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

prawnsambo

Apparently CREW have ddiscovered a secret (meaniing unlisted) ethics waiver for Solicitor General Noel Francisco. Francisco would ordinarily be next in line from Rod Rosenstein to oversee The Mueller investigation. He would be precliuded from doing this since his erstwhile employer Jones Day represents the Trump campaign and he is still in receipt of money owing to him by them.

All such ethics waivers are supposed to be published.

Dannyriver

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That letter appears to refer to a rape in the back seat of a car. Was that raised in the SC hearings? I've never heard that accusation before. Who is the second person you refer to?

Thinking that myself Im looking forward to BoJack Horseman's reply to this..

Jolly Red Giant

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That letter appears to refer to a rape in the back seat of a car. Was that raised in the SC hearings? I've never heard that accusation before. Who is the second person you refer to?

No it wasn't raised at the hearings - someone sent an anonymous letter to Harris which was added to the file on Kavanaugh. Later a woman claimed to have written the letter - now she claims that she didn't and she is being investigated for making a false claim. The false claim is that she claimed she wrote the letter - not that she falsely claimed that Kavanaugh raped her.

Jolly Red Giant

prawnsambo wrote: »

Apparently CREW have ddiscovered a secret (meaniing unlisted) ethics waiver for Solicitor General Noel Francisco. Francisco would ordinarily be next in line from Rod Rosenstein to oversee The Mueller investigation. He would be precliuded from doing this since his erstwhile employer Jones Day represents the Trump campaign and he is still in receipt of money owing to him by them.

All such ethics waivers are supposed to be published.

This has been set up for months to happen after the mid-terms - and is a mechanism to make sure Trump knows what Muller is up to and to be able to shut down the Muller investigation.

Eric Cartman

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/3/another-kavanaugh-accuser-admits-fabricating-rape-/

Ohh look, the accusers are falling away.
This turbs out to he yet another stunt

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/3/another-kavanaugh-accuser-admits-fabricating-rape-/

Ohh look, the accusers are falling away.
This turbs out to he yet another stunt

But still haven't managed to discredit Ford who was the actual focus of the hearings....

elli21

vetinari wrote: »

It's been known for years that Trump is a complete racist.
It's not really news at this point.
His supporters are okay with that.

They will call racism banter.

i see it here on this forum ,

When you object to Trump's blating racism apparentelly you are a libtard

would love for Beto to beat cruz,,,I know it won't happen ..please make it close

Dog Man Star

elli21 wrote: »

They will call racism banter.

i see it here on this forum

This has surprised me. I always thought the US President setting an example was not really true, but it is true. The US President being racist, inciting violence gives a licence to everyone else.

Just look at After Hours here now. After Hours used to be the sometimes funny forum on this website. Now it is filled with hatred, pure intolerance and extreme right wing opinions. Blatantly racist and misogynistic.

And that's here on Boards. And it is allowed too.

Captain Obvious

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/3/another-kavanaugh-accuser-admits-fabricating-rape-/

Ohh look, the accusers are falling away.
This turbs out to he yet another stunt

Is that not the same person as the other poster was talking about? The one nobody heard of?

Rhineshark

Dog Man Star wrote: »

This has surprised me. I always thought the US President setting an example was not really true, but it is true. The US President being racist, inciting violence gives a licence to everyone else.

Just look at After Hours here now. After Hours used to be the sometimes funny forum on this website. Now it is filled with hatred, pure intolerance and extreme right wing opinions. Blatantly racist and misogynistic.

And that's here on Boards. And it is allowed too.

To be fair, AH was often a bit of a cesspit. I stay away from it these days. It was just depressing to read and there is no point arguing with the nastier sorts.

I fear that, whatever about the army, the militias will lap up Trump's racism and vile rhetoric as license to do whatever they want.

Admittedly they might have all gotten bored and hungry long before the "caravan" arrives, if it arrives, and gone off home again to continue dreaming of being heroes against the ungodly swarm of malnourished unarmed families who has just walked several thousand miles.

Dannyriver

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Is that not the same person as the other poster was talking about? The one nobody heard of?

Looks like it. I remember asking someone on here what they thought the paddy Jackson accuser was getting out of her accusation other than an arduous and painful court trial...and the answer veered from 'fame' to 'she ll make a fortune as a blogger' but surprise surprise not a peep out of her since. They said the same about Ford. Again not a peep out of her since. It's just very hard for some men [and unfortunately women] to trust the word of a woman when it comes to sexual assault allegations. What the **** is all that about?

amandstu

Dog Man Star wrote: »

This has surprised me. I always thought the US President setting an example was not really true, but it is true. The US President being racist, inciting violence gives a licence to everyone else.
.

An example?
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/02/africa/nigeria-army-trump-video-intl/index.html

"The Nigerian army has hinted in a tweet that comments from US President Donald Trump justify its lethal shooting of Shiite protesters over the past week.

On Friday the Nigerian army posted a video of Trump's Thursday speech on its official Twitter feed, with the comment: "Please Watch and Make your Deductions.""

Dog Man Star

There was an interesting interview with a soldier who fought in the Iraq war yesterday, think it was on Chris Cuomo. He said that soldiers need to be told exactly why they are being sent somewhere as a matter of fact. They are putting their lives on the line after all.

He also pointed out that electioneering moves like this are a gross insult to these same soldiers and that they have a vote too. Sending them to an empty border over Thanksgiving and Christmas to win votes was a disgusting insult to them.

Outlaw Pete

Dannyriver wrote: »

Looks like it. I remember asking someone on here what they thought the paddy Jackson accuser was getting out of her accusation other than an arduous and painful court trial...and the answer veered from 'fame' to 'she ll make a fortune as a blogger' but surprise surprise not a peep out of her since. They said the same about Ford. Again not a peep out of her since. It's just very hard for some men [and unfortunately women] to trust the word of a woman when it comes to sexual assault allegations. What the **** is all that about?

And what of the money she has made through Crowdfunding?

Regarding this GoFundMe page (which balance now tops $634,000):

"I cannot express how grateful I am for the outpouring of support and generosity that we have received through this GoFundMe account. I feel like all of you who have made a contribution are on this journey with me, which is very heartening.” - Christine Ford

Dog Man Star

amandstu wrote: »

An example?
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/02/africa/nigeria-army-trump-video-intl/index.html

"The Nigerian army has hinted in a tweet that comments from US President Donald Trump justify its lethal shooting of Shiite protesters over the past week.

On Friday the Nigerian army posted a video of Trump's Thursday speech on its official Twitter feed, with the comment: "Please Watch and Make your Deductions.""

Yes, exactly. When the man at the top behaves abhorrently, it gives licence to all the assholes.

Dog Man Star

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And what of the money she has made through Crowdfunding?

Regarding this GoFundMe page (which balance now tops $634,000):

What's your point?

Rhineshark

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And what of the money she has made through Crowdfunding?

Regarding this GoFundMe page (which balance now tops $634,000):

Good, I hope it at least covered the cost of having to move home, go into hiding, change schools if neccessary for the kids (unsure of ages), private security, lost earnings...

I doubt it will though.

prawnsambo

Dog Man Star wrote: »

There was an interesting interview with a soldier who fought in the Iraq war yesterday, think it was on Chris Cuomo. He said that soldiers need to be told exactly why they are being sent somewhere as a matter of fact. They are putting their lives on the line after all.

He also pointed out that electioneering moves like this are a gross insult to these same soldiers and that they have a vote too. Sending them to an empty border over Thanksgiving and Christmas to win votes was a disgusting insult to them.

And they're actually precluded from doing anything by law. The army cannot work with civilian law enforcement and do their job. And cannot use lethal force against civilians throwing rocks. So a complete waste of time sending them. But we know it's not actually for anything other than pre-election optics.

amandstu

Dog Man Star wrote: »

Yes, exactly. When the man at the top behaves abhorrently, it gives licence to all the assholes.

Correct to term the present USA administration as a "****hole administration"?

edit: would be great if we could asterisk out the Scrotus when he uses that language.

Dannyriver

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And what of the money she has made through Crowdfunding?

Regarding this GoFundMe page (which balance now tops $634,000):

https://ie.gofundme.com/support-brett-kavanaugh

aloyisious

prawnsambo wrote: »

Apparently CREW have ddiscovered a secret (meaniing unlisted) ethics waiver for Solicitor General Noel Francisco. Francisco would ordinarily be next in line from Rod Rosenstein to oversee The Mueller investigation. He would be precliuded from doing this since his erstwhile employer Jones Day represents the Trump campaign and he is still in receipt of money owing to him by them.

All such ethics waivers are supposed to be published.

Looking up on the status of Don McGahn when he served as counsel for President Trump, there is legal opinion that in that role, he was a federal employee as COUNSEL TO THE WHITE HOUSE and NOT personal counsel to the president. According to The New York Times, McGahn conveyed instructions from President Trump to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, requesting Sessions not to recuse himself from overseeing investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election.[23] McGahn was unaware that Sessions had already consulted with career attorneys at the Department of Justice. When Sessions informed him he had already decided to recuse himself, McGahn ceased further discussion of the topic.[24] In response to this, Walter Shaub, former director of the United States Office of Government Ethics, said McGahn had "done much to undermine anticorruption mechanisms in this country." Shaub said, "It is a crime for a federal employee to participate in a particular matter in which he has a financial interest."[25]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_McGahn [Para 5 in the Trump Presidency Section.

See also Para 4 in this link. https://www.lawfareblog.com/presidents-lawyer-and-his-cooperation-russia-investigation for a similar legal opinion of Mr McGahn's status while he was counsel to President Trump.

The first opinion was inclusive of the personal financial angle of Mr McGahn while he was President Trump's counsel.

It's also possible that the DOJ can claim it was NOT made aware of the waiver given TO Mr McGahn, whatever it know's/doesn't know of the two other waivers.

Manic Moran

prawnsambo wrote: »

Dog Man Star wrote: »

There was an interesting interview with a soldier who fought in the Iraq war yesterday, think it was on Chris Cuomo. He said that soldiers need to be told exactly why they are being sent somewhere as a matter of fact. They are putting their lives on the line after all.

He also pointed out that electioneering moves like this are a gross insult to these same soldiers and that they have a vote too. Sending them to an empty border over Thanksgiving and Christmas to win votes was a disgusting insult to them.

And they're actually precluded from doing anything by law. The army cannot work with civilian law enforcement and do their job. And cannot use lethal force against civilians throwing rocks. So a complete waste of time sending them. But we know it's not actually for anything other than pre-election optics.

There are a number of fine details to that. Look up the list of units assigned, they’re not exactly tanks and infantry. For example, of the units currently moving, two are engineering brigades. Presumably they are going to be used for creation of anything from barriers, to accommodation, to increasing the capabilities of trails to allow rapid movement of CBP trucks. There are also two aviation brigades planned to move, providing a useful transportation and surveillance capability. The two military police brigades are well experienced in things from traffic control to prison operations (not for the legal part of it, the practical part). The Pentagon aren’t stupid, they aren’t going to move troops who have no role but to sit back and look threatening. The Federal Army are prohibited from enforcing laws, but they are not prohibited from being a multiplier or enabler for the actual law enforcement. A UH-72 which flies a CBP officer somewhere where he can make an arrest is not something which is prohibited. For an Irish analogy, until the late 20th Century, the Irish Naval Service had no authority to enforce Irish law. For customs operations, arms trafficking, etc, it was required for the Gardai to place a man on the ship. It may have been the Navy providing the equipment, the manpower, and the 40mm cannon, but it was the one single Garda who was the one enforcing the law. No different here.

Captain Obvious

Manic Moran wrote: »

There are a number of fine details to that. Look up the list of units assigned, they’re not exactly tanks and infantry. For example, of the units currently moving, two are engineering brigades. Presumably they are going to be used for creation of anything from barriers, to accommodation, to increasing the capabilities of trails to allow rapid movement of CBP trucks. There are also two aviation brigades planned to move, providing a useful transportation and surveillance capability. The two military police brigades are well experienced in things from traffic control to prison operations (not for the legal part of it, the practical part). The Pentagon aren’t stupid, they aren’t going to move troops who have no role but to sit back and look threatening. The Federal Army are prohibited from enforcing laws, but they are not prohibited from being a multiplier or enabler for the actual law enforcement. A UH-72 which flies a CBP officer somewhere where he can make an arrest is not something which is prohibited. For an Irish analogy, until the late 20th Century, the Irish Naval Service had no authority to enforce Irish law. For customs operations, arms trafficking, etc, it was required for the Gardai to place a man on the ship. It may have been the Navy providing the equipment, the manpower, and the 40mm cannon, but it was the one single Garda who was the one enforcing the law. No different here.

How do you feel about the Commander in Chief stating soldiers should treat the throwing of rocks as live fire?

Eric Cartman

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And what of the money she has made through Crowdfunding?

Regarding this GoFundMe page (which balance now tops $634,000):

+1 I always thought with that case that she was hoping for an out of court settlement beforehand , the lads didnt even offer that as they knew they had done nothing wrong.

prawnsambo

Captain Obvious wrote: »

How do you feel about the Commander in Chief stating soldiers should treat the throwing of rocks as live fire?

I think they're allowed throw the stones back. But only underarm.



They won't actually do anything. They are precluded from doing so.

Manic Moran

He can say what he likes on twitter/at rallies, the troops will follow their RoE instructions which will include the possibility for the use of lethal force, rocks or no rocks. In any case, I find it unlikely that they will be ever within rock-throwing range to begin with given their role.

batgoat

Manic Moran wrote: »

He can say what he likes on twitter/at rallies, the troops will follow their RoE instructions which will include the possibility for the use of lethal force, rocks or no rocks. In any case, I find it unlikely that they will be ever within rock-throwing range to begin with given their role.

Except other corrupt regimes can use his words to defend themselves when they actually do carry out such killings.(eg in Nigeria) His words have proven to be incredibly harmful, particularly in the last few weeks with two terrorists that align with his rhetoric...


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/02/world/africa/nigeria-trump-rocks.html

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

He can say what he likes on twitter/at rallies, the troops will follow their RoE instructions which will include the possibility for the use of lethal force, rocks or no rocks. In any case, I find it unlikely that they will be ever within rock-throwing range to begin with given their role.

Except some militia may take the rhetoric of the commander in chief as orders.

We have evidence his rhetoric is being taken seriously by some. Some may take it again. The commander in chief shouldn't talk like this. The fact that so many with him stirring things up is worrying for the US.

Timberrrrrrrr

He gets more childish by the day!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1058781668151050240?s=19

aloyisious

Christy42 wrote: »

Except some militia may take the rhetoric of the commander in chief as orders.

We have evidence his rhetoric is being taken seriously by some. Some may take it again. The commander in chief shouldn't talk like this. The fact that so many with him stirring things up is worrying for the US.

Seriously that'll be a problem for the border police on the US side to handle if any militia member chooses to fire across the international border at some-one on the other side. There's the chance that the Mexican authorities won't take kindly to some militia-idiot on the US side firing in their general direction and let their colleagues on the US side know what'll happen if they don't rein in the militia gringos. Don doesn't give a flying-you-know-what about casualties and will disavow concerned citizens actions as per usual. As for the other eventuality that the concerned citizen fires on and shoot's some-one he/she believes is trespassing onto US soil from the Mexican side of the border, there's a chance that they won't know to lower their weapons when challenged on the US side. Don can't accuse his own border police of ineptitude.