted (saying he had personal knowledge vs. sources had told him).

The whole saga is obviously crazy and everyone involved is a horrible person, so I think the it would be wise to not rush to support Wheeler.

Wheeler is a Fox News contributor, hence very likely a garbage human being. But the point is, I don't need to trust him as a person to find his story with tape and text message support credible, to say nothing of the fact that Butowski is obviously lying and hiding something.

08-02-2017 , 11:54 AM

#49986

Our House

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 28,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by prana

He signed it but thinks it is flawed and unconstitutional.

Why can't he ever hide being so obviously compromised?

Putin from various interviews: "These ILLEGAL sanctions..."

08-02-2017 , 11:57 AM

#49987

Our House

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 28,109

Isn't that 50 or whatever page report proving collusion supposed to come out today? I thought they said Wednesday.

If legit all the way through, a report like that will provide so many talking points that are likely to BURY Trump in the news for quite a while.

08-02-2017 , 11:57 AM

#49988

unwantedguest

Guest

Posts: n/a

Merit based would be fair skinned non muslim, right?

08-02-2017 , 12:03 PM

#49989

GTO2.0

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 4,281

LOL at that statement on the sanctions. So beta. It's illegal but I'll sign it because reasons. If only there were some way for the Executive to have influence on the bills that come before the President. Who knew it would be this hard!

Has here ever been an example of a President signing a bill while simultaneously saying it sucks and is illegal?

08-02-2017 , 12:12 PM

#49990

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,330

The only reason he's signing it is because it's a super majority and he might as well go with the flow. Under 2/3rds and you know he's snap vetoing.

08-02-2017 , 12:13 PM

#49991

Dunkman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,218

I think signing the bill is pretty clearly going to be part of his defense down the road and that's why he didn't just let it sit. But he also had to try to smooth things over with daddy.

08-02-2017 , 12:14 PM

#49992

+rep_lol

banned

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 14,374

i wonder who actually wrote that statement. 0% chance he crafted it on his own, even if aides did all the research into statutes/articles in the constitution

08-02-2017 , 12:18 PM

#49993

Chippa58

veteran

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 2,259

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTO2.0

So comforting to know Trump is willing to sign bills with provisions that are "clearly unconstitutional". And he's signing his name to a letter obviously written by one of his lawyers.

08-02-2017 , 12:18 PM

#49994

JonnyA

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,664

Quote:

Originally Posted by +rep_lol

i wonder who actually wrote that statement. 0% chance he crafted it on his own, even if aides did all the research into statutes/articles in the constitution

I'm sure that the Office of Legal Counsel wrote it (this is essentially their job).

08-02-2017 , 12:20 PM

#49995

+rep_lol

banned

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 14,374

makes sense

08-02-2017 , 12:25 PM

#49996

JonnyA

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,664

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chippa58

So comforting to know Trump is willing to sign bills with provisions that are "clearly unconstitutional". And he's signing his name to a letter obviously written by one of his lawyers.

Not to defend Trump, but these type of signing statements are not that uncommon. There were at least a few instances where Obama signed a law but claimed that part of the law was an unconstitutional restriction of his executive powers.

The example that springs to mind is when Congress passed a bill that restricted the ability to transfer detainees from Gitmo to the US. Obama said that those provisions were unconstitutional and while he would sign the bill, he directed his administration to implement them in a constitutional manner.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=104530

08-02-2017 , 12:26 PM

#49997

Our House

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 28,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dunkman

I think signing the bill is pretty clearly going to be part of his defense down the road and that's why he didn't just let it sit. But he also had to try to smooth things over with daddy.

Not at all.

He's obstructing justice worse than ever, while knowing he's under federal investigation for obstructing justice worse than ever.

He's given Putin 15-20 pretty ugly concessions for absolutely nothing in return, while knowing he's under federal investigation for giving too much to Russia at the expense of America.

He's been colluding with Russians, while knowing he's under federal investigation for colluding with Russians.

His defense is a little weak atm, and he doesn't seem interested in bolstering it.

08-02-2017 , 12:28 PM

#49998

fxwacgesvrhdtf

Guest

Posts: n/a

New Rasmussen Poll. Trump at 38/62. New Record High Disapproval for any poll, and again it's LolRasmussen. Trump at a new record low of 37.6 percent aggregate in the 538 aggregator as well. Mid Level Deplorables are slowly jumping ship. Only the absolutely disgusting racist deplorables will stick with him forever.

Last edited by fxwacgesvrhdtf; 08-02-2017 at 12:33 PM.

08-02-2017 , 12:30 PM

#49999

Our House

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 28,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chippa58

So comforting to know Trump is willing to sign bills with provisions that are "clearly unconstitutional". And he's signing his name to a letter obviously written by one of his lawyers.

Kinda makes you wonder if+ the first thing he told his lawyers was "Look, Putin owns me."

08-02-2017 , 12:33 PM

#50000

eyebooger

Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 60,034

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyA

I see what you're saying, but this isn't the same thing.

In your link, Obama is praising the bill for a lot of things, but says that he really disagrees with a few sections. Obama can easily justify signing it because the good outweighs the bad.

This Trump statement is 100% "this bill is terrible". He doesn't say anything good about it.

Page 2000 of 5382

First

1000 1500 1800 1900 1950 1980 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2050 2100 2200 2500 3000

Last

...

Page 2000 of 5382

First

1000 1500 1800 1900 1950 1980 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2050 2100 2200 2500 3000

Last