Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

aloyisious

The weekend is near, so I reckon Don will be blitzing tweets then. On possible nothing-burgers CNN news Hannah Jones is reporting that NYT has a story that Rod Rosenstein had discussed ousting Don Trump from office with Justice Dept officials. Rod has issued a statement that the NYT story is "inaccurate and factually incorrect". No outright denial that any such discussion took place between Rod or any Justice Dep officials at all.

duploelabs

aloyisious wrote: »

The weekend is near, so I reckon Don will be blitzing tweets then. On possible nothing-burgers CNN news Hannah Jones is reporting that NYT has a story that Rod Rosenstein had discussed ousting Don Trump from office with Justice Dept officials. Rod has issued a statement that the NYT story is "inaccurate and factually incorrect". No outright denial that any such discussion took place between Rod or any Justice Dep officials at all.

Considering how Donny has threatened Jeff Sessions in the last couple of days, I would really say Rosewnstein's the kingmaker in all of this

everlast75

UsedToWait wrote: »

NYT:
Rosenstein secretly recorded Trump and discussed invoking the 25th amendment.

So, if he sacks Sessions, he needs to sack Rosenstein too.

(Edit: suggested secretly recording is the assertion)



edit: Rosenstein says the report is 'innacurate'
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he..

Well lots of people have apparently said such stuff in Fear and no-one got fired for that so....

Mind you - Trump wants mueller gone!

mcmoustache

Here's a link to the NYT report.

Here's Rosenstein's denial, which you'll notice doesn't deny the events.

The New York Times’s story is inaccurate and factually incorrect,” he said in a statement. “I will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own personal agenda. But let me be clear about this: Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment.

It's hinted at that this information was also contained in contemporaneous memos written by McCabe.

Mr. McCabe, who was later fired from the F.B.I., declined to comment. His memos have been turned over to the special counsel investigating whether Trump associates conspired with Russia’s election interference, Robert S. Mueller III, according to a lawyer for Mr. McCabe. “A set of those memos remained at the F.B.I. at the time of his departure in late January 2018,” the lawyer, Michael R. Bromwich, said of his client. “He has no knowledge of how any member of the media obtained those memos.”

It could be an interesting weekend.

aloyisious

duploelabs wrote: »

Considering how Donny has threatened Jeff Sessions in the last couple of days, I would really say Rosewnstein's the kingmaker in all of this

One important thing here is the leak: what was the intent of the leaker behind the NYT story, given what might happen when Don heard about it. Edit: big AAH after reading the post above.

It doesn't do Rod any good for the NYT to tell his boss that discussions took place on constitutionally removing him from office nor does it do Don any good. It's probably the only NYT story that Don won't have any problem believing is true. It should have him starting tweeting early.

mcmoustache

Just to add, I have no doubt that this happened and that it will be used as a pretext to fire Rosenstein. This could well be coming from Team Trump but it doesn't make it untrue. It does make one wonder where the information came from, however. It could be McCabe or someone else at the FBI. As I said, this could make for an interesting weekend in Trumpworld.

EDIT:

There are credible reports that Rosenstein's statement about the wire were sarcasm.

mcmoustache

aloyisious wrote: »

One important thing here is the leak: what was the intent of the leaker behind the NYT story, given what might happen when Don heard about it. Edit: big AAH after reading the post above.

It doesn't do Rod any good for the NYT to tell his boss that discussions took place on constitutionally removing him from office nor does it do Don any good. It's probably the only NYT story that Don won't have any problem believing is true. It should have him starting tweeting early.

You might be right. Given what's known about the recent 25th stuff and everybody recording, it might not be a big deal. On the other hand, I'm sure Trump has wanted rid of Rosenstein and Sessions for quite some time. I won't place any bets yet.

duploelabs

aloyisious wrote: »

One important thing here is the leak: what was the intent of the leaker behind the NYT story, given what might happen when Don heard about it. Edit: big AAH after reading the post above.

It doesn't do Rod any good for the NYT to tell his boss that discussions took place on constitutionally removing him from office nor does it do Don any good. It's probably the only NYT story that Don won't have any problem believing is true. It should have him starting tweeting early.

It could be to engineer some kind of re-run of Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre

UsedToWait

mcmoustache wrote: »

You might be right. Given what's known about the recent 25th stuff and everybody recording, it might not be a big deal. On the other hand, I'm sure Trump has wanted rid of Rosenstein and Sessions for quite some time. I won't place any bets yet.

Surely he can't do a Nixon and 'fire em all' down to the janitor?

I think he'll be allowed fire Sessions after the mid terms.
Rosenstein would be a bridge too far.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s62PeTxELL4

duploelabs

UsedToWait wrote: »

Surely he can't do a Nixon and 'fire em all' down to the janitor?

I think he'll be allowed fire Sessions after the mid terms.
Rosenstein would be a bridge too far.

I think it'd be certainly in Trump's best interests to fire Sessions in the hope that he could install a sycophant who would fire Mulluer, but who in trump's circle is un-recuseable, given what's been thrown up already

Rjd2

duploelabs wrote: »

I think it'd be certainly in Trump's best interests to fire Sessions in the hope that he could install a sycophant who would fire Mulluer, but who in trump's circle is un-recuseable, given what's been thrown up already

I don't agree.:o

Lets ignore our personal opinion on Sessions's politics, its widely accepted that he is a solid politician which when you look at the grifters he surrounds himself is something he should appreciate more.

He's also very popular with the Trump base, Anne Coulter, Bannon etc love him as he has similarly hardline views on immigration etc.

Its astonishingly stupid that Trump would fire him.

dinorebel

Penn wrote: »

And now...

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1043151617137303553

Trump trying to barrel ahead with releasing a load of classified information just so he can trawl through them and find something to use against the FBI has had to be put on hold due to other countries rightfully going "Errr... what? What if the classified info is... classified for a reason... and might affect us...?"

Sounds like he spotted some intimidating evidence in those communications so now he has to back peddle.

26000 Elephants

dinorebel wrote: »

Sounds like he spotted some intimidating evidence in those communications so now he has to back peddle.

Incriminating?

I'm guessing he didnt have to look into them too deeply!

aloyisious

Does Jeff Sessions have the authority to sack his deputy, DAG Rod Rosenstein or is it only Don Trump who can do that?

dinorebel

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Incriminating?

I'm guessing he didnt have to look into them too deeply!

Hate spellcheck:mad:

Rhineshark

Given what he's been up to "intimidating evidence" is probably as or more accurate!

I saw somewhere but can't be 100% that the quote this is based on was RR saying sarcastically "what do you want me to do, Andy, wire the president?" (The "me" in there may be misrremembering).


It is the sort of thing Trump's lot *would* play up for an excuse but can't be sure of accuracy.

jooksavage

Just seen Susan Collins reaction to Trumps attack on Ford. I cant see her voting for Kavanaugh after this, unless Ford delivers a very unconvincing testimony. If she votes against, Murkowski will definitely follow suit. Trump may have helped sink his own candidate. What an idiot. Senior Rs are apparently furious - one of the few tangibles they could point to was the delivery of Supreme Court judges. Still dont see them turning in him unless they get decimated in Nov.

StringerBell

Believe it when I see it tbh.

As things stand, I can't see a realistic scenario where Judge Kavanaugh is not confirmed in the near future, as Mitch Mconnell and KAC have both been on the record stating in the last 24/48 hours.

Its politics so you never say never but they have shown nothing so far in the way of opposition barring expressing "concern"

The bigger picture is what they are and surely will remain focused on, the Supreme Court has a full caseload in October apparently. Things were scheduled on the assumption they would have the swing in the conservative favour. Too much legislation to risk not getting their man in at this point bar some smoking gun.

The WH is behind him, the Republicans in the Senate are behind him. Its more than an uphill battle to get this even looked at properly. If he is innocent then by all means, confirm. Surely for the sake of the country and the innocent man himself they would want his name completely cleared and no cloud hanging over him like there will always be against Clarence Thomas right?

That's not how politics works though.

Call me Al

So here we may have possible interference by the WH in the SC nominee selection process.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kavanaugh-ally-says-he-did-not-communicate-with-white-house-or-supreme-court-nominee-about-theory-of-another-attacker/2018/09/21/88335f1a-bdaa-11e8-b7d2-0773aa1e33da_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.321de19be5ea

Ms Ford, the lady who has named Kavanaugh in an alleged assault, noticed a Mr Ed Whelan, had looked at her LinkedIn profile after her name had been given to a WH spokesperson for comment but before her name was published in the media.
This man, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Centre, (oh the irony) later went on to post a series of tweets questioning whether it was actually a case of mistaken identity, and proceeded to name a different man who resembled Kavanaugh. He later deleted the tweets and apologised.
I can't help but think of the line....
oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.

everlast75

StringerBell wrote: »

Believe it when I see it tbh.

As things stand, I can't see a realistic scenario where Judge Kavanaugh is not confirmed in the near future, as Mitch Mconnell and KAC have both been on the record stating in the last 24/48 hours.

Its politics so you never say never but they have shown nothing so far in the way of opposition barring expressing "concern"

The bigger picture is what they are and surely will remain focused on, the Supreme Court has a full caseload in October apparently. Things were scheduled on the assumption they would have the swing in the conservative favour. Too much legislation to risk not getting their man in at this point bar some smoking gun.

The WH is behind him, the Republicans in the Senate are behind him. Its more than an uphill battle to get this even looked at properly. If he is innocent then by all means, confirm. Surely for the sake of the country and the innocent man himself they would want his name completely cleared and no cloud hanging over him like there will always be against Clarence Thomas right?

That's not how politics works though.

The problem is that one might think that senators that retiring are free to say what they want. That's not the case. A lot go on to be lobbyists and you can't do that if you burn your bridges by voting against the party line.

You would think that after you've been a senator for years you've earned enough money.

Nope - no such thing for politicians

Captain Obvious

So to sum up how a woman has been treated after accusing a Judge of sexual assault

Emails hacked
Death threats her and family
Forced to move home
Called a slut and a liar across multiple high traffic forums
Attacked by the President on Twitter

And the president asks why she did not come forward sooner.

Jolly Red Giant

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So to sum up how a woman has been treated after accusing a Judge of sexual assault

Emails hacked
Death threats her and family
Forced to move home
Called a slut and a liar across multiple high traffic forums
Attacked by the President on Twitter

And the president asks why she did not come forward sooner.

everlast75

If she makes a formal complaint to the County State attorney, he said he will proceed.

I reckon she should, **** 'em! She should say she has done so as they are not prepared to take her seriously, citing all of the Reps comments so far.

The question then will be whether the reps go ahead and proceed with nomination of a SCOTUS justice who is presently the subject of a criminal sexual assault complaint.

That'll throw a spanner in the works and slow them the hell down methinks.

MadYaker

How is it that this woman is only bringing these accusations to light now? The timing is pretty convenient from the democrats POV. I’m sure she’s probably telling the truth but the timing makes it very easy for people to label this as a blatant attempt at character assassination. Has she said why she didn’t feel safe coming forward until this guy was on the verge on being confirmed?

I’m not saying she’s a liar and if I was an American I wouldn’t want this guy in the Supreme Court but this type of thing being used as a political tool just makes me uneasy, even if it’s with the victims consent.

dudara

I really dislike this argument as it demonstrates a failure to understand why sexual crimes aren’t reported. Its not unusual for sexual crimes to take decades to come to light.

The most likely explanation is that she had buried it all away, but seeing his face all over the media bought it all back for her. I don’t know who is speaking the truth here, none of us do as we were not there that night, but she is a credible person and this needs to be looked into.

everlast75

She told the therapist about it in 2012. She wants the FBI to investigate. Sounds plausible to me.

Like Dudara said, the idea of him being a SC justice prompted her to write into the dems about it.

What's the worst that can happen. It takes a week and he is exonerated?

Infini

dudara wrote: »

I really dislike this argument as it demonstrates a failure to understand why sexual crimes aren’t reported. Its not unusual for sexual crimes to take decades to come to light.

The most likely explanation is that she had buried it all away, but seeing his face all over the media bought it all back for her. I don’t know who is speaking the truth here, none of us do as we were not there that night, but she is a credible person and this needs to be looked into.

It could likely be this. She gets on with life trying to forget about it but seeing him in the media for the supreme court along with her own political views could be enough to push her to take action. She's gonna get alot of flak from both critics and the miserable shytes who'll give her grief over it so it could have been this that made her hesitate till now to come out on this.

I do have some reservations myself of course of the risk of "false" sexual assault claim or ones used for political gain however if theres credible evidence to back it up then there should be no doubting it.

jjpep

I did read recently (don't have the link to hand) that up to 5% of rape accusations are false, with about half of these being situations where the family made the girl make an accusation because of becoming pregnant. These accusations tended not to be for historic rapes but recent.

Itssoeasy

I don't understand what Trump is doing(no one does) and the GOP are doing either. But my biggest surprise is the attitude of the nominee Bret kavanagh. He has said it never happened so why not let the FBI investigate it like they did with Clarence Thomas, but he seems to believe that his word is enough. I've found him to be a poor candidate imo. Senator Cory Booker gave him a slam dunk question about not sacking someone because of race. He should have said no he wouldn't straight away but faffed about when it was an easy question.

Captain Obvious

MadYaker wrote: »

How is it that this woman is only bringing these accusations to light now? The timing is pretty convenient from the democrats POV. I’m sure she’s probably telling the truth but the timing makes it very easy for people to label this as a blatant attempt at character assassination. Has she said why she didn’t feel safe coming forward until this guy was on the verge on being confirmed?

I’m not saying she’s a liar and if I was an American I wouldn’t want this guy in the Supreme Court but this type of thing being used as a political tool just makes me uneasy, even if it’s with the victims consent.

Mosty likely she saw his face all over the place being nominated for the highest post in the land and thought it would be best if she came forward. She didn't wait til now though. She contacted Feinstein in July I believe.